Unless you’re being sarcastic and referencing the lies the Sackler family used to get OxyContin popular..
That being said it is indeed quite cool that they modified the drug to decrease the respiratory depression.
We get another "morphine, but safe this time" in pretty reliable 40 year intervals. I guess someone decided OxyContin doesn't count and we are due for another one
Any kind of rational change in policy is not happening as long as entire lucrative industries of policing, health care and religion-as-a-social-service are dependent on the dependent.
I'm curious about this sentence -- to what are you referring, and where specifically in Europe?
The government‘s not passing out drugs in the street, like US media likes to suggest.
It isn't the same drug as fentanyl, but it never really stopped being the plan that we will take people from 'the list' and just keep metering opiates out indefinitely. GGP posted this in a way that seemed to allude this was not currently the case.
The temperance movement was mainly related to alcohol. There were groups who wanted abstinence from everything but that was not its primary focus. They may have played a part in said act but I don't know. They were definitely not the driving force behind it though. Racism played a bigger role than the temperance movement. The government was also aware there was a very real problem with drug addiction.
You might say they won't be able to sell enough foodstamps or welfare even then to come up with the money legally, but it'd still be way less crime.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#/media/Datei:Bayer_Hero...
0) Zero tolerance! We still remember how it ended last time!
1) But ... pain medication helps against anything. From headaches to hernia to bone cancer (of course in some cases it's in a "die somewhat dignified" sense). And in quite a few cases it's the only thing that helps ... In the medical sense of "helping", after all medicine can't make people live forever so that can't be the goal. The goal is better quality of life, ie. mostly longer life, including the ability to live (think "sing, dance and play tennis") ... and not life at any cost.
The problem here is that this is an entirely correct argument. Some diseases are either incredibly painful or long-term painful. Bone cancer or hernia can serve as examples. We cannot really help such people (by that I mean: not in a way that the pain stops). So can we at least make their life livable?
2) This pain medication sure helps these very seriously ill people well. But X suffering is at least as bad as bone cancer! X then is everything from still serious diseases, psychological suffering, and of course this then goes down and down until someone points out pain medication also helps existential dread and lackluster parties.
Again, all of that ... is true. That's not the problem.
3) The medication becomes the problem. Mostly because of what people do to get money for their fix (and the crime, prostitution, ... that it leads to). But this is not the only problem. It makes people who broke a bone last week go skiing again. And ... I'm almost afraid to say it but you can increase the effect of morphine ... by damaging yourself. You can guess how that ends.
The problem is that pain medication, irrespective of whether it's physically ("biologically") addictive is addictive. Anybody who's had a serious pain for a week, say kidney stones, knows that they would have sacrificed their favorite cat for it to stop. The problem is not just that morphine is addictive. The problem is the pain, and the fact that pain medication is a temporary non-fix.
4) The medication becomes the problem, but doesn't just affect patients. It goes from "you know this funny thing happened to my niece ... and she did it to herself ..." to it destroys families, neighborhoods, childhoods ...
Result: ONLY ONE SOLUTION! ZERO TOLERANCE!
GOTO 1.
* Herniated disk in the spine * A "hernia": is the abnormal exit of tissue or an organ, such as the bowel, through the wall of the cavity in which it normally resides.[
If you think of your abdomen as a bag full of tubes, a fistula is a hole in the tube that connects to something else. A hernia is a hole in the bag, that the tube can poke through.
Im guessing English isn't your first language? Fistel is not a commonly used term.
But on the other, non-sarcastic side... if addiction is the only remaining problem with them, should we care that much?
I.E. if both the chronic and acute health risks are gone (which I don't think they are for a second, but follow me along on this little thought experiment)... does it matter quite so much? Clearly addiction, in the abstract, is not exactly a good thing. But if it's not coupled to risk of death it seems to me it would be a great thing to transition addicted people to, and take away some of the urgency of the situation.
And I have opinions on nuclear energy - but neither of us are worth listening to outside our areas of expertise. Unless you can supply a reason I would bother listening to him as compared to an actual expert on the subject?
Because some dude with no health or nutrition background said uninformed things, that he isn't qualified to have opinions about, on the internet? Come on, now.
Have you _seen_ what the streets of major cities look like these days? Ever heard of "fent zombies"?
It was a thought experiment about addiction if the other negatives could be removed, I doubt we’re actually anywhere close to that anyway, but it might imply that zombification had been solved.
But there’s a whole space of harm-reduction before then, which is where things like the Swiss program to provide heroin in controlled circumstances can fit in.
An opioid without respiratory depresses on problems could fit into that sort of thing pretty well.
I think we should because it’s undignified to have people who want to stop taking them but are unable to resist the compulsion. I feel the same way about basically every addictive substance. Even if it was freely available and risk-free I still think that being trapped in a cycle of use and withdrawal is such an affront to someone’s dignity that we should still try to prevent that.
Any behavior or substance that causes serious addiction is still bad regardless of whether it causes death or other negative health effects. The addiction itself inherently causes suffering because the addict is engaging in something despite the negative consequences in the rest of their lives. The negative consequences cause suffering and the psychological pain of wanting to stop and not being able to stop also causes suffering.
I know some other commenters mentioned caffeine addiction but nicotine and opioids (and also behavioral addictions like gambling) are vastly more addictive than caffeine.
Negative consequences from addiction can involve more than loss of money (although loss of money is still a significant thing of course.) They can cause damage to one’s career, family relationships, friend relationships and so on. Even if the addictive behavior or substance has no other inherent negative health effects.
In high school I had a really bright and motivated friend. He went to an Ivy League school. He became horribly addicted to World of Warcraft as a freshman. He spent so much time playing the game that he damaged his grades and GPA. He almost failed out of school. He had to make serious effort to stay in school. And he had to spend tremendous mental effort to avoid playing additive games anymore. That’s just one example.