18 replies to this topic

[jugoso]

Quote

"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/ne...ormulation.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/ne...g-shortage.html

Heroin anyone?

Edited by jugoso, 28 February 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[jugoso]

I also find this interesting and surprising

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...use-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]

jugoso, on 28 February 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

"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 by Jerry Only, 29 February 2012 - 07:36 PM.

[jugoso]

Jerry Only, on 29 February 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

That type of painkiller doesn't exist.

Well, apparently it did back in 1995.

[Babe Ruth]

jugoso, on 28 February 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ormulation.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/ne...g-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.  

[P4UL N0153]

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]

Mr. Scratch, on 01 March 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

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]

Mr. Scratch, on 01 March 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

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]

Babe Ruth, on 01 March 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

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]

Jerry Only, on 01 March 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

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]

Jerry Only, on 01 March 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

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.