Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Overdose Deaths in 2017 • Hacker News Board

Re: Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Overdose Deaths in 2017

#211

Post by ekianjo » Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 1:33 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #60

ekianjo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the end of the day doctors are the only ones holding the pen to write prescriptions, no matter how you look at things.

That's somehow like saying: the guy in the store that sold the weapon is solely responsible for a killing with the same gun.

No, it's not the same thing at all. I'm not saying doctors are causing overdoses. I was answering the previous comment putting the blame on pharma companies mainly, which is ridiculous because doctors are the only ones who are able to prescribe anything. The fact that they let themselves be corrupted by pharma companies is totally THEIR responsibility.

Re: Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Overdose Deaths in 2017

#212

Post by armitron » Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

tigershark wrote: post #149

armitron wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your hypothesis is entirely wrong. Overdoses happen because desperate people get their drugs from the black market where purity fluctuates. Read the article again. Fentanyl getting mixed into heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine. This is what kills people, not some mystical property of "opioids" that makes people consume more and more. The US has a well-documented, multi-year history of legalized Opium (and later) her…

It’s incredible how every time there is a discussion over opioid mortality there are people saying that it is the same as alcohol or tobacco and eulogise the functioning heroin addicts...

Read what I wrote again, carefully this time before you jump to conclusions. Consuming Opium is arguably a lot less harmful in terms of OD deaths/cancer/accidents than black market "opioids"/alcohol/tobacco. This is historic fact, as we have hundreds of years of extensive Opium use to inform us. People didn't suddenly drop dead when they smoked refined Chinese/Indian Opium. They kept their habits for decades. Addiction was also mostly limited to the lower-classes that did not have the means to smoke high-quality Opium ("chandu") and smoked the "dross" or lower quality Opium that was heavily morphine-ladden.

Opium is not heroin but nevertheless, I'd go as far as claim that consuming pharmaceutical-grade heroin, as has been done legally for decades in the US in the past [1], does not lead to a massive increase in OD deaths. Addiction, sure, but again people don't drop like flies. Historic fact.

"Opioid" mortality has nothing to do with consuming Opium or pharma-grade legalized heroin, and everything to do with synthetic chemicals controlled by drug cartels, black markets and varying, unpredictable street substance purity.

[1] http://old.puaro.lv/media/images/Dzeltena_zemudene/nar3.gif

Re: Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Overdose Deaths in 2017

#213

Post by cleong » Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #198

dragontamer wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stopping drug overdoses is popular across the board, but some of the tactics to accomplish that are not. We aren’t even at step zero, pretending to give a shit at the national level. We are at step zero, which is we have the capability of measuring the problem. Lets be frank: there is plenty of people who care, and those people are providing those measurements (CDC analyzing death certificates, especially for Opioi…

There are huge political headwinds, namely, that the party in charge of all three branches of government considers drug addiction to be a moral failing, not a disease. They are not willing to decriminalize drugs and pay for treatment programs -- they would rather continue the draconian approach of locking up anyone found to be in possession. Look at how much they are already railing against marijuana legalization, sa…

Decriminalization of drugs is not the only solution out there. See Singapore, Japan etc.

Re: Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Overdose Deaths in 2017

#214

Post by sangnoir » Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 4:57 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #107

stef25 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The doctors. Anyone who spends the better part of a decade studying medicine can't be ignorant about opioids and addiction, regardless of what the slimy Purdue representative tells them. The only excuse they have for the blatant over prescribing of opioids (2 months worth of oxy for getting wisdom teeth pulled kind of thing) is that if they don't do it, the patient will just go to another doctor. But how can you just…

> What the patient seeks is irrelevant. The only one who decides what prescriptions a patient should take is a doctor. That kind of rubs me the wrong way, but I'm not sure why. I like having the option of overriding the doctor if I disagree.

> That kind of rubs me the wrong way, but I'm not sure why. I like having the option of overriding the doctor if I disagree.

If you're American - my guess is it is cultural: you don't want someone else making decisions for you, rather, they should be making suggestions and you have the final say. American culture extolls autonomy/individualism.

I think this is explains some of the differences between the US and other developed countries when it comes to drug abuse and over-prescription. In the US, the doctors tend to defer to the patient on what's good for them more than elsewhere, especially around pain management.

Re: Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Overdose Deaths in 2017

#215

Post by austincheney » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 10:50 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #210

austincheney wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then you said a particular stimulant is not physically addictive without additional behaviours I very clearly did not say that and expounded on it in pretty good detail. Again, cigarettes are not nicotine.

> I very clearly did not say that and expounded on it in pretty good detail. Again, cigarettes are not nicotine. But that is the main addictive chemical within them, and you tried to make some sort of distinction that it was unusual that addiction was dependent on circumstance for cigarettes and nicotine as compared to other things you consider, wrongly, to be immediately addictive. You also said this - > it isn't th…

> that much is immediately obvious

In science nothing is obvious and everything is open to scrutiny. Obvious is synonymous with oblivious or foolishness.

> Which is just bollocks.

Why? Blaming only the stimulus and simultaneously ignoring identified behaviors is not scientific. There is more to addiction than that. It also suggests the addict isn't not an important part of addressing or curing addiction.

> It's your wide categorising and weird ideas about addiction that are unsupported.

Everything you have said to me hinges on your claims of "obviousness" and emotional distress at broad categorization. Unfortunately, you don't describe either in any meaningful way.

Re: Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Overdose Deaths in 2017

#216

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 1:38 AM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #169

toomuchtodo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can totally appreciate this. As an American though, I have gone around my doctor and ordered prescription medications online when they would not prescribe them (ivermectin, anti-parisital, non-controlled substances, almost zero risk to myself if my diagnosis was inaccurate).

Could you email me (in profile) which sites you've used? Would love to pick up non controlled stuff online but the sites are all shady.

Unfortunately, this was almost 6 years ago, and I don't recall the site I used. My apologies!

Re: Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Overdose Deaths in 2017

#217

Post by Nursie » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 9:39 AM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #215

Nursie wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I very clearly did not say that and expounded on it in pretty good detail. Again, cigarettes are not nicotine. But that is the main addictive chemical within them, and you tried to make some sort of distinction that it was unusual that addiction was dependent on circumstance for cigarettes and nicotine as compared to other things you consider, wrongly, to be immediately addictive. You also said this - > it isn't th…

> that much is immediately obvious In science nothing is obvious and everything is open to scrutiny. Obvious is synonymous with oblivious or foolishness. > Which is just bollocks. Why? Blaming only the stimulus and simultaneously ignoring identified behaviors is not scientific. There is more to addiction than that. It also suggests the addict isn't not an important part of addressing or curing addiction. > It's your…

> Why? Blaming only the stimulus and simultaneously ignoring identified behaviors is not scientific.

Nobody's doing that. Nobody is ignoring that behavioural factors contribute to addiction.

But you are making weird unscientific claims and spouting utter nonsense like "it isn't the nicotine or its addictive effects that make cigarettes addictive"

I mean seriously, that's utter, utter nonsense that can't be dressed up scientifically in any way at all. Nicotine is highly addictive. Nicotine is addictive in cigarettes, in e-cigs, in snuss, chewing tobacco, gum, inhalers, patches, all forms that people take it. Yes, addiction to any of these has a social and psychological aspect as well as a variable physiological aspect depending on the individual.

But to claim that nicotine isn't what makes cigarettes addictive is so insanely far wrong that, really, it's just stupid and goes against the evidence on this subject.

> Everything you have said to me hinges on your claims of "obviousness" and emotional distress at broad categorization.

This is also wrong. I've pointed out that you are factually wrong in your categorisation of drugs into two groups, factually wrong in declaring that one group is magically instantly addictive and one not, I've explained to you that your ideas on cocaine were not only wrong but weren't supported by your source material.

The vast majority of what you have said has been just plain incorrect. This is not emotional distress - you just haven't got a clue, and you can't back up your weird assertions and distinctions with evidence.

What it seems like is that you empathise with addiction to stimulants, possibly having had experiences and addiction issues with them yourself. But you don't empathise with people who use what you call depressants. You're taking subjective judgements and unscientific ideas and trying to dress them up or justify them as scientific.