This is an old message from April 10th.  The case was diagnosed and
treated as thallium poisoning.  Outcome: (post from yesterday)

es:

The New York City Poison Center has been consulting with her Chinese
physicians and assisting in the treatment since the diagnosis was confirmed.
She was being treated with Prussian Blue and as of about one week ago had
begun to open her eyes and move spontaneously.  I haven't asked about any new
news since then, but I will check tomorrow at work and see if her condition
has changed at all in the last week.

// Robert Hessler
// Asst. Director, Emergency Services
// Bellevue Hospital and NYU Medical Center
// New York City, New York  10016

Please don't continue to forward this across the net ... this girl was
already found to have thallium poisoning (through the efforts of physicians
on the internet).  She is currently undergoing treatment at the Peking
University Hospital.

// Robert Hessler
// Asst. Director, Emergency Services
// Bellevue Hospital and NYU Medical Center

If she's peeking then she's obviously faking it.  

Cigarette smoking kills 1 in 5 Americans.  Almost half of those who
smoke die from it.  Even {*filter*} and {*filter*} aren't that bad for you.

Come now, David.  {*filter*} and {*filter*} aren't even close.  Last I checked,
{*filter*} deaths were a few hundred per year in the US, with a million
users.  There are about 5 times that many people people riding
motorcycles, and about 5 times more motorcycle deaths, too.  Hmmm.

This only says what we docs have long known: that the priorities in the
drug war are seriously screwed up.  If we could magically take every
{*filter*}ic and make him an {*filter*} of pharmaceutical {*filter*} injected with
sterile equipment, society would be a LOT better off.  Crime would go
down, family {*filter*} would go down, car accidents would go down (in
fact, probably all these things would be cut in half), and the medical
bills would be smaller too.   Hmmm.

                                          Steve Harris, M.D.

I agree entirely.  The reference to {*filter*} and {*filter*} are because most
tobacco users are surprised by that statement (I've had several email
me incredulous that I would say that).  

Prohibition and especially the so-called "war on crime" have extracted
a terrible social cost, far worse than the {*filter*}ions themselves,
fueling {*filter*} crime and poverty and dramatically increasing the cost
of running prisons, without any demonstrable lowering of rates of
serious crime.  Drug laws have been selectively enforced -- affluent
whites are more likely to get away with breaking them than poor
minorities and average lighter sentences when convicted.  More young
black men are in jail than in college.  

I favor legalizing all currently illegal {*filter*} of abuse and making
{*filter*}, tobacco, and these {*filter*} available only in bars and regulated
stores (which would sell nothing else).  All advertising for these
products should be banned.  All should be taxed and most of the
proceeds used to fund rehab programs.  Everyone currently jailed on
drug charges should be released.

There may be some increase in rates of {*filter*}ion, but many narcotic and
{*filter*} {*filter*}s were able to function as productive citizens before
they were outlawed.  The overall effect on society of legalization will
I predict be decidedly beneficial.

80% of prisoners and 70% of welfare recipients are high school drop-
outs.  Support public education -- it's a sound investment.

I agree.  All prescription {*filter*}, too.

It would be illegal for restaurants to provide wine with meals?
It would be illegal for Catholic churches to use wine during
communion?

Nicotine gum and patches should be available without a prescription, so
that nicotine {*filter*}s can satisfy their craving at less risk, and with
less annoyance to those around them.

It doesn't make any sense for a product to be legal, but for ads
for it to be illegal.  For one thing, it prevents consumers from
easily getting information on which forms of tobacco and {*filter*}ic
beverages are safest.

My understanding is that rehab programs don't work.  Most people who
quit using tobacco, {*filter*}, or any other drug, quit on their own
without help.  Most people in rehab programs return to using their
drug.  Rehab programs are based on {*filter*}ics Anonymous and other
twelve step programs, which aren't based on any medical or scientific
principles, but on religion.  Half of the twelve steps mention God.
Tax money should not be used to finance religious programs.

I agree, unless it involved knowingly providing {*filter*} to minors, or
unless it involved fraud, or unless they drove a car while impaired
by {*filter*}.

My reason for favoring the legalization of currently illegal {*filter*} of
abuse is not that I think people should be allowed to take any {*filter*}
they want but rather that the problems caused by prohibition outweigh
those caused by {*filter*}ion.  If anyone could take an OTC antibiotic
whenever they wanted we would see a much more rapid emergence of
resistance.  We already have strains of bacteria appearing which are no
longer responsive to conventional antibiotics.  If all prescription
meds were OTC would see a great deal more iatrogenic illness.  Society
has a legitimate interest in eliminating attractive nuisances.  I favor
keeping prescription {*filter*} available only by prescription just as I
support the mandatory use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

No, I agree these are reasonable uses.

I agree.

A comparison chart posted at the point of sale could provide that
information.  Advertising trys to increase the demand for a product.  
Currently it glamorizes tobacco and {*filter*} consumption.  I still would
like to see the use of all {*filter*}ing {*filter*} minimized but the societal
costs of prohibition are too high.  I'd like people going into these
stores to buy {*filter*} to feel a little like they do now buying {*filter*}s
(and for people to feel as comfortable buying {*filter*}s as they now do
buying tobacco and {*filter*}).

I think rehab programs help but certainly are not completely effective.  
While most who quit may do so on their own, the likelihood of staying
drug free, at least for {*filter*} and tobacco, is significantly greater
if the patient is in an organized program

I agree, but there are good alternatives, such as Rational Recovery
that are not theistic.

Agreed.  These should all remain illegal.

No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does
not want to adopt a rational attitude -- Karl Popper

|>
|>   ...                                       If all prescription
|> meds were OTC would see a great deal more iatrogenic illness.  Society
|> has a legitimate interest in eliminating attractive nuisances.  I favor
|> keeping prescription {*filter*} available only by prescription just as I
|> support the mandatory use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

For those who oppose mandatory seat belts laws, note that the analogy is badly
flawed because nonuse of seat belts endangers only the nonwearer but antibiotic
abuse endangers others.

-dk

The additional costs of treating those who take safety devices lightly
will be passed on to all of us in one way or another.  Even if that
weren't the case, for precautions such as seat belts and motorcycle
helmets that clearly make a big difference in mortality and morbidity,
I think it is m{*filter*}to mandate their use.

One out of four American children under the age of six now lives in
poverty.  Nearly 1.5 million of them are malnourished -- Census Bureau

: My reason for favoring the legalization of currently illegal {*filter*} of
: abuse is not that I think people should be allowed to take any {*filter*}
: they want but rather that the problems caused by prohibition outweigh
: those caused by {*filter*}ion.  
I agree here too.  Legalizing currently illegal {*filter*} would put drug dealers
out of business.  I don't know that it would lower the crime rate any,
but there are quite a few drug-related crimes.

: If anyone could take an OTC antibiotic
: whenever they wanted we would see a much more rapid emergence of
: resistance.  We already have strains of bacteria appearing which are no
: longer responsive to conventional antibiotics.  
I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't have any trouble getting
antibiotics.  Practically every time I see a doctor, I am prescribed an
antibiotic.  "Oh gee, there's this trace of protein in your urine. It's a
UTI.  Here go spend $50 on this floxin and see if it helps."  Unless, I
really think I have an infection, I don't even get them filled anymore.

: If all prescription
: meds were OTC would see a great deal more iatrogenic illness.  Society
: has a legitimate interest in eliminating attractive nuisances.  I favor
: keeping prescription {*filter*} available only by prescription just as I
: support the mandatory use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets.
I agree here.  Look how irresponsible people tend to be with most things.
However,  I also agree that *anyone* who is ill should be able to go see
a doctor and have access to prescription medications if they need them.
Even if they don't have medical insurance. Even if they are homeless.  

: > It would be illegal for restaurants to provide wine with meals?
: > It would be illegal for Catholic churches to use wine during
: > communion?
:  
: No, I agree these are reasonable uses.
:  
: > Nicotine gum and patches should be available without a prescription,
:  
: I agree.
Most relatively harmless things should be available without a
prescription.  Does anyone know when Albuterol will be available without
a prescription?  Seems stupid to me that between Primatene and
Ventolin/Proventil, the one that's not as safe is the one available OTC.

: A comparison chart posted at the point of sale could provide that
: information.  Advertising trys to increase the demand for a product.  
: Currently it glamorizes tobacco and {*filter*} consumption.  
I completely agree.  Personally, I think there would also be fewer
{*filter*}s if TV news didn't keep sensationalizing it.  Just don't even mention
it to people and some of them won't even consider it.

:I still would
: like to see the use of all {*filter*}ing {*filter*} minimized but the societal
: costs of prohibition are too high.  I'd like people going into these
: stores to buy {*filter*} to feel a little like they do now buying {*filter*}s
: (and for people to feel as comfortable buying {*filter*}s as they now do
: buying tobacco and {*filter*}).
Do you think they'd feel strange about it?  People where I live don't
seem to have any problem buying {*filter*} in a bar. Would they feel any
different if {*filter*} were legalized?  

Buying {*filter*}s doesn't bother me in the least anymore, but it used to.  
In this day and age I'm not quite sure why people have such problems talking
about sex.  In the US there's still that "sex is dirty" mentality.

: >> Everyone currently jailed on drug charges should be released.
:  
: > I agree, unless it involved knowingly providing {*filter*} to minors, or
: > unless it involved fraud, or unless they drove a car while impaired
: > by {*filter*}.
:  
: Agreed.  These should all remain illegal.

: No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does
: not want to adopt a rational attitude -- Karl Popper

Ariel

But consumption of {*filter*} and tobacco have been glamorized, made to
seem cool, {*filter*}, macho, liberated, etc.  I want people to look at these
stores as the place where the {*filter*}s go and to hope that their
neighbors or coworkers don't see them going in.  This will happen if
adverti{*filter*}t is prohibited and the tone of the place is "yes, we're
happy to provide the {*filter*} you need, but would you like some literature
on drug rehabilitation while you're here?".

One out of four American children under the age of six now lives in
poverty.  Nearly 1.5 million of them are malnourished -- Census Bureau

Sorry, but I don't quite understand how antibiotic abuse endanger
others.  This is a sincere question.

Polar

: > Do you think they'd feel strange about it?  People where I live don't
: > seem to have any problem buying {*filter*} in a bar. Would they feel any
: > different if {*filter*} were legalized?
:  
: But consumption of {*filter*} and tobacco have been glamorized, made to
: seem cool, {*filter*}, macho, liberated, etc.  I want people to look at these
: stores as the place where the {*filter*}s go and to hope that their
: neighbors or coworkers don't see them going in.  This will happen if
: adverti{*filter*}t is prohibited and the tone of the place is "yes, we're
: happy to provide the {*filter*} you need, but would you like some literature
: on drug rehabilitation while you're here?"
I agree with your point here, but I'm not completely sure things would work
that way.  I guess it's hard to tell how people would act. People voted Bill
Clinton into the presidency. He admitted to smoking pot, of course we
have to remember he didn't inhale.  Now personally, I can't imagine who
would really care if he actually did or did not inhale.  

It's hard to say if people would look at those places as an "I don't want to
be seen here," type of place.  It could also become some sort of a status
symbol type place where people go there to look cool, even if advertising
isn't allowed.  If this did happen, the media would be all over it especially
at first giving out basically free advertising.

: One out of four American children under the age of six now lives in
: poverty.  Nearly 1.5 million of them are malnourished -- Census Bureau
Ariel