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

301–310 of 376 posts

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#301

Post by vasilipupkin »

saulrh wrote: post #69
alttab wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to look at it was in working with Purdue, he was able to demonstrate his ability to define and walk around FDA approvals by understanding and guiding product language to get approval. This is a valuable skill. Purdue probably wanted someone like that on their product development team who could influence drug design early on which would make it less costly and more efficient to get drugs approved in the fu…

> Another way to look at it was in working with Purdue, he was able to demonstrate his ability to define and walk around FDA approvals by understanding and guiding product language to get approval. Isn't subverting the system like that almost as improper as doing it from the other side? Not as obviously, possibly not as strongly, but from having been in research myself, knowing the little details like that is often g…

another way of looking at it is, working at the FDA means he is capable and qualified individual. Why would a pharmaceutical company not hire him? Let's not put 100% confidence level into guilt by insinuation. Did he do something specifically improper?

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#302

Post by stryk »

BurningFrog wrote: post #297
stryk wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry I don't understand your point? I mean, heroin is cheap and abundantly available.

My point is that there is nothing inherently bad about being reliant upon, chained to, and physically dependent on a substance.

Couldn't the opposite be said as well? Isn't being completely bound by ANY substance at all, be it air or narcotics or whatever, inherently a negative? Reliance on oxygen makes the whole space thing difficult, chained to opiates makes you a monster, etc.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#303

Post by stryk »

MichaelGG wrote: post #300
stryk wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those logistics are not as simple as it may seem. 2 bags of dope/pills/caps/doses a day becomes 3, 4, 6, 8 twice a day + 9 on Sundays. Happens to everyone given a long enough usage period. There's that proverbial slippery slope there, and once you're over the hump it's checkmate. Wait until something happens to these successful folks - and it will. there's a weak link somewhere in the chain and when it breaks they wi…

And what is "acting like every other junkie" mean? Göring was a morphine user for what, 2 decades? Didn't stop him from becoming extremely powerful (misguided, but he accomplished a lot).

I mean the guys who are successful you mentioned, i assume they have nice jobs, families, maybe children -- the good stuff. Once shit hits the fan and they get a taste of dopesickness they will ignore all of that, the drug becomes priority #1 hell with everything else. Then they will do whatever and screw over whoever to fix the link of the chain that broke (ie, where to get them or how to pay for them, how to hide it, or whatever the problem may be) just like every other junkie. You will eventually look in their eyes and see nothing, like every other junkie. It's a short ride from having it all to having nowhere to sleep.

It's a cycle and story told time and time again. If your friends want to stay successful and keep the good stuff in their lives they should get off the shit is all i'm saying. That's nowhere near easy to do, but it's gotta be done or they will crash & burn. Opiates don't really cure the pain anyway, just mask it.

Goring had the advantage of being in a prominent position close to the leader before he got hooked and fell off. I'm sure any other lower nazi officer would've been cast off if they weren't buddies with the fuhrer. He also was in the advantageous (but bad) position of being able to tell his doctor "you're going to give me this dope when i ask for it or i'm going to toss you in the fucking oven"

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#304

Post by capote »

BurningFrog wrote: post #297
stryk wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry I don't understand your point? I mean, heroin is cheap and abundantly available.

My point is that there is nothing inherently bad about being reliant upon, chained to, and physically dependent on a substance.

We're not talking about inherent bad, or about oxygen. We're talking about addiction to opiates, which ruins lives and kills people.

I've seen it first hand. Stop this nonsense.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#305

Post by capote »

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…

Even with heroin being illegal, I've seen people get it without a problem. They have to resort to no crime to get it other than getting it itself being a crime. But this hurts no one.

What hurts people isn't getting it, it's what they do as addicts. Throw their lives away, resorting to crime to live day to day, get housing and food… They partly ruin the lives of those close to them too.

Legalization would do nothing to help this, it would just hurt a little. They'd get it a bit easier, but since they didn't resort to violent crime to get it in the first place it would be meaningless. The crime and disaster they cause after getting it and becoming addicted would remain.

But like you said in the other branch, we have seen different people and have had different experiences.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#306

Post by _acme »

goldenkey wrote: post #225
oxide wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, opiates can ruin lives. That is not the trump card you want it to be, sorry. If anything, the pushback against opiate prescribing has resulted in a lot of dependent patients (and addicted abusers) looking at heroin as a more potent, widely available, cheaper alternative. opiates have been around a long time for a good reason. they can give an unrivaled increase in the quality of life of those suffering. there wi…

As someone who has chronic pain, tapentadol has been a godsend for me. Its an opioid which also has norepinephrine agonist effects to help reduce pain in a multi mechanistic way. It was developed as a 2nd generation version of Tramadol, which is also a very amazing drug. Tapentadol is brand name Nucynta and cost 1500 for a 30 day supply compared with morphine at My energy levels and ability to be active during an ent…

To counter your anecdote, tapentadol (Nucynta) leaves me extremely foggy and out of it at doses below the required dose for pain relief -- far loopier than hydrocodone, oxycodone or oxymorphone.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#307

Post by stryk »

maxerickson wrote: post #270
stryk wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a fixed-dose combination of oxycodone and naloxone" That sounds similar to Suboxone, just with OxyCodone instead of Buprenorphine (i think they also make bup. minus the naloxone under the brand name Subutex). The naloxone mixture never quite made sense to me. Isn't that counter-productive? Is naloxone (aka "Narcan") not an opioid-antagonist at low doses or something?

The naloxone is not well absorbed when taken orally. It's in the Suboxone to deter injection. This marketing says it's in the Targin to reduce constipation: http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/targin/36704/

I see. I didn't know that, that's interesting. Question you may be able to answer: The naloxone/Narcan sticks that EMTs and some police have, they also pass them out at needle exchanges, etc. is that why are those applied in the nasal passage?

I'm a layman, but if i'm guessing right the term for this might be 'bioavailability' of the drug, is that correct? for example drug A may be absorbed faster and more easily through the digestive system over snorting. And then of course IV is the quickest way for just about anything, yea?

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#308

Post by ascorbic »

BurningFrog wrote: post #280
stryk wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Alcohol is cheap, legal and abundantly available, and plenty of addicts destroy the lives of themselves and others around them. One part of it is true though: legalisation does reduce crime dramatically. You don't hear of alcoholics breaking into houses to feed their habit.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#309

Post by ascorbic »

gregd wrote: post #88
pstuart wrote: post #87

It will be interesting to see how well CBD (Cannabidiol) based medications work once the doors open to prescribed usage on a national scale.

I'm pretty sure that big Pharma is scared to death that it's efficacy will prove to be very high.

Why? They'd do the same as they do with all, effective but off-patent drugs: produce patented variants (e.g. Modified release, like in this example, or combinations with other drugs) and market the hell out of them.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#310

Post by BurningFrog »

capote wrote: post #304
BurningFrog wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that there is nothing inherently bad about being reliant upon, chained to, and physically dependent on a substance.

We're not talking about inherent bad, or about oxygen. We're talking about addiction to opiates, which ruins lives and kills people. I've seen it first hand. Stop this nonsense.

Opiate specific arguments could be reasonable.

But the post I responded had no such arguments.

Post reply on HN