OxyContin change a concern for addiction work

[jugoso]

"People who are abusing opiates will tend to want to get more opiates in a different form to avoid getting sick," said Wand.

Doctor Clement Sun with the Addiction Centre Toronto said the change is a good start but agrees the new medication won't solve the underlying issues.

Read more...

My prediction: Increased Heroin Use. Perhaps there´s a surplus.

[_Only]

So, they're making a stink that not being able to do a certain drug, addicts will want to do another drug?

Shocking news!!

What a backwards argument, from those with experience in addiction, no less. Tsk, tsk.

[Babe Ruth]

I've taken Oxy a few times after surgery, and while it certainly stops pain, I do not like the overall effect of the drug.

This whole Oxy thing, with the associated drugs all ending in "-one" reminds me of the big scandal involving Quaaludes back in the 70's.

Methaqualone became so popular that people were driving under the influence and all manner of fatal car accidents were attributed to it. Eventually, through either responsible corporate leadership or government coercion, can't remember which, the drug was no longer produced and eventually disappeared from the scene, which was a good thing.

I don't know why they won't do that with Oxy, as dozens of youngsters become addicted with many being killed by overdose. I guess it is just a LACK of responsible corporate leadership OR responsible governmental leadership.

[jugoso]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/02/27/oxycontin-new-formulation.html

"When it was first introduced in 1995, OxyContin was heavily marketed to doctors who were assured it was safe and non-addictive."

If proper clinical trials were done before the introduction of the drug, I find this statement to be ridiculous. How could they not know it was addictive?

This has helped to create:

a public health catastrophe is imminent, as there are thousands of addicted individuals with rapidly shrinking supplies — likely leading to massive increases in black market prices, use of other drugs, needle use/sharing, and crime,” said Dr. Benedikt Fischer, a senior scientist at the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health.

Somebody should be held accountable for this IMO.

At the same time:

Health officials in B.C. are working to deal with a shortage of drugs — including the pain killer morphine — that has resulted from problems at a Quebec pharmaceutical company.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/02/27/bc-hospital-drug-shortage.html

Heroin anyone?

Edited February 28, 2012 by jugoso

[jugoso]

I also find this interesting and surprising

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/02/20/f-prescription-drug-misuse-abuse-deaths.html

While there is a sense the number of deaths from overdoses of prescription painkillers and other drugs has been growing, there is no central clearing house that can provide definitive statistics.

Statistics from the office of Ontario's chief coroner indicate deaths related to opioids increased by 49 per cent between 2002 and 2006. Deaths due to oxycodone itself — sold under the brand name OxyContin — rose 240 per cent in that same period

[_Only]

"When it was first introduced in 1995, OxyContin was heavily marketed to doctors who were assured it was safe and non-addictive."

That type of painkiller doesn't exist.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Jerry Only

[jugoso]

That type of painkiller doesn't exist.

Well, apparently it did back in 1995.

[Babe Ruth]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/02/27/oxycontin-new-formulation.html

"When it was first introduced in 1995, OxyContin was heavily marketed to doctors who were assured it was safe and non-addictive."

If proper clinical trials were done before the introduction of the drug, I find this statement to be ridiculous. How could they not know it was addictive?

This has helped to create:

a public health catastrophe is imminent, as there are thousands of addicted individuals with rapidly shrinking supplies — likely leading to massive increases in black market prices, use of other drugs, needle use/sharing, and crime,” said Dr. Benedikt Fischer, a senior scientist at the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health.

Somebody should be held accountable for this IMO.

At the same time:

Health officials in B.C. are working to deal with a shortage of drugs — including the pain killer morphine — that has resulted from problems at a Quebec pharmaceutical company.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/02/27/bc-hospital-drug-shortage.html

Heroin anyone?

Nobody is going to be held accountable. That is not the way the Amerikan system works, c. 2012.

Only ordinary folks are held accountable for petty crimes, whilst corporate criminals are given medals for national heroism.

The Oxy controversy is a good illustration of how irresponsible most corporate leadership is, and the unholy marriage between such corporations and their 'regulators'. In this case, law enforcement benefits nicely from the Oxy situation. They hire more, spend days chasing people around, and their budgets increase year after year.

Like the Drug War in general, it is a bureaucratic version of the Goose That Lays Golden Eggs. Don't kill the goose.

[Pauly Dangerously]

Wait, so...addicts break the law by purchasing controlled substances illegally, and we are supposed to have sympathy for them because...why?

Long acting opioid analgesics are designed for people who have chronic severe pain that requires around the clock treatment for pain, usually in conjunction witha short acting drug for breakthrough pain. The kinds of people these drugs were designed for? Cancer patients. People with traumatic debilitating injuries such as those to the spine and brain.

So Joe Addict decides since it's stronger than Percocet and Vicodin, he's gonna get on that instead. So when the law cracks down on this, we are supposed to have sympathy for this guy? I ask again...why?

From the article:

"You either go to a hospital and come down, or go to a methadone clinic and come down, or go to jail," said Walsh.

So, do the legal thing and get clean or go to jail? That sounds fair. The rest of us law abiding citizens play by the rules, why are addicts who broke the law in the first place exempt?

[jugoso]

Wait, so...addicts break the law by purchasing controlled substances illegally, and we are supposed to have sympathy for them because...why?

Long acting opioid analgesics are designed for people who have chronic severe pain that requires around the clock treatment for pain, usually in conjunction witha short acting drug for breakthrough pain. The kinds of people these drugs were designed for? Cancer patients. People with traumatic debilitating injuries such as those to the spine and brain.

So Joe Addict decides since it's stronger than Percocet and Vicodin, he's gonna get on that instead. So when the law cracks down on this, we are supposed to have sympathy for this guy? I ask again...why?

From the article:

"You either go to a hospital and come down, or go to a methadone clinic and come down, or go to jail," said Walsh.

So, do the legal thing and get clean or go to jail? That sounds fair. The rest of us law abiding citizens play by the rules, why are addicts who broke the law in the first place exempt?

I can´t speak for others, but I feel sympathy for drug addicts because they are sick and usually live in misery. Any enjoyment they got from using drugs is long gone and they feel they are "trapped" in this unhealthy behaviour.

They aren´t exempt from the law which is why over 50% of people incarcerated in the US are in jail for drug cares. I think it is obvious at this point that the legal system cannot deal with the problem of drug abuse and that throwing people in jail does not do anything to address the real problems that underlie drug addiction.

[Corp]

If the addicts got clean then they wouldn't be living in misery. Those who are doing their damnist to get clean deserve sympathy and support. Those who aren't...well they're deciding to live in misery.

[Babe Ruth]

Wait, so...addicts break the law by purchasing controlled substances illegally, and we are supposed to have sympathy for them because...why?

Long acting opioid analgesics are designed for people who have chronic severe pain that requires around the clock treatment for pain, usually in conjunction witha short acting drug for breakthrough pain. The kinds of people these drugs were designed for? Cancer patients. People with traumatic debilitating injuries such as those to the spine and brain.

So Joe Addict decides since it's stronger than Percocet and Vicodin, he's gonna get on that instead. So when the law cracks down on this, we are supposed to have sympathy for this guy? I ask again...why?

From the article:

"You either go to a hospital and come down, or go to a methadone clinic and come down, or go to jail," said Walsh.

So, do the legal thing and get clean or go to jail? That sounds fair. The rest of us law abiding citizens play by the rules, why are addicts who broke the law in the first place exempt?

What obligation does the citizen have to obey an illegitimate law?

Or, can the legislature pass any law it wishes?

[_Only]

What obligation does the citizen have to obey an illegitimate law?

Or, can the legislature pass any law it wishes?

What illegitimate law? Isn't that an oxymoron?

If you're referring to the law that doesn't allow citizens (addicts) to buy and use medical substances that are used to treat extreme pain, to get a high, I'm not sure where you're coming from.

[jugoso]

What illegitimate law? Isn't that an oxymoron?

If you're referring to the law that doesn't allow citizens (addicts) to buy and use medical substances that are used to treat extreme pain, to get a high, I'm not sure where you're coming from.

No....it´s an oxycotin.

Well, thank goodness we have those laws in place and a war on such evil substances to protect us all from becoming drug addicts.

[Babe Ruth]

What illegitimate law? Isn't that an oxymoron?

If you're referring to the law that doesn't allow citizens (addicts) to buy and use medical substances that are used to treat extreme pain, to get a high, I'm not sure where you're coming from.

By your statement here, it is safe to assume that you have never read the US Constitution and are completely unfamiliar with the legal principles it contains.

Were you to study that document, you would discover that the government CANNOT pass any old law it wishes. That is, though it may pass a bad law, the law is unconstitutional.

The drug laws have no foundation in the powers granted the government through the document, thus they are illegitimate.

[_Only]

By your statement here, it is safe to assume that you have never read the US Constitution and are completely unfamiliar with the legal principles it contains.

Were you to study that document, you would discover that the government CANNOT pass any old law it wishes. That is, though it may pass a bad law, the law is unconstitutional.

The drug laws have no foundation in the powers granted the government through the document, thus they are illegitimate.

Ah, okay, I'll turn my cheek on that insult calling me unintelligent/ignorant, and ask exactly what is unconstitutional about the law of not being able to steal medical drugs for patients, to use for recreation. Or are you saying since it isn't mentioned or made clear in the Constitution, that it is illegitimate? I was under the impression (from reading the Constitution various times for various reasons *gasp*) that the power to create laws was firmly put in the hands of the Congress, and they can very well "pass any old law they wish", as long as they upheld the rules set in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

So I guess that leaves me to ask again, where has this law gone against anything set by the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights?

[F3SS]

OC's are terrible. I have lost employees to them. Those employees stole from me and my customers(right from custiomers medicine cabinet) and other employees. Those addicts lost their friends, jobs, money and diginity. They sunk to lows once reserved for coke-heads and heroin addicts. Pills suck. I've never seen such deciet and fiendish behavior as I have seen with OC addicts. It was an epidemic with people I knew a few years ago.

I don't know those people anymore.

[Babe Ruth]

Ah, okay, I'll turn my cheek on that insult calling me unintelligent/ignorant, and ask exactly what is unconstitutional about the law of not being able to steal medical drugs for patients, to use for recreation. Or are you saying since it isn't mentioned or made clear in the Constitution, that it is illegitimate? I was under the impression (from reading the Constitution various times for various reasons *gasp*) that the power to create laws was firmly put in the hands of the Congress, and they can very well "pass any old law they wish", as long as they upheld the rules set in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

So I guess that leaves me to ask again, where has this law gone against anything set by the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights?

My apologies. No insult was intended.

In short, the Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government. It was created by We The People, and the various States. Those powers are found mostly in Article I Section 8, but also in other parts of the document. They are specific powers.

No place in the document is the government empowered to tell the citizen what he may, or may not ingest. It is none of the government's business what the citizen puts into his own body.

The government IS empowered to regulate commerce, and that is a legitmate function of government. Thus, regulation of the purity and dosage of drugs is a legitimate function of government, and I'm all for it.

But the government has no power to tell the citizen how, when or what he may consume.

I agree completely with IS IT FOR REAL regarding certain pills. As far as I'm concerned, responsible corporate leadership would require that OC and maybe a few others should be withdrawn from the market. In the absence of responsible corporate leadership, the government should step in under the regulation of commerce power and order that those harmful substances be withdrawn from the market.

The government did exactly that back in the 80's with the drug Quaalude, which was too prone to abuse. Society was protected, and consumers in need of sleep preparations had to use other products. It worked fine.

Having used it myself, morphine is a very effective pain killer. It's been around for centuries. Though it too is easily abused by some, it's not as bad as what has happened with OC and certain others.

[jugoso]

Powerful but misleading marketing that for years pushed the highly addictive painkiller OxyContin has left potentially tens of thousands of Canadians with the burden of addiction

In 2007, three executives with the American branch of Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty in a U.S. federal court to misleading regulators and an unsuspecting public about risk of addiction to OxyContin. The firm agreed to pay more than $600 million in civil and criminal fines.

OxyContin sales in Canada nevertheless rocketed to more than $240 million in 2010 from $3 million in 1996

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/03/08/oxycontin-marketing.html

Methadone requests spike after OxyContin delisting

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/03/07/toronto-oxycontin-oxyneo-methadone-requests.html

The CBC's The Fifth Estate full investigation into OxyContin will air tonight at (Mar. 9) at 9 p.m. on CBC-TV and will be rebroadcast on CBC News Network.

Edited March 9, 2012 by jugoso