Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is ridiculous. Acetaminophen is Tylenol. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that Tylenol is a poison?

Arsenic is a poison. Lead is a poison. Cyanide is a poison. Tylenol becomes toxic at a certain threshold (like every other substance on the earth for that matter).

Sure, it is toxic to your liver in large doses. That isn't why Tylenol 3 is Schedule II while pure Codeine is Schedule II. The difference is in dosage. Tylenol 3 tends to come in doses of around 5mg Codeine to 300-500mg Tylenol. You get T3 when you have a tooth taken out, or maybe some minor stitches. You are also only given a few pills.

You get pure Codeine when you break a bone or stick a pencil through your eye. Or one of the stronger codeine-derivatives (oxycodeine, etc). These come in larger doses and are more prone to abuse.

Hence Schedule III.

I'm no fan of the DEA or the schedule system...but the "Government" isn't poisoning anyone. That's pure FUBAR and true tin-foil-hattery. Its a classification system for the abuse potential of perfectly legal drugs.



The FDA is considering a black label warning for acetaminophen and recently changed the max "recommendation" down from 4 grams daily to 2.3g (IIRC). It is most definitely a liver toxin with therapeutic index that's not so amazing.

People get prescribed ratios of 100:1 APAP:hydrocodone (750/7.5 for example) - it's idiotic from a health and safety perspective. If you need opiate painkillers such as hydrocodone or oxycodone, the extra APAP is unlikely to be of much benefit, and you can always just take some APAP on the side. The APAP is there purely to "prevent" abuse.

I'm not suggesting the "Government is poisoning people" as a conspiracy, I'm suggesting the same idiotic politics and ideas at play during alcohol prohibition are still alive.


http://www.medicinenet.com/tylenol_liver_damage/article.htm#...

Yes, but in rare cases. Acetaminophen is not the easiest thing in the world for your body to deal with. But this is technically correct and in the 99 percent case you're correct so this is kind of belaboring the point.

Nevertheless, I thought it was worth mentioning.


Sure, but you can make that argument for virtually any substance. A particular combination of genetics and <insert molecular compound> will equal a bad reaction in some portion of the population. It's practically guaranteed due to the nature of genetics and statistics.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: