Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbbolton | Hacker News Reader

>The farmers apparently take the drug themselves, at pretty high dosages, saying that it allows them to work without getting tiree.

That's insane. Tramadol is among the worst painkillers to use recreationally, which is why it's often the next line of analgesic therapy after NSAIDs and before hydrocodone.

It is a comparatively weak mu-opioid agonist, so the dose a person would have to take to get a prototypical opioid high, likely quadruple a normal prescribed dose at minimum, is pushing the margin of safety.

I am not advocating drug use here, but if you're dead set on getting high, please use something else- namely something with a higher mu-affinity that would require a lower dose, and ideally something that's not combined with acetaminophen or other NSAIDs.

View on HN

It doesn't sound like they're trying to get high, per se, just work harder without feeling it. A "recreational" dose would probably interfere with getting work done.

Not necessarily. Opioids, like other euphoriants, are somewhat "stimulating" (mentally) in small doses.

I know they aren't just "trying to get high". The problem is that in order to get any psychotropic effects from Tramadol, the dose is so high that a lot of other really nasty effects will come with it. A 5mg dose of hydrocodone would accomplish the effect they are after with very little negative physical effects.

If they were just using it as an analgesic, which the article clearly indicated is not the case, it would be a different story.

Wouldn't Tramadol be classified as a psychotropic just by virtue of it inhibiting your central nervous system?

As someone who takes Tramadol for pain, it does have an odd effect when I'm tired: I find I become less tired, as if the Tramadol is making me ignore my fatigue. Oxycodone, on the other hand, causes me to be more drowsy. This might be what the farmers are talking about.

First of all, I didn't say that Tramadol was not a psychotropic. I said it was not a potent one.

Second, the definition you are describing is a depressant, not a psychotropic.

You can't be serious. Are you advocating hydrocodone here which has one of the highest potential for debilitating addiction, so much so actually that it is banned in many countries and no longer available for medical use?

I explicitly stated that I was not advocating drug use. What I am advocating, if you would actually bother read my comments, was that the farmers' dose and dose frequency are pushing the therapeutic window (i.e. it nears toxicity). Regularly taking a therapeutic-level dose of hydrocodone would not push that window.

If you think repeatedly taking extremely high doses of Tramadol is somehow safer than small doses of hydrocodone, then you're unbelievably ignorant.

As a side note, hydrocodone is one of the least potent mu-opioid antagonists, but it is more potent than Tramadol. That is the only reason I mentioned it by name.

And I take no stock in governmental drug laws with regard to pharmacology, so your mention of it being removed from medical use in a handful of countries means nothing to me.

This is not entirely true. Tramadol are often given in doses of 3x50 mg a day for pain relief. To a user with no tolerance, the most common lowest dose, i.e. 1x50 mg is certainly more than enough to give a euphoric feeling, ability to concentrate, stress relief and a whole range of other effects. Effects obviously can't be compared to "real" opiates, where the effect is much stronger and have more of a sedative effect. It should also be noted the effects vary quite a bit depending on the individual, i.e. some people don't have much of a reaction to Tramadol.

The article, and Zunger's G+ discussion as mentioned below, clearly established that they were taking very high doses.

That might be, but that's not relevant to the point of what dosage is necessary for a psychological effect.

Half right. They're using for the benefits you cite, but taking a much higher than indicated dose (based on Yonatan Zunger's fascinating G+ thread on this topic).

Presumably they are getting the drug from supplies meant for the cattle. It's not like they have a choice of drugs to use.

The article actually seemed to imply that the farmers started taking it first and thought (for some reason) that the cows might also benefit.

I just want to note that acetaminophen (paracetamol) is not an NSAID. As a haemophilia patient who can't take NSAIDs but can take acetaminophen, this is an important distinction for me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com