Live data from Hacker News

OxyContin's 12-hour problem

static.latimes.com

341–350 of 376 posts

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#341
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The bar for prior restraint on public airwaves is much lower. We'd be much better off if drug marketing were relegated to the shady corners of the internet for advertising.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and group you with every other dangerous anti-vaxxer: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/04/opinion/carroll-douglas-hpv-va... > Such cancer still causes the death of 4,000 women each year in the United States. It's estimated that about 15,000 HPV-associated cancers could be prevented each year by the vaccine. HPV is, unfortunately, often transmitted through sexual activity. It's the cause of genit…

And I'm going to group you in with the militant sheep that follow orders without questioning them. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

Ironic coming from someone who follows the anti-vax herd despite a raft of evidence to the contrary.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#343
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain more how competition, availability, and legality will stop the more addiction-prone (low-income, chronic pain among other health problem) parts of society in America from doing drugs and becoming addicted? If I read your argument correctly, it's that the pharma firms will not market it as much and not profit as much. In my mind that's not enough reasoning that people who simply have a bad situation wo…

Addicts are going to get fucked up on whatever they can find. If they can't find opiates or whatever, they're going to get fucked up on cough syrup, or booze or huffing paint or whatever. In general, though, addicts don't necessarily go straight to the hard stuff or inevitably to the hard stuff, if other options are available. Prohibition actually encourages people to go to the hardest purest forms, though. When you'…

> Addicts are going to get fucked up on whatever they can find. If they can't find opiates or whatever, they're going to get fucked up on cough syrup, or booze or huffing paint or whatever.

While this is reminiscent of something Matt Dillon's "shameless dopefiend" character from Drugstore Cowboy said, I'm not sure if this is true.

There is another thread of addiction research that establishes the notion of "addiction as self-medication," in which users seek the drugs that work to alleviate their symptoms, be they physical or psychological. Anecdotally, I've experimented with a lot of substances, and opioids are the only class of compounds that I have sampled that work for me.

In addition, while it's certainly true that, if you attach two acetyl groups to morphine you end up with something 2-3 times more potent by weight, I wonder if people's conception of the "hardness" of drugs is somewhat artificial.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#344

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…

Out of curiousity: how do you find out about new stuff then? I know there's a lot of messy incentives, but if a company wants to at least show that they have a new drug, how could they get you to read about it?

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#345
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Heroin isn't that cheap, and the availability is sporadic, if you take quality control into account. Factored into this is the legality aspect, meaning a patient might not be able to buy when the need arises. It should be as easy to get as alcohol or Tylenol. Look at the prices of morphine on goodrx: I don't think unlicensed manufacturers and retailers approach the low cost legit ones do.

I've enjoyed the discussion we've had here and in the other thread as well- and I mean no disrespect, but I take it that you're not used to the streets (if i've missed the mark, i apologize). It sounds like that world is unfamiliar to you - which isn't a bad thing, but in that underworld people don't think the same way. It also sounds like you're someone who has never experienced withdrawal symptoms of a severe opiate addiction (which is definitely not a bad thing). Legality isn't stopping anyone. There is not a dopefiend on the planet who, given the opportunity, wouldn't do just about anything for a fix in dire straits. It is that bad, regardless of your place in life or social status. I don't know if you are taking into account how incredibly easy it is to go from "i'm getting these from a doctor, and have a prescription" to shooting dope in places you wouldn't come within miles of otherwise.

Price - It depends on location and other factors, but i can tell you from personal experience that as a user, as far as pure numbers go, heroin ends up being much cheaper than prescription pills (which are the most popular form of opiates). it was pretty close in price on either coast and the midwest, in big cities and smaller towns. (except Florida, surprise! pills are dirt cheap there and it's deadly. there are pharmacies on top of pharmacies on top of shady doctors offices in Florida, it's like goddamn Mexico. not an exaggeration). I've been out of the game for a while, but I hear through the grapevine there are recent shifts in the market as Govt. officials crack down on Docs who they perceive as writing too many scripts. This immediately takes a major source of Rx meds out of the game, which is the ideal opportunity for heroin dealers to move in - and as soon as that happens, on day 0, it's too late to fix in the current system we have in place in the US.

Availability for 'street drugs' right now isn't really an issue in my experience. Opiate addicts are a subset within a subset of drug addicts and they tend to flock together. An addict of many years on the streets can spot another addict (or a corner boy) easily, and they all know where to go to get it.

There is also quality control on the streets, it's messed up but it's true and works: If a dealer sells a new batch to a group of 5 users and 3 of them overdose word will get around that it's killer shit and then that's what all the other users WANT because they figure it's potent. I've seen dealers with Narcan nose injections on them at all times, specifically with the intention of saving a dope fiend's life when they OD just so he goes out and tells the other users it's good shit. Then he can either cut it to stretch it out and make more money, or continue giving out the goods to build loyal clientele.

The converse of that works as well, if you sell a faulty product then you become the LAST option on the addict's go-to list. The fact that someone who sells a faulty product intentionally is even still on the list at all is a testament to how fucked up opiate addiction is.

And I'm all for legalizing, controlling, and even taxing weed (for recreation and ESPECIALLY medicinally) -- but if heroin ever becomes as easy to get as alcohol.... man, unless someone discovers how to drastically change how opiate receptors in your brain work, that would be the modern day equivalent to the zombie apocalypse. We'd be doomed, everyone.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#346
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hell yah. It's not a coincidence that America is the only country that allows direct to consumer advertising of medication. Here's another one: ban all forms of compensation from drug companies to doctors. No more bribes^Wconference trips.

I've seen ads (either in the US or UK) that didn't market drugs directly, didn't name any brands or anything, but was basically "If you have erectile dysfunction, go see your doctor, there may be something for you".

That sort of ad seems common for conditions they're trying to "popularize", like "restless legs syndrome", especially when the drug they're selling isn't approved for that use. Hypochondriacs go to the "official site" and learn from sockpuppets what drugs to pester their physicians about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_mongering

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#347
post #344

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…

Out of curiousity: how do you find out about new stuff then? I know there's a lot of messy incentives, but if a company wants to at least show that they have a new drug, how could they get you to read about it?

> how do you find out about new stuff then?

"Instead of relying on marketing, I rely on information from good, well performed randomised controlled studies published in reputable peer reviewed journals ( I like the NEJM ) and on meta-analyses of these. I view the results of these through a filter of scepticism, cynicism, pragmatism and a modicum of hope."

> how could they get you to read about it?

I'd assume by performing a sensible clinical trial that proves its efficacy beyond a reasonable doubt.

Advertising is how you're sold things whether or not you need them. It is not how you learn about what's best for your patient. There are other avenues of information that aren't tainted by the motivation to sell a product despite the consequences.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What about the first amendment?

Legally, it's not really an issue. Commercial speech can be broadly regulated by Congress.

Free Speech doesn't really factor into a huge portion of what you see from the FDA, FTC, SEC, CFPB, and hundreds of state-level organs focused on regulating deceptive business practices.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the first amendment?

I agree - this could be tricky. One solution for restricting advertising would be to allow consumers to sue drug companies for false claims or for misinforming doctors.

No, it's commercial speech. The FDA already regulates what they can say in drug advertisements. There's not really a legal issue there.

Re: OxyContin's 12-hour problem

#350

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.

Naltrexone != Naloxone. ULDN is incredibly dose sensitive. According to studies, 2 micrograms of naltrexone is effective, yet at 4mcg it begins to lose its efficacy.
Post reply on HN