Psychology/Psychiatry

Why Is Nurse Jackie's Drug Habit a Problem?

|

The new season of Nurse Jackie, the Showtime series starring Edie Falco as a super-competent emergency-room nurse with a fondness for pain pills, begins with her character in rehab. Unlike Gregory House, the brilliant diagnostician played by Hugh Laurie on Fox, Jackie Peyton does not actually suffer from severe chronic pain; rather, she uses narcotics to manage her emotional state. But like House, she is very good at her job, which never seems to be compromised by her drug use except to the extent that she lies and cheats to get painkillers (along with the occasional stimulant) and to cover up her habit. Her drug-related problems stem almost entirely from the fact that the drugs she favors are legal only for doctor-approved medical use. Hence she invents injuries, deceives her friends, swipes medication, and starts an ill-advised extramarital affair with the hospital pharmacist who supplies her with painkillers. If she could simply walk into a store and buy the oxycodone, hydrocodone, and amphetamine that help get her through the day, those problems would disappear. Which raises the question: Does Jackie have a drug problem or a prohibition problem?

That issue is stark in Nurse Jackie because, as far as I can recall from the first three seasons, she is not portrayed as screwing up at work or screwing over her friends and family because of her drug use per se. It would be different if she compromised a patient's welfare or forgot to pick her daughter up at school because she was high on OxyContin. But as far as we can tell, the drugs she takes do not impair her performance or keep her from meeting her responsibilities; if anything, they help her deal with pressure and get the job done. Likewise on House, popping Vicodin did not seem to disrupt the central character's life until it was unambiguously declared a problem at the beginning of the sixth season, when he, like Jackie, ended up in rehab for reasons that were never entirely clear. The plot turn was especially puzzling on House because we were frequently reminded that he suffered from ongoing pain as a result of surgery that left him with a limp, meaning he had a legitimate medical need for the pills he took. In the end, House went back to the Vicodin as if rehab had never happened and continued to perform his job exceptionally well. 

Jackie Peyton and Gregory House both have serious personal issues (don't we all?), but they are not caused by the drugs they take, although the problems may help explain why they take those drugs. You could argue that relying on these chemical crutches prevents them from dealing with their problems as they should. Characters on House occasionally make that claim, but we never really see it. (The last episode of the series airs on May 21, and the plot description suggests it will try to tie together these loose threads, possibly with embarrassing results.) It seems the writers of both shows are torn between a desire to credibly portray a high-functioning addict and the expectation that every addict must eventually meet his downfall, as anti-drug propaganda demands. But real life is more complicated. People can regularly take psychoactive substances, including opiates, for many years without suffering any serious physical or occupational problems as a result, provided they can avoid legal complications. If OxyContin and the occasional Adderall really do help Jackie Peyton cope (as opposed to helping her avoid coping), why is that a problem? How is it different in principle from the antidepressants and stimulants that millions of Americans legally consume for similar purposes? Does it all come down to a doctor's permission slip?

Me on House's drug habit here and here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Nancy Pelosi Defends Medical Marijuana Dispensaries In Face of Obama Administration Crackdown

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hysteria over the “supernatural” power of drugs is why we have a War on Drugs.
    Hysteria is the root cause of wars in general.

    1. Hysteria leads to hysteria leads to war leads to hysteria.

      And around it goes.

      1. I think Sullum may have made this point already, but guns and drugs infect people with magical thinking. They are believed to “cause” injuries and death of their own accord.

      2. Hysteria is the path to the drug war.

        Hysteria leads to Anger.
        Anger leads to hate.
        Hate leads to suffering.

        1. “If you care for others, then dispense with pity and sacrifice and recognize the value in letting them fight their own battles. And when they triumph, they will be even stronger for the victory.”
          -Kreia, Jedi Master and [SPOILER ALERT] Sith Lord

          1. You know, there are so many great stories to tell in the Star Wars universe. It’s a shame George Lucas won’t do us all a favor and go all Junior Seau.

            1. Not very familiar with the Star wars universe outside of the two trilogies but I have read the Bounty Hunter trilogy, a few other of the novels some I liked, one I detested for its decadent altruistic streak, and also a few Dark Horse story arches that were pretty decent. Even the weakest of these was better that anything thought up by Lucas.

            2. Or at least sell the rights/ allow others to use the characters and concepts without sueing the shit out of them for stealing his intellectual “property”.

              For instance I’d love to see Joss Whedon’s take on a Star Wars remake (with Nathan Fillion as Han). Or Quentin Tarantino’s prequel trilogy for example.

              1. “For instance I’d love to see Joss Whedon’s take on a Star Wars remake (with Nathan Fillion as Han).”

                I’ve already seen that one.

                1. That’s why Nathan Fillion would make a perfect Han Solo in Joss Whedon’s Star Wars. He’s already played the part once.

            3. go all Junior Seau

              Also, too soon…

              Just kidding, it’s never too soon to make fun of suicides.

              1. +1

            4. When they were writing Knights of the Old Republic II, the lead guy read every bit of Expanded Universe material and even watched the Christmas special. Then he decided that most of what had been done was stupid and too heavy on black-white morality, and proceeded to create one of the greatest characters in video game history. YMMV, of course.

          2. Wasn’t Kreia an Ayn Rand ripoff? Not that Avellone isn’t great and all.

            1. Sort of, yeah. She seemed to think that Jedi were right on goals (help people!) but that the Sith were right on how the world worked (struggle makes you stronger!). She didn’t seem to have much of a problem with you giving people a hand in stuff so long as you acknowledge you were stealing their opportunities for growth. For instance, she cheers the main character for saving a man stuck on Nar Shadaa only if in doing so, you manipulate him into carrying out kind acts after he leaves.

              1. I’d compare her more to a Nietzschian Ubermensch of sorts, or at least someone who is trying to bring about the Ubermensch.

              2. So kinda like Kevin Spacey in Seven?

        2. Unkillable Negro Zombies! Chinemen and white women living together, Mass Hysteria!

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…..cs_Tax_Act

          The drafters played on fears of drugcrazed sex-mad negroes and made references to Negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana and Chinamen seducing white women with drugs. Dr. Hamilton Wright testified at a hearing for the Harrison Act. Wright alleged that drugs made blacks uncontrollable gave them superhuman powers and caused them to rebel against white authority. Dr. Christopher Koch of the State Pharmacy Board of Pennsylvania testified that “Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain”.

          Before the Act was passed on February 8, 1914 The New York Times published an article entitled Negro Cocaine Fiends Are New Southern Menace Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower Class Blacks by Edward Huntington Williams which reported that Southern sheriffs had increased the caliber of their weapons from .32 to .38 to bring down Negroes under the effect of cocaine.

          1. Not a day goes by that I don’t stare in wonder at the accomplishments of the human race.

  2. kind of interesting that she uses pain meds to manage emotional issues, rather than drugs meant for that purpose. Must be easier to make the character palatable as opposed to a nurse who is bipolar or something else.

    1. A lot of those brain drugs don’t work for a lot of people or have unacceptable side effects. Opiates work for pretty much everyone.

  3. Saw this show cause my wife watches it. Do not like. BUT –

    your point is totally taken.

    Oh, wait – here’s our statist friend! And what do YOU think?

    “OMG TEH MURSEHEALTHCARE SHE’LLKILL PATIENTSYOUGOTOHER IFYOUWANTBUTNOTME WHATABOUT TEHCILLLLLDRUMZZZ!!!11one?”

    Thank you, statist friend!

  4. I watch this. It’s a very good portrayal of non-impaired drug use. If just allowed to have the drugs she wants, there would be very little wrong with how she manages her habit.

    It’s unclear why she started taking opiates in the first place, she has claimed a few different stories so far.

  5. Does Jackie have a drug problem or a prohibition problem?

    That depends on what the writers have planned for her. I think it is a bad idea to use fictional characters from a television series to argue that people can competently preform their duties while high on drugs. So what if Edie Falco’s character can seem to navigate through life while using pain killers, it doesn’t mean a damn thing in the real world. I’d much rather see a real life example (and I’m sure there are plenty) of this kind of behavior.

    Using fictional characters will only serve to prove a fictional point. Stick to giving us examples of how government is “actually” fucking up the lives of decent hard working people who happen to do drugs.

    1. I’d much rather see a real life example

      Unfortunately, the repercussions of the revelation of such an example would lead most of those examples to want to remain unrevealed.

      1. Unfortunately, the repercussions of the revelation of such an example would lead most of those examples to want to remain unrevealed.

        Very true. But it would be nice to know that I’m not alone in the world.

      2. Does this count?

    2. The dissemination of propaganda through entertainment is a legitimate subject of discussion in and of its self, and that is before you even take into consideration that there are behind the scene deals that the networks and production companies make with the Imperials to put out the accepted version of life on earth.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…..ion_Policy

      Government as Scriptwriter

      In the spring of 1998, the ONDCP began to develop an accounting system to decide which network shows would be valued and for how much. Receiving advance copies of scripts, they assigned financial value to each show’s anti-drug message. Then they would suggest ways that the networks could increase the payments they would get. The WB network’s senior vice president for broadcast standards Rick Mater admitted, “The White House did view scripts. They did sign off on them — they read scripts, yes.”[26]

      cont.

      1. Running the campaign for the ONDCP was Alan Levitt, who estimated that between 1998 and 2000 the networks received nearly $25 million in benefits.[26]

        One example was with Warner Brothers’ show, Smart Guy. The original script portrayed two young people using drugs at a party. Originally depicted as cool and popular, after input from the drug office, “We showed that they were losers and put them [hidden away to indulge in shamed secrecy] in a utility room. That was not in the original script.”[26]

        Other shows including ER, Beverly Hills, 90210, Chicago Hope, The Drew Carey Show and 7th Heaven also put anti-drug messages into their stories.

        Ample reason given to change your opinion.

    3. I agree with this. I have heard from more than one person “didn’t you see what happened in Jurrasic Park!!” when discussing the ethics of cloning extinct animals. As if any “problems” that would be created by such a scenario couldn’t be solved with one guy, an AR, and a fistful of 5.56.

  6. Her drug habit appears to be a problem since has led to her becoming a liar, thief, whore and overall POS who uses people.

    I don’t know how such a miserable POS could be a decent caring nurse. And personally, I wouldn’t be interested in watching a show about this wretched person – unless I wished to feel better about myself.

    1. I see you failed to grasp the point of the article. Well done.

      1. Except the point itself misses the point. Both Nurse Jackie and Doctor House are characters on television shows. They can perform their duties exceptionally well while flying on perscription drugs becuase the writer gods write them that way. In reality drugs do impair performance – significantly. This is close to some imbecile child jumping off a roof to fly “cause Superman can do it”. Let me ask you, would you prefer a drunk off their arse/stoned out of their gourd doctor or nurse or a sober doctor or nurse?
        There’s a strong case for legalizing these drugs. But, even if you think they should be legal, it’s idiotic to think that a doctor or nurse using them on duty is okay.

        1. would you prefer a drunk off their arse/stoned out of their gourd doctor or nurse or a sober doctor or nurse

          depends on their fee.

          OMG, DID THE MARKET JUST DECIDE!!!111oneoneone

        2. Let me ask you, would you prefer a drunk off their arse/stoned out of their gourd doctor or nurse or a sober doctor or nurse?

          To date, I have been incredibly less than satisfied with all of the sober doctors and nurses I’ve had to deal with. I’ve never deal with one that wasn’t sober, or if I had I didn’t notice at the time.

          Let me ask you this, once a doctor takes one pain pill does he become “stoned out of his gourd”?

          1. “Let me ask you this, once a doctor takes one pain pill does he become “stoned out of his gourd”?”

            I’m not making that claim. So, no. But part of the premise of both shows is that the characters in question are heavy recreational users of the drugs. Both characters wound up in rehab.
            But, your main response doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t follow that, because some sober people perform poorly, impaired people will perform any less badly.

            1. I’m not making that claim.

              The claim you’re making is that fictional characters can still function normally after taking handfuls of pain meds because the show is written that way. You are then implying that this is in no way what reality is like. Your point seems to be that normal people in the real world couldn’t possibly function better while under the influence.

          2. Let me ask you this, once a doctor takes one pain pill does he become “stoned out of his gourd”?

            It varies–I have to be careful with Vicodin because it makes me extremely loopy. My reflexes slow and it takes me longer to process information, which is why docs warn people not to drive if they’ve taken one. 800mg ibuprofen has the same effect on me.

            Of course, some people may have taken so many they’ve developed a tolerance. I could see a guy like House, who takes Vics like candy, still functioning normally after using them repeatedly for several years. Think of alcoholics who seem perfectly sober lucid even if they’ve consumed a whole case of beer.

            All that said, I’d still prefer a doctor who wasn’t hopped up on pain meds before operating on me. YMMV.

        3. I’m willing to bet that there are people you know and admire who secretly use drugs.
          I’m also willing to bet that that admiration would evaporate if you found out, because you would judge them by the chemicals they choose to put into their bodies instead of what you admired them for up until that point.

          1. You’re presuming to know what I think. You presume too much.
            What people deign to take is their own concern. If they are still able to do things which I admire, so much the better for them. But, its only a creative fiction to pretend that drug abuse isn’t going to impair one’s performance.

            1. its only a creative fiction to pretend that drug abuse isn’t going to impair one’s performance

              Do you draw a distinction between use and abuse?

        4. ” In reality drugs do impair performance – significantly”

          {Citation needed}

            1. Two huge problem there Bill.

              First, substance abuse =/= substance dependance. Stop making the mistake of conflating the two, they are separate diagnoses.

              In addition, in order to be diagnosed as a “substance abuser”, significant impairment of day to day functioning must be seen.

              So, your cited study says that people who are known to show impairment in functioning, do in fact show an impairment in functioning.

              Which has exactly nothing to do with people who are not “substance abusers”, but are in fact “substance dependent”, an entirely different diagnosis, and the one I would use for Nurse Jackie.

              In short, your ignorance of the subject has caused you to assume a study proves your point, when it in fact proves nothing at all.

              The other alternative is that you and or the studies authors are too ignorant of the difference between abuse and impairment to differentiate properly (as the abstract seems to suggest) which calls both your opinion and the opinions of the authors into question.

              I would fully expect a study that uses people who have demonstrated impairment while on drugs, sufficient for a clinical diagnosis, to show that said people demonstrate impairment while on drugs.

              I would also expect anyone who was the slightest bit informed on the subject to take the study for what it was, which is a pretty useless study.

              However, all that aside, the study you listed in no way proves your point.

              1. Hey doc, you’re confusing the textbook and reality. Most people don’t fall neatly into a particular category of “substance abuser” or “substance dependent.” In reality, when one’s substance use leads to the depravity of behavior exhibited by Nurse Jackie, one could easily argue that she’s a substance abuser or that the distinction is not terribly significant. One could also argue that the use of narcotics for purposes other than pain control (as Nurse Jackie does) is inappropriate use or “abuse.”

        5. There are many people who can and do function quite well on opiates, cannabis and other drugs. My experience with long term, regular users of cannabis is most extensive and I will say without reservation that I would not be the least bit concerned if my airline pilot, doctor or pretty much anything else was stoned. If they were “out of their gourd” it might be a problem, but for the most part, people who are daily stoners are pretty much never “stoned out of their gourds”.

        6. Exactly. I give you an A while Sparky get an F.

          As an ER doc, I would not want nurse Jackie in my ER.

          1. Oh no, a stranger on the Internet gave me a bad grade. You’re breaking my heart.

          2. I don’t beleive that you are an ER doc. I have worked with many, and they value competence very highly.

            However, if you are an ER doc, you’re a poor one, as Jackie has apparently demonstrated great competency, which you appear to think is worth depriving patients of because of your misguided drug warrior agenda.

            If you are an ER doc, please tell me approximately where (no need to be specific) so I can avoid any hospital you ever have any chance of appearing in.

            1. If you are also a physician, I would also question your competence due to a lack of adequate reasoning ability and inappropriate conclusions in the absence of data.

              Work in the ER requires competence and ethics. Believe it or not, habitual inappropriate use of narcotics can impair one’s competence – even if it is not immediately apparent to the user or others. Moreover, a lack of ethics as demonstrated by Nurse Jackie puts her patients at grave risk. What else might Nurse Jackie do to get her fix? Would she take meds intended for patients?

              You have concluded that I am a “drug warrior” when I am exactly the opposite. I see the effects of drug use/dependence on a daily basis and take a dim view of recreational drug use. On the other hand, I have concluded that the drug war is not only a waste but a terrible tragedy. And I don’t believe it’s moral to tell people what they can do in their personal lives AS LONG AS THEY AREN’T HURTING OTHERS. Nurse Jackie is well past hat line.

              Frankly, I don’t give a crap whether you show up in my ER. I will do my best to fix you and make you comfortable. Even if you are an arrogant prick.

        7. I’ll just leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W…..rt_Halsted

    2. Could you miss the point any more? I doubt it.

      1. Are you being “sarcasmic?” I hope so.

        In real life, Nurse Jackie would be a danger to patients as well as anybody else in her life.

        You just don’t get the larger point. If any activity (legal or not) drives you to such immoral behavior, you are one seriously fucked up individual. It is extremely likely that she would still engage in fucked up behavior whether her drug habit was legal or not. She would fuck over patients and family.

        And as somebody else pointed out, her use of narcotics WOULD likely impair her job performance in the real world.

        Using this ridiculous show as exhibit A in the drug legalization debate is idiotic.

        1. To clarify, her drug use is a serious problem but prohibition arguably makes it much more of a problem.

        2. In real life, Nurse Jackie would be a danger to patients as well as anybody else in her life.

          That hasn’t been my experience.

          Apart from your bare assertion, there is really no evidence at all that you are correct here.

          1. Total BS. I suggest you reread the article and take note of Nurse Jackie’s behavior – there’s more than a bare assertion here. She apparently operates at a lower stage of moral reasoning.

        3. If any activity (legal or not) drives you to such immoral behavior, you are one seriously fucked up individual. It is extremely likely that she would still engage in fucked up behavior whether her drug habit was legal or not. She would fuck over patients and family.

          The issue is competence, not your entirely subjective morality and your assertions that all drug users “fuck over” their patients and or family.

          And as somebody else pointed out, her use of narcotics WOULD likely impair her job performance in the real world.

          No doctor, of any kind, who knows that prophylactic pain management is common, would ever make such an absurd claim.

          You are no ER doc.

        4. If any activity (legal or not) drives you to such immoral behavior, you are one seriously fucked up individual. It is extremely likely that she would still engage in fucked up behavior whether her drug habit was legal or not. She would fuck over patients and family.

          The issue is competence, not your entirely subjective morality and your assertions that all drug users “fuck over” their patients and or family.

          And as somebody else pointed out, her use of narcotics WOULD likely impair her job performance in the real world.

          No doctor, of any kind, who knows that prophylactic pain management is common, would ever make such an absurd claim.

        5. If any activity (legal or not) drives you to such immoral behavior, you are one seriously fucked up individual. It is extremely likely that she would still engage in fucked up behavior whether her drug habit was legal or not. She would fuck over patients and family.

          The issue is competence, not your entirely subjective morality and your assertions that all drug users “fuck over” their patients and or family.

          And as somebody else pointed out, her use of narcotics WOULD likely impair her job performance in the real world.

          No doctor, of any kind, who knows that prophylactic pain management is common, would ever make such an absurd claim.

          You are no ER doc.

    3. Being a decent and caring nurse isn’t necessarily a problem. In most places the patients aren’t what drive good nurses out of practicing. It’s the shitty other nurses, who *don’t* give a shit, actively denigrate the profession and patients, but do enough in a field that’s always short on workers to not get outright fired, and end up with tons of seniority that drive the decent, caring nurses away. If narcotics would help deal with those assholes, good for her.

      1. “but do enough in a field that’s always short on workers”

        That’s an artificial shortage you know.

      2. ^^THIS^^

        My father was a director of Respiratory Thereapy in various hospitals for much of his career. He has some real life lazy/ fat/ don’t give a flying fuck about the patients nurse stories that will make you think twice before ever setting foot in a hostipal again.

        Like public school teachers, most nurses are really just there for the pay check, not because they give a shit.

        1. Like public school teachers, most nurses are really just there for the pay check, not because they give a shit.

          I’m not disagreeing with you but isn’t that pretty much true of most employees? I suppose it is notable in those professions because they are supposed to be “caring professions”.

          1. There’s nothing at all wrong with “just being there for the paycheck.”

            It’s when you use that as an excuse to not to do your job that’s a problem.

            1. Yes, this is what I’ve also heard from relatives in the nursing field. A nurse or nurse’s aid will neglect to perform some necessary procedure because it will take 25 minutes to complete, but their shift ends in 15 minutes. So the staff on both sides of this shift change get all pissy, and the patient gets ignored (which I would consider a big problem).

  7. Olivia Wilde can’t help it if she has a jughead. And the people at the Daily Mail who call her a “blonde bombshell” are always sucking up to average looking starlets, so this is unsurprising.

    And a Revlon shoot? Really? What line are they shooting for? The Five O’clock Shadow Concealer? The Raging Bull foundation line?

    1. Fuck. Thread fail.

      But I stand behind my comments.

      1. Olivia Wilde makes my tongue hard.

        1. I bet you’re a big Jay Leno fan.

          /sarc

          1. It’s like what Jeremy Clarkson said about Keira Knightley –
            “She looks like a bobblehead, but it works!”

        2. Woman like a firm tongue.

          1. If that’s so, why are they constantly trying to get the dog to lick the peanut butter?

  8. I once had a specialist MD have a minor freak-out over the fact that I had a Vicodin prescription. Um, that is between me and my primary doctor, you fuck. And that’s beside the point that it barely packs more of a punch than the Tylenol with codeine I smuggle down from Canada. First and last time I saw that asshole.

    1. Hydrocodone is oxycodone’s “special” little brother.

      1. I should really find friends with better drugs.

        1. Couldn’t you just find one of those sleazy doctors who trades pills for sex? It’d be a win-win.

          1. How dare you call Groovus “sleazy”!

          2. Just because all of your goals are achieved through sluttiness doesn’t mean that’s the only way. When all you have is a hammer, etc, etc.

            1. When all you have is a hammer

              …you try to get nailed as often as possible?

            2. When all you have is a hammer

              How did you know what I call my penis???

              1. Educated guess, moron. Don’t you do science or something?

                1. Don’t you do science or something?

                  Warty is Thomas Dolby?

              2. You’ve forgotten that time she shared her Oxycodone with you already?

                I keed, I keed.

          3. Are there any attractive female doctors who do that? Hell, they don’t even need to be all that attractive.

  9. Which raises the question: Does Jackie have a drug problem or a prohibition problem?

    Excellent work on not using the logical construction that people always misuse.

    1. You’re begging the question – what construction?

      1. You may be a master, but I will not rise to your bait.

  10. Liking to walk around soaked in gasoline isn’t an issue… Unless you are near an open flame. She has a drug problem in that – given the world she lives in – drugs and her addiction cause her problems. Eliminate drugs and her problems go away.

    While prohibition might be a problem, from your description it doesn’t sound like it’s her problem – drugs are. Yes avoiding prohibition is the trigger for her destructive behavior, but it’s the drugs that enable her to act in such destructive ways. And even without prohibition there could be other triggers.

    Also, this is a stupid fictional example with no real bearing on the real world.

    1. But that was not enough to keep you from going on about it for two pointless paragraphs.

      1. No – Mango has some great points. But I would argue that elimination of drugs might not eliminate her problems. She has no moral compass. Without a drug addiction, she would probably find some other reason to engage in sociopathic behavior.

        1. No – Mango has some great points

          Not really. All the issues you both present result from the lengths she has to go to in order to acquire pain meds. Prohibition is the issue there.

          But I would argue that elimination of drugs might not eliminate her problems. She has no moral compass. Without a drug addiction, she would probably find some other reason to engage in sociopathic behavior.

          Then you are the troll you have painted yourself as, an an idiot.

          I do however love the assertion that she is a sociopath in the face of contrary evidence.

          You’ve outed yourself for the irrational “DRUGS ARE BAD AND DRUGGIES ARE ALWAYS SOCIOPATHS” Nancy Reagan that you are.

          1. Like most psychdocs, you’re as fucking crazy as your patients. Most people have addictions, legal and otherwise, but don’t go to the immoral lengths that Nurse Jackie does.

            You have oversimplified the argument and are afraid to confront the complexity of the issue. But then again, that’s not surprising since you were afraid to become a real doc and treat patients in life and death situations.

            You can be fucking stoned out of your mind while bullshitting with patients in your office but I can’t be while seeing patients in the ER.

            Calling you an idiot would be an insult to idiots.

  11. Dr. House would long ago have blown through his liver with the acetaminophen in the vicodin.

    1. Nonsense. Dr. House would know about cold filtration.

  12. None of it matters. None of it.

    The first time someone injects the wrong clear liquid into a patient and kills them, if it’s later found out they were on “legal” painkillers, you’re gonna get some sort of prohibition, and it will be popular.

    It really doesn’t matter if one can prove that the painkiller was a contributing factor.

    Workplace prohibition of some sort will always be with us in some form or another, even if only within the workplace.

    1. ^^^This^^^

  13. I don’t know if the article handles the topic of addiction seriously enough.

    There is a difference between saying people have the right to consume what they want and make mistakes if they want, than saying they aren’t making a mistake at all.

    Drug addiction is serious business and it is harmful to the addict’s long term health and to the addict’s family who has to deal with the person when they are coming down or when they are out of it.

    1. I’m sure your DARE teacher would be proud that you can still repeat that thoughtless crap so effortlessly.

      1. DARE has nothing to do with reality. I have family and friends who I have lost because of drug addiction. So to try to portray drug addiction like it is something that isn’t something harmful to the user, because of a fictional tv show doesn’t win me over.

        1. I have family and friends who I have lost because of drug addiction.

          I have family and friends who I have lost because of reckless driving. We need to outlaw use of cars.

          I have family and friends who I have lost because of skin cancer. We need to outlaw tanning.

          I have family and friends who I have lost because of drowning. We need to outlaw swimming pools, lakes and rivers.

          I have family and friends who I have lost because of ebola virus. We need to outlaw Chipotle.

          This could go on forever and it still wouldn’t change the fact that legislating morality and lifestyle is always wrong.

          1. Again if you can bring up one sentence, one utterance where I said the state needs to do anything feel free to do so.

            Learn to read before going on one of your ignorant rants.

            1. If sloopy learns how to read will you learn to stop being a self-righteous douche? You should probably know that most people here don’t take emotional arguments like the one you just made very seriously.

              1. I never made an emotional argument for anything. So you like your buddy sloopy also need to learn how to read.

                I only said that acting like drug addiction isn’t a problem is the wrong avenue to go down.

                If that offends you so be it.

                1. When someone claims they have family or friends that have been harmed/lost by/to addiction in order to point out why they think this is a serious issue it’s pretty clear that the person is using there own emotional feelings as their guide. This is how we end up with laws named after dead children etc. So, kindly go fuck yourself.

                  1. I only brought out my family and friends, in response to an attack that I’m repeating DARE propaganda. If you read the thread, you would see that.

                    Again, if you see me making an argument for any type of banning or government intervention feel free to point it out.

                    1. I did read the thread, and you still sound like you’re spouting DARE bullshit.

                    2. Yes it is DARE bullshit that people who are drug addicts put their own health at risk and damage their own lives as well as the lives of their family.

                      Sounds to me like you are so committed to the ideals of drug legalization that you want to try to ignore any of the real negatives associated with actual drug addiction.

                    3. any of the real negatives associated with actual drug addiction.

                      Which you disingenuously ignore, are the result of prohibition in most cases, and poor dosage control in the remainder.

                      Yes, you are spouting DARE bullshit. And in the future, save the “I have family members” nonsense. It’s “think of the children” redux, and not worthy of including in an intelligent debate.

                    4. Whether you want to believe it or not a person ODing, isn’t the result of DARE bullshit. A person so strung out they can’t take care of their child isn’t the result of prohibition.

                      Like I said you can try to ignore real effects of drug addiction and say it is DARE propaganda, but I know better because I’ve seen it first hand.

                      Also when I make the argument that government needs to stop drug usage, the think of the children and family argument comments might be relevant, until then you are just continuing to strike out.

    2. There is a difference between saying people have the right to consume what they want and make mistakes if they want, than saying they aren’t making a mistake at all.

      Where in the hell is the author conflating the two?

      Drug addiction is serious business and it is harmful to the addict’s long term health and to the addict’s family who has to deal with the person when they are coming down or when they are out of it.

      That’s their business, and their family’s business whether or not they choose to help the user deal with it. It’s not my business and it’s certainly not my right or responsibility to impose my morals on them under threat of violence. (And incarceration is violence, IMO)

      Take your moralizing back to nationalreview.com and leave people alone.

      1. And incarceration is violence, IMO

        Is there actually anyone with a contrapinion to that?

        What part of “get in the cage, or else” could be construed as anything but violence?

      2. The title of the article tries to question if nurse jackie’s problem is even a problem at all, even while pointing out how terrible the effects of the addiction are on her life regarding sleeping with someone for drugs, stealing drugs, lying to get drugs and etc. So yes, with regard to what is written in the article, Nurse Jackie’s drug habit is a problem and it is a problem because of prohibition and her own poor judgement.

        No one said it wasn’t the person and their family member’s business.

        I never once said or alluded to the government having a right to ban anyone for using anything.

        Your post did a fine job of dismantling that strawman though. Congrats.

        I’ll moralize all I want and if you don’t like it don’t read my post.

        I’m anti government prohibition of anything, doesn’t mean I don’t have personal opinions with regard to what I perceptive as “societal ills”

        1. Still sounds like a prohibition problem, not a drug problem.

          If they were legal, she wouldnt need to sleep with someone for drugs, or steal the drugs or lie.

          1. You are correct, might not have to sleep around for drugs, steal drugs, or lie to her family, but she might still do it as well, she is an addict.

            1. but she might still do it as well

              for teh lulz.

              1. Or because an addict would rather not pay for drugs and might want to save their money for food and shelter.

                1. Or because an addict would rather not pay for drugs and might want to save their money for food and shelter.

                  Without prohibition, insurance would cover the drugs, making the cost insignificant.

                  So, you’re essentially claiming she’d sleep around and act like a junkie, because she wants to save a few bucks.

                  You’ll forgive us for laughing at the absurdity.

                  1. I’ve seen people who screw around for drugs, when they have the money to buy it. I worked with a person who was an occasional user, then fell off the proverbial cliff and started stealing laptops from work to support their habit.

                    So again, trying to act like all the negative actions associated with drug addiction will magically go away once the prohibition campaign is ended is ridiculous on its face.

                    As for insurance companies covering drugs, if they did great, if they didn’t great. It really is irrelevant to my point.

                2. parties. blast at. must be.

    3. Long term opiate use really causes no significant health problems by itself. If they were legal, many people woudl be quite capable of living a long and productive life while addicted to such drugs. I think that they get to decide for themselves whether it is a mistake or not.

      I’m not saying that opiate addiction is not a problem for many people. I personally know several people for whom it has been a big problem. But most of the major health problems and problems of crime associated with such addiction is not caused by the drug but by prohibition; both because of the insanely inflated black market prices and because of the unhealthy lifestyles that come about when people have to constantly be scheming to get their next fix.

    4. IT’S SRS BSNS YO! SRS! BSNS! ?_?

  14. I agree that she has a prohibition problem, but I take issue with one sentence.

    That issue is stark in Nurse Jackie because, as far as I can recall from the first three seasons, she is not portrayed as screwing up at work or screwing over her friends and family because of her drug use per se.

    Is fucking the pharmacist in order to keep her steady supply of drugs not to be construed as screwing over her family?

    I would agree that if the drugs were available for her to use at her leisure she likely wouldn’t have taken this course of action, but that’s a far cry from stating that fucking the pharmacist is an acceptable route of action in lieu of getting her drugs OTC.

    1. because of her drug use per se

      because screwing over her family was a result of acquiring the drugs, not using them, per se.

      1. Except that acquiring the drugs was for the specific purpose of using them, not so they could burn a hole in her pocket.

        1. I feel the “per se” qualifier addresses your original issue with the sentence, that’s all I’m getting at.

  15. I thought I came to a website called reason, not Mr. Garrison’s blog.

    1. Drink?

    2. Mr. Mackey, the guidance counselor, is the drugs-r-bad-mmmmkay character.

  16. ow that makes a lot of sense.

    http://www.Privacy-Dudes.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.