Their have been a few waves of "concern" about this already, the most recent just over a little
a year or so ago. Now opioides are much more difficult to get on prescription basis than they
were roughly about year ago, thanks to a recent FDA crack-down, creating more hurdles for
getting prescriptions filled.

It may be "good politics" to mis-use this study of disproportionate 45-54 year old deaths
to gin up a hew War on Drugs, but I for one refuse to jump on Christi's "ban prescription
opiates" bandwagon.

Are opiate prescription drugs a problem, yes; but it's a symptom not a cause.

Candidates like Christie --with a lot of help from M$M-- are focusing-in on this^ as the big
take-away from the recently released study about 45-54 year old whites dying in disproportionate
numbers. I think its a misguided distraction at this point.

Bernie, on the other hand, has deftly captured the moment to connect this startling number of
45-54 deaths, with their actual underlying causes: more poverty, destitution, despair,
hopelessness, etc.

He did this on Chris Hayes last night, here:

The underlying CAUSE of these deaths is widespread despair and hopelessness about how
lives are being devastated as the Oligarchy-driven income inequality keeps hollowing-out the
American Middle Class, destroying labor unions's right to organize, etc. <--This needs to be the
take-away, not trying to gin-up a new "War on Drugs!!!!" neo-prohibition of drugs, alcohol, etc.

Many people who suffer from chronic pain need to rely prescription drugs like Vicodin, and use
them responsibly. These are already very difficult to obtain on a prescription basis, thanks to
a previous wave of hysteria about them, just a few years ago. Now they're harder to get, yet
the problem persists, because the underlying problem -- grotesque income inequality -- keeps
getting exponentially worse.

THIS ^ is why I am supporting Sanders, because if Bernie were not in this race, discussion
of the issue of income inequality would not even be in the forefront of everyone's mind as a
political issue in 2015-16.

This is about being able to deliver a message in a way that moves the audience.

It is easy to blame the media but in this case this message is being disseminated through the social networks. By the time Rachel Maddow reported it it had already gone viral and she reported it because it had gone viral.

Our candidates would do well to connect with their audiences at an emotional level like Christie just did, rather than how Bernie Sanders has connected with you at an intellectual level.

Eleven years ago to the day I posted this message titled "Dumbing Down The Message for the Masses" right here in DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1322135

I think this post illustrates the difference between Sanders' message and Christie's

Quote: "I humbly beg that the ears of the educated may be content to bear rustic expressions without complaint, so that all the Saviour’s flock can receive heavenly food in a simple and down-to-earth language. Since the ignorant and the simple cannot rise themselves to the height of the educated, let the educated deign to lower themselves to their ignorance."

However I don't agree that Bernie is being overly "intellectual" in giving voice to the widespread pain,
dispair and destitution the American people are suffering at the hands of the Oligarchs; and holding
those responsible accountable.

I didn't intend to detract from your OP, it's just that Christie's subject matter is a sore subject with me.

I just saw him being concerned with the humanity of addiction and how to treat it.

Bernie has the right approach on how to visualize this problem;..not as something that needs to be prohibited, but a societal failure that needs to be addressed.

... needs to engage the heart, not just the mind. Sure, it's easy to draw us in who are already inclined to be socially conscious and altruistic. But the tougher nut to crack is to draw in the egotistical maniacs on the other side and to do that, the message needs to be deeply personal; to move them, to make them see themselves in those shoes. The typical repug does not care about the 'other' but if you can get him or her to see themselves in that position; to identify with the plight, then they're all over it.

she had my dosage levels lower. After a bit, I no longer needed, nor did I want, the medication at all. She told me that after I came home from the hospital I was addicted to the painkiller and she weaned me off of it.

I was surprised because I had such an easy time when I quit smoking. I had expected a terrible withdrawal but it never developed. So I wondered why that was and concluded that the nicotine "addiction" thing was overrated.

I don't know what to think now. My pharmacist says he sees people hooked on opioids they originally got for legitimate reasons. He says it just happens.

Maybe we are now overemphasizing the "cause of addiction is poverty" since middle class, pretty well situated folks get addicted just as much as a poor person. Not saying poverty doesn't exacerbate this and other problems, I just don't see a cause/effect thing when the same addiction can happen to rich as well as poor.

why do Repigs have to have firsthand experience with those with misfortune before they demonstrate a modicum of compassion?

That's the nature of the reptilian brain; what's in it for me.

That is the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans; the ability to empathize and sympathize with the suffering of people not directly connected or related to them.

We should give Chris Christie credit. Yes. But credit for a masterful delivery of a message in a way that impacts the listener viscerally.

Pay less attention to what Christie says, and more to what he does (or has done).

(besides the 8.4 billion he gave to Exxon <- my major annoyance still) that he fought medical marijuana. after his veto was overridden he still fought, even when a child was in pain. He can speak as eloquently as a speech writer can write, but his actions speak louder than words.

Christie left out one major addictive trap and that is because it happens to be his addiction. Christie is addicted to power.
He knows about addiction although he is in denial.
He puts on a good talk, convincing clearly , but on the face of it you will notice he uses all and any of his experiences prior to law school ,before lawyer like a tool. And never should one forget ,Christie is New Jersey lawyer turned politician ,lies are deceit go hand in hand. Make no mistake Christie has developed way to master the art of drawing people into his speak-that of making those in attendance very much a part in the whole of their scam.

If christie were a will writing lawyer - like an ambulance chasing lawyer -accident claims so fourth ,think of him that way .
He makes you think- the you's targets, it's about you ,he makes you feel connected to something bigger , you think he''s for real ,you trust that, you believe that . That is until you the target victim come into the know about just what a down and dirty crooked lawyer is.

There is nothing about Chris Christie before lawyer that he won't use to get the gain. And there is no life experience real or imagined he won't use to make the gain- or draw as many people in-votes -as he can. Christie's personal philosophy is the philosophy of power.
So indeed, what he does and what he's done is who he is. Ok so when they are not picking your pockets it's something else they are trying to pick away at for as much as they can get or get away with.

Christie is a Crook. He is addicted to power.

&maxh=400&maxw=667

Yes, Christie is eloquent and correct on this subject and I suspect, (don't know) most of us would agree with this particular speech and the highly effective way that he talked about this problem. ..

Nevertheless, he is a crook, a liar, vindictive asshole of the first magnitude, and except in this one instance, doesn't give a shit about the common people..those stuck on the bridge, or those in the New Jersey towns whose mayors he went after. He plays a mean vicious game even though he seems to have feelings on this one topic....

another ugly example of this idea........at one point during his tenure, prices were rising dramatically, and Nixon instituted price controls for a while. not long..but they were effective for a time.

So another ultimate asshole is right for one time out of a long time

But, the point is well taken, Christie is a very effective communicator on some occasions. And, we can agree with him, rarely.....

But...he is still a vicious asshole...no matter what he says about what.