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

Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

paleonu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#41

Post by zalew »

jberryman wrote: post #38

He mentions denatured alcohol which has been around for a century and includes chemicals to make it toxic or foul tasting. He doesn't mention that during prohibition, the government attempted to discourage the redistilling of industrial alcohol by adding poison or upping the concentration of toxic denaturing chemicals, killing thousands of Americans. http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/ Edit: I'm not sure what the entire…

> "Denatured" implies there has been some chemical alteration of the alcohol, but in fact it is just intentionally contaminated with toxic solvents like methanol or acetone.

That's not true anymore, at least in Poland and probably other eastern European (heavy drinking) countries. Due to denaturate usage by very poor alcoholics (they drink it through a slice of bread to filter the taste-altering substances), it's no longer intoxinated with deadly liquids.

So it seems our alcohol regulators understood the issue described in the article many years before.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#42

Post by defilade »

arn wrote: post #33
kennywinker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is saying acetaminophen is ineffective, just that it's effects come with hepatotoxicity. A larger dosage of hydrocodone could have the same net analgesic effect without the huge negative effects.

"Nobody is saying acetaminophen is ineffective" Actually, the linked article is saying exactly that: "I remember being annoyed that in order to get narcotic pain relief I was being forced to take a hepatotoxin that added little to the pain relieving efficacy of the opiate."

It was ineffective for the author of the article. That doesn't mean it's ineffective for everyone.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#44

Post by swift »

cynicalkane wrote: post #29
Alex3917 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is almost a Godwin, but much more silly." You want me to link to the obituaries? Almost 1 in 3 Americans die from drug use or drug-related causes, and I really don't find that silly at all. 500,000 from tobacco and second-hand smoke. 106,000 from adverse reactions to prescription drugs in hospitals. 85,000 from alcohol and alcohol-related fatalities. 17,000 from illicit drugs. 7,500 from NSAIDs. 4,000 from HIV…

You just said there was a government campaign to poison the elderly . Your words. Instead of trying to back up this ridiculous assertion--which you can't--you trot out all these statistics about drugs that are not Vicodin, as if you think that's relevant. Then you equate this with the Holocaust! The Holocaust, man! The fact that people die from tobacco smoke every year is comparable to the Holocaust! This doesn't eve…

It's unpleasant for me to watch you willfully misunderstand Alex3917 with such vitriol.

It was clear to me from the beginning that he didn't mean the government literally had a campaign to poison the elderly, but rather, that that is the effect of poorly thought out, vindictive policies that the government has instituted. It's hard for me to understand how you could have misunderstood this.

You make such a big deal about his comparison of the death toll to that of the Holocaust, even though it was YOU, not he, who first brought the Holocaust up via your invocation of Godwin's Law.

Your refusal to address the assertion that addiction has nothing to do with the molecule is well advised, since you clearly didn't take the time to understand it. You may agree or disagree with his point, but it would be better to at least look at the links he provided before commenting; the second in particular, a study from Kaiser Permanente that discusses the origins of addiction, should make clear what he was talking about.

It's your final paragraph, though, that motivated me to write this reply. You find Alex3917 "offensive" and "disgusting"? What I find offensive and disgusting is dragging a controversial but interesting line of discussion down to the level of ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, and deliberate misrepresentation of others' positions. That's not the kind of thing I come to this site hoping to read.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#45

Post by tedunangst »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #24
cynicalkane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they're just propaganda to support what is essentially a government campaign to poison the elderly and chronic pain patients. The government is trying to murder the elderly with drug programs? This is almost a Godwin, but much more silly.

Its not at all silly. Its an example of the law of untended consequences. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unintended_co... The intent isn't to "poison the elderly and chronic pain patients" but it is the effect, and has been going on long enough, that like all the other unintended consequences of TWOD, are ignored by the Federal bureaucracy that benefits from it.

Funny how "unintended consequences" and "government campaign to poison the elderly" evoke different emotional responses.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#46

Post by tomjen3 »

code_duck wrote: post #9

One alternative he doesn't mention is Vicoprofen, which contains ibuprofen rather than acetaminophen.

That's not really worth posting, since it is also toxic.

We need something that can remove the toxins from the drug and the politicians from any power they have in this world.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#47

Post by roel_v »

swift wrote: post #44
cynicalkane wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just said there was a government campaign to poison the elderly . Your words. Instead of trying to back up this ridiculous assertion--which you can't--you trot out all these statistics about drugs that are not Vicodin, as if you think that's relevant. Then you equate this with the Holocaust! The Holocaust, man! The fact that people die from tobacco smoke every year is comparable to the Holocaust! This doesn't eve…

It's unpleasant for me to watch you willfully misunderstand Alex3917 with such vitriol. It was clear to me from the beginning that he didn't mean the government literally had a campaign to poison the elderly, but rather, that that is the effect of poorly thought out, vindictive policies that the government has instituted. It's hard for me to understand how you could have misunderstood this. You make such a big deal a…

"It was clear to me from the beginning that he didn't mean the government literally had a campaign to poison the elderly,"

Well if that was his intent, then why did he write the literal opposite? It's quite easy to see why: it was to evoke an emotional response, to use grandiose sensationalist claims to either get people to read his comments or to back up or reaffirm his radical ideological standpoints. That's not the sort of thing I come to this site hoping to read. The point is that some policy decision have adverse effect; that fine, and exposing the exact mechanics is often enlightening. Phrasing it as 'oh we're being oppressed! We're living in the Maxtrix/1984!' is plain stupid.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#48

Post by Gatsky »

sguelich wrote: post #25

Sad to see an HN thread full of conspiracy theories and so little actual science. Believe it or not, acetaminophen is an effective analgesic, and combined with hydrocodone it provides synergistic pain relief without any increase in side effects over the use of either agent alone. Here's a peer-reviewed 1980 study from the UK showing just that: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1430165/ Private drug companie…

A study on post-partum pain from the 1980s?

Try this one, a meta-analysis from 2000 on post-op pain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796810

Acetaminophen is effective. Most professional guidelines on analgesia recommend the use of acetaminophen in addition to opioid analgesia.

The useful and perhaps unique thing about acetaminophen among pain killers is that it is well tolerated. Almost everybody from little kids to the very elderly can down acetaminophen without too many problems. This is certainly not the case with opioids. Dizziness, lightheadedness, feeling spaced out, nausea, vomiting, constipation, allergic reactions are not uncommon with these compounds, not to mention variability in effectiveness.

It is true that the majority of acetaminophen overdoses are accidental, which suggests that there is a major problem with how we distribute and use this drug. However most health professionals would take issue with describing it as a hepatotoxin. The large number of ER visits etc reflects the widespread use and easy availability of paracetamol. For example, where I work, there are at least as many presentations due to alcohol abuse (which is also available 'over the counter') as there are for paracetamol.

The funny thing about the article that triggered this thread is that your well-educated person with post-op pain is probably the ideal group to be using acetaminophen and opioid combinations.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#49

Post by zurn »

zalew wrote: post #41
jberryman wrote: post #38

He mentions denatured alcohol which has been around for a century and includes chemicals to make it toxic or foul tasting. He doesn't mention that during prohibition, the government attempted to discourage the redistilling of industrial alcohol by adding poison or upping the concentration of toxic denaturing chemicals, killing thousands of Americans. http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/ Edit: I'm not sure what the entire…

> "Denatured" implies there has been some chemical alteration of the alcohol, but in fact it is just intentionally contaminated with toxic solvents like methanol or acetone. That's not true anymore, at least in Poland and probably other eastern European (heavy drinking) countries. Due to denaturate usage by very poor alcoholics (they drink it through a slice of bread to filter the taste-altering substances), it's no…

Other way around here in Finland: in mid-90s, on joining the EU, their free market regulations dictated lethal denaturation agents could no longer be banned by national regulations, and deaths of destitute alcoholics spiked.

(reference in finnish medical journal, google translate might work: http://tinyurl.com/6h5gf5o)

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#50

Post by Alex3917 »

tokenadult wrote: post #39
Alex3917 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Believe me when I say that if pot did all of the things you claim..." Reality has a well known liberal bias. "...I'd be in perfect health." You get different benefits depending the quantity and method of consumption, so if you're just using it recreationally you're not going to see most (or any) of those benefits.

Citing Wikipedia for medical information on pot makes clear what kind of research process is necessary to conclude that pot is beneficial, which is not the conclusion of most people who have done the most careful research. (I'm a wikipedian, and I'm painfully aware of the research standards on the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.)

I never cited Wikipedia on pot, I cited the Wikipedia summary of the research on tylenol-- after already linking to the most important of the original journal articles.

I also never claimed that smoking an ounce a week recreationally is a great idea, all I claimed was that you can potentially receive the benefits listed if you're using the proper dosage and method of ingestion.

What I did do however was to link to several hundred pages of academic journal articles about the medical properties and health effects of cannabis. So I don't see how you can believe that "people who study the issue carefully have come to the opposite conclusion" or whatever.

Post reply on HN