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

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#51

Post by Alex3917 »

tedunangst wrote: post #45
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. If people believe the government is doing something bad on purpose they'll make trouble, whereas if they believe the government is doing something bad by accident they'll stay home and keep beating off to Fox news.

Hence the Iraq war, public schools, war on drugs, crumbling infrastructure, farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, oil subsidies, health care system, prison system, food insecurity, etc.

Everyone wants to create laws based on 'intentions' and 'emotion', no one gives a shit about the evidence-based policies or bodies in the street.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#52

Post by Zakharov »

> Does anyone think cannabis is deadlier than Jim Beam?

I think the vast majority of the population of America thinks that, which is why cannabis is much more highly regulated. What he should have said was, "cannabis is less deadly than Jim Bean", and provided the evidence to back it up.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#53

Post by TGJ »

Zakharov wrote: post #52

> Does anyone think cannabis is deadlier than Jim Beam? I think the vast majority of the population of America thinks that, which is why cannabis is much more highly regulated. What he should have said was, "cannabis is less deadly than Jim Bean", and provided the evidence to back it up.

Then he basically turns into another pro-pot whackjob that the public ignores even if he is completely genuine and right.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#54

Post by cynicalkane »

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…

a government campaign to poison the elderly and chronic pain patients

the war on drugs is responsible for vastly more deaths than the holocaust

drug addiction has nothing to do with the molecule

The above are things I do not come to this site hoping to read. These statements are not only false, but false in a particularly childish, self-righteous way. To affirm them demands an incredible misreading, or misinterpretation of the facts.

I find your interpretation of Alex3917's posts remarkably generous. It's not a "strawman" if the argument is actually being stated. I do not have the psychic powers to try and make sense of someone's scientific beliefs--if he has any that are scientific--based on a link and a semantically invalid sentence. I do not have the patience to scientifically debate someone who cannot make himself understood, who has no sense of what facts are relevant. And I do not have the generosity to take such infantile writing and divine from it some hints of reason, as you have.

I understand your distaste for insult, but I think there is a place for calling out nonsense for what it is. This discussion which you so dislike would have not gotten so far were it not for upvotes and support directed at this garbage. You cannot, if you value thought, defend such noise pollution on a website that is ostensibly for discussion.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#55

Post by jbellis »

Gatsky wrote: post #48
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 kid…

Upvoted, but what TFA is claiming is that codine w/o acetaminophen is roughly as affective as the combination, which isn't addressed in that analysis.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#56

Post by beagle3 »

ThomPete wrote: post #43

In a hundred years from now. People will look back at the war on drugs and what else it's called in the various countries as a primitive and barbaric method.

You are aware that it is over 100 years now from the beginning of the war on recreative drug use? IIRC, the first restrictions were put in effect in the US in 1906.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#57

Post by duncanj »

defilade wrote: post #42
arn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

It's not like he did an n=1 study. He just assumed it wasn't going to work for him. My impression of the article, given that it doesn't really bring up data beyond the total number of acetaminophen-related cases of liver toxicity, is that the author believes he should be able to buy the drugs separately, and is denied this opportunity by the government. After that, he says everything he can to support his beliefs, and pooh-poohs arguments against it.

Oxycodone is a very good opioid and, if you aren't abusing it, it is affordable for most people, even if you don't have insurance (http://www.rxassist.org/Search/Prog_Details.cfm?program_Id=1...). But if you need it every day to support your habit, it's too expensive, so vicodin and its friends are the drugs of choice.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#58

Post by lotics2 »

Really glad to see the HN crowd knows what's up regarding the War on Drugs. If you want daily news on the subject, the best site I can suggest is http://drugwarrant.com. I've read this site obsessively for nearly two years, as it is hands down the best at what it does. Excellent writing with that goes beyond the media's lazy parroting of press releases without any thought or analysis.

You may also be surprised to learn that the Drug Czar and anyone who is funded by their office (such as researchers or propaganda campaigns) are legally required by law to oppose legalization of any Schedule 1 drug for any reason, even for medicinal use. Even in the face of obvious acceptance of medical use of cannabis (such as what the DEA is doing right now by rescheduling natural THC to the same position as synthetic THC) they must oppose giving up any ground or even stating that it might be a good idea. They have actively blocked attempts at research or rescheduling in an undemocratic way, which is why the issue is currently working out at the State level.

There are also some articles on this site that are widely regarded as the best pages to link to get people up to speed on the true nature of the war on drugs. May I suggest:

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal...

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-czar-required/

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/

Please, if you think this issue does not affect you, it does. Learn why you should oppose the war on drugs if you do not already.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#59

Post by morganw »

Gah! I shared my concern with APAP with me doctor and she prescribed Norco which has a higher hydrocodone to APAP ratio. Not sure it's still Schedule III in the USA, but if so, there ARE alternatives which Gregory House (who should be dead by now) and those concerned with liver failure deaths should know about.

Re: Acetaminophen and the War on Drugs (2009)

#60

Post by pharrington »

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…

Tobacco has nothing to do with controlled substances in the first place! Are you out of your mind?

Tobacco is regulated by the federal government. The only reason tobacco and alcohol aren't scheduled is because they are -explicitly designated in the Controlled Substances Act- to be regulated by existing commerce laws. To say tobacco has nothing to do with controlled substances is objectively false.

I won't even address the assertion that "addiction has nothing to do with the molecule". Since a drug consists entirely of molecules, your claim doesn't make semantic sense.

I'll address this for you. When people refer to something as addictive, they either mean a psychologically habit forming activity (psychological addiction) or a substance that causes withdrawal symptoms when the body abruptly stops receiving it (physical addiction).

Most of US drug policy, in particular the Controlled Substances Act, is designed to curb the abuse of recreational drugs. Does this sound like its addressing psychological addiction or physical addiction? Keep in mind that not only tobacco, but also alcohol, the only recreational drug those withdrawal symptoms are lethal, are deferred to other policies in the Controlled Substances Act.

So clearly, the statement "addiction has nothing to do with the molecule" is referring to psychological addiction. You assert this statement is false. You are saying that psychological addiction is directly related to the composition of the elements used in the addictive activity. To be consistent with this logic, you must also reject the following claims:

"gambling addiction has nothing to do with decks of playing cards"

"video game addiction has nothing to do with executable code"

"sex addiction has nothing to do with penises or vaginas"

Surely you must realize that the majority of people who try physically addictive substances do not end up addicted. It does not make sense to say the chemicals involved cause the addiction.

Post reply on HN