Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OxyContin's 12-hour problem

static.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 376 posts

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#271

Post by aucremanne »

cant_kant wrote: post #260

Sensible doctors do not believe drug company marketing. I get large amounts of ad-junk from drug companies that ends up unread in the bin. I refuse to meet with drug company representatives. I smile politely at them if I bump into them in the corridor and suggest that they leave their ad-junk with my secretary. My staff then file their ad-junk in the trash bin. On Friday, I had a drug company representative attempt t…

Have you read about ULDN? I know some addicts who've had a lot of success keeping tolerance down with this method.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#272

Post by marincounty »

DanBC wrote: post #255
MichaelGG wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't understate the "do not do crime". I've known addicts and the biggest damage they cause (apart from dying when they OD on unknown-quality junk) is that they become thieves and liars. No one trusts them and it tears relationships apart. Both are fixed by having more legal availability. If they were simply able to get opiate as easily as pot, then addicts for the most part would be just like potheads. Perhaps bein…

> With proper availability, opiates are very well tolerated. This just is not true. With proper availability people develop tolerance, and require higher doses. That does becomes high enough to become dangerous, and so they need to change to a different, stronger opiate. They develop a tolerance to that too. Eventually they're cycling through 2 or three different opiates (sometimes at the same time) at very high dose…

There are multiple, large studies of rest home patients on opoids.

The conclusion, patients did not build up a tolerance.

(I know Dr. Dean Edell cited these studies many times, when he was on the air. He wasen't the typical media Doctor.)

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#273

Post by mookerific »

ctingom wrote: post #267
Cakez0r wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Make it illegal to advertise or market any drug that requires a prescription.

What about the first amendment?

What about it? Not all speech is protected and there is a case to be made of the harm such speech poses. This is why we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#274

Post by roywiggins »

ctingom wrote: post #267
Cakez0r wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Make it illegal to advertise or market any drug that requires a prescription.

What about the first amendment?

You can almost certainly restrict it on public broadcast TV, which would be a good start. The FCC has pretty broad powers to regulate broadcast TV and radio compared to other kinds of speech. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Decisions_of...

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#275

Post by stryk »

MichaelGG wrote: post #252
capote wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it's a good thing. It means people that are addicted (by choice or not) don't need to resort to crime or desperation to buy essential medicines. This seems twisted to me. Okay, so they don't do crime, but they get their stuff easier and stay addicted/get worse/die. Isn't it best to eliminate the motivation for doctors to overprescribe, but still force people to see their doctors for a fix? This way maybe the do…

Don't understate the "do not do crime". I've known addicts and the biggest damage they cause (apart from dying when they OD on unknown-quality junk) is that they become thieves and liars. No one trusts them and it tears relationships apart. Both are fixed by having more legal availability. If they were simply able to get opiate as easily as pot, then addicts for the most part would be just like potheads. Perhaps bein…

"Being addicted, by itself, is not a big deal." - As someone with an en extensive amount of first-hand knowledge, I disagree very very much. It is in fact so big of a deal that it becomes your one and only deal.

The worst part is, if you use opiates for a long period of time consistently - you WILL become reliant upon them. Your body will be chained to them, physically dependent, and I don't care who you are, where you come from, or how much money you have. 100% of the time, no exceptions willpower be damned.

And as far as using opiates as a means to heal emotional pain and depression? That's is possibly the worst idea ever. You're flat out asking for a long, long slow death in which you probably kill yourself in the end anyway but in the meantime you disappoint anyone who has ever cared about you even slightly.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#276

Post by MichaelGG »

stryk wrote: post #275
MichaelGG wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't understate the "do not do crime". I've known addicts and the biggest damage they cause (apart from dying when they OD on unknown-quality junk) is that they become thieves and liars. No one trusts them and it tears relationships apart. Both are fixed by having more legal availability. If they were simply able to get opiate as easily as pot, then addicts for the most part would be just like potheads. Perhaps bein…

"Being addicted, by itself, is not a big deal." - As someone with an en extensive amount of first-hand knowledge, I disagree very very much. It is in fact so big of a deal that it becomes your one and only deal. The worst part is, if you use opiates for a long period of time consistently - you WILL become reliant upon them. Your body will be chained to them, physically dependent, and I don't care who you are, where y…

Well I guess we have two different sets of people and experience then. I've seen people do rather successfully in business, all while using opiates on the side. (I've seen a few people die too, but that was pretty much caused by illegal supply and lack of regulation/QC.) The actual addiction part, without supply constraints, becomes very, very simple logistics.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#277

Post by andrepd »

ctingom wrote: post #267
Cakez0r wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Make it illegal to advertise or market any drug that requires a prescription.

What about the first amendment?

What about it? I can't show pornography on TV or slander someone on a newspaper and call freedom of speech.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#278

Post by Kalium »

mookerific wrote: post #273
ctingom wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the first amendment?

What about it? Not all speech is protected and there is a case to be made of the harm such speech poses. This is why we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

The bar for prior restraint based on content is pretty high. I believe it's "clear and present danger". You're likely to have a difficult time making the case that ads for allergy medications present a clear and present danger.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#279

Post by BurningFrog »

Cakez0r wrote: post #262
siliconc0w wrote: post #163

Armchair Policy Wonk: * Make FDA approval double blind. Can't bribe who you can't see. * Before starting a study, if you want to include it with a future application you need to register it. All registered studies need to be included with an application. Can't cherry pick studies. * You may only use approved claims stated in the application in marketing or product descriptions. (which I thought was already the case)

* Make it illegal to advertise or market any drug that requires a prescription.

The argument for these ads is that many conditions are very undermedicated. People don't know they have treatable conditions and suffer needlessly.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#280

Post by BurningFrog »

stryk wrote: post #275
MichaelGG wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't understate the "do not do crime". I've known addicts and the biggest damage they cause (apart from dying when they OD on unknown-quality junk) is that they become thieves and liars. No one trusts them and it tears relationships apart. Both are fixed by having more legal availability. If they were simply able to get opiate as easily as pot, then addicts for the most part would be just like potheads. Perhaps bein…

"Being addicted, by itself, is not a big deal." - As someone with an en extensive amount of first-hand knowledge, I disagree very very much. It is in fact so big of a deal that it becomes your one and only deal. The worst part is, if you use opiates for a long period of time consistently - you WILL become reliant upon them. Your body will be chained to them, physically dependent, and I don't care who you are, where y…

I am 100% reliant upon, chained to, and physically dependent on both water and oxygen.

But since they are cheaply and abundantly available, I can live a full happy life anyway.

Post reply on HN