This was methadone for pain, or to manage opiate addiction?
Or are they the same thing in this case - “pain” meaning the symptoms of withdrawal.
Maybe I will do a search on your posts and try to bring my education about the topic up from 1970.
Regards,
Shodan
Technically it was to maintain an addiction.
I’ve seen doses that high used for pain management too.
And a lot of addicts enrolled in methadone maintenance programs for addiction insist they’re on the drug for pain, not for addiction.
It can be difficult to sort out each case.
Thank you for the information.
Regards,
Shodan
How do you come to the conclusion that it only works in theory, when the theory is based on experiece and research?
And how does the population size of the administrative area effect it?
I’m sorry, but your statements make no sense. Please clarify them.
Yes, it is. If I recall, for the unhabituated non-addict 70 mg could kill. Obviously, one can build up a tolerance to such a dose.
When I was at the clinic they usually tried to keep people between 45-70 mg to start. Of course, there were exceptions - we had a couple people with daily doses in the triple digits. We also had some people we started their maintenance as low as 15-20 mg. Then again, we had an MD on staff who actually gave a damn about his job rather than just medicating people into docility, which can happen at some clinics. It’s more work to actually try to customize the dose to each addict. For the overworked, underpaid, disrespected addictions specialist working a chronically underfunded clinic, well, the temptation to cookie-cutter medicine is probably pretty strong.
Folks on the higher doses just about need a dynamite charge to poo, too.
How common are cases where pain patients being treated with methadone long term end up developing addictions?
I can’t answer for him, but I do want to distinguish physical dependence (signs of physical withdrawal with cessation of therapy), which happens to every chronic pain patient, and “addiction,” which refers to the maladaptive pattern of behaviour associated with using a drug for recreational purposes. There is also “pseudoaddiction” in which patients with chronically under treated pain act like drug-seekers because they need better symptom management.
Yes, I was referring to these maladaptive patterns of behavior arising/developing as a result of legitimate long-term treatment for pain. I wouldn’t guess this is too common but is it seen?
Totally agree with you.
A question for those of you who support TWOD: can you please give a rough idea how many decades & billions we let this run on for before we try a new tact? I mean, in 2019 we’ll have the centenary of the US Supreme Court ruling banning the prescription of maintenance narcotics to addicts. Is 100 years enough for us to reach the conclusion that prohibition isn’t working?
How about fitting addicts with insulin-pump like devices 9that b dispense pharmaceutical grade heroin)? This would keep the addicts happy, end the market for illegal heroin, and save billions.
Naw…can’t have that-it would put too many lawyers, judges, prison gurads, etc. out of work!
Yep. And everybody washes their hands when they go to the bathroom.
Ah. So in reality, if it was possible to procure heroin without risking legal penalties, most or a lot of people would actually jump at the chance to try a drug that is well known to be incredibly addictive with no other incentive than it being possible to do so?
I don’t think so. And since heroin has been legal it as actually possible to make comparisons. When we do, we find out that whe heroin is criminalised, consumption and abuse increases dramatically. Before criminalisation, England had a few hundred heroin addicts, a few decades after criminalisation, the they are counted in hundreds of thousands.
Out of all policies that has been enacted in modern times, the prohibition on recreational drugs must be the most counter productive. And the fact that it is still largely unquestioned despite the massive scientific evidence that discredits it really goes to show that we have ways to go before we can call ourselves rational as a society.
I don’t know about “most” or “a lot”, but “more than now” seems pretty likely. For much the same set of reasons that people nowadays start smoking cigarettes rather than using heroin - cigarettes are legal, and therefore much more available. This despite the fact that cigarettes are at least as addictive, and probably worse for you, than heroin.
Regards,
Shodan
Do you have any evidence that incidence of use would go up following decriminalization? Because the evidence seems to point in the other direction.
I don’t think people smoke cigarettes because they’re more accessible than heroin.
It is not necessarily clear cut. From your cite -
And other researchers have noted a roughly comparable drop in heroin use without decriminalization -
Maybe I was not expressing myself clearly. People will tend to use (and abuse) drugs more if those drugs are available easily. Therefore more people use alcohol than heroin, because there are lots of liquor stores and relatively few heroin dealers.
Obviously there are many other factors involved.
Regards,
Shodan
Making heroin available to opioid addicts doesn’t mean making it available in general.
Instead, a medical history and exam to determine if the patient qualifies, along with the need to register as an opioid addict who is to be maintained on heroin can be requirements to get the drug.
Granted, this would provide another route for diversion of heroin to the general population, but it’s not the same as selling it alongside the cigarettes and booze at the local convenience store.
True, but I was responding to this -
I assume from the reference to “trying” the drug rather than already being addicted to it, meant that the suggestion was to remove the “prohibition on recreational drugs”.
Regards,
Shodan
What does Portugals or any other nations SIZE has to do with anything. Really, I do not understand it. If the administrative area of Portugal incorporated more cities, say a few spanish ones, would the basic biological functions or economical incentives suddenly change? I have to say that bringing up the size of the nation is just incredibly weird.
Portugal had massive drug problems and decided to enact a radical reform to counter it. The result was exactly what they had hoped for. And the argument against that is now that “Well hey, it could have happened anyway”. After criminalisation the amount of heroin addicts in England went from hundreds to hundreds of thousand, but I guess “Hey, it could have happened anyway”.
It is true that marijuana consumption has gone up (slightly) when it’s been decriminalised, which could be viewed as a success since it means that people switch from more dangerous drugs to one that has pretty much zero negative health effects. Basically people are making rational decisions when given the opportunity.
I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp. Prohibition is a massive and dangerous failure. It creates a huge financial incentive to recruit and supply customers. Enforcing it uses up resources that could be spent on treatment and information. OF COURSE more people will end up using drugs if every addict has an incentive to recruit more users. And OF COURSE the usage will be more dangerous if people are ostracised and treated as criminals instead of getting care. Not to mention that the drugs themself will be more dangerous when the production and supply is devoid of any regulation.
It’s rather silly to assume that I would propose making them easily available, since that would make no sense AND I have already stated the opposite in this thread:
I’d really suggest taking 5 minutes to read this link: What's wrong with the war against drugs | Flat Earth News
I disagree with the first point. I agree that other factors play into it. the fact is that almost all drugs are readily available, just not that convenient. Some people may be dissuaded from trying it because they fear legal consequences. I just don’t think that (legality) is a factor when a person decides to take a drug. Some people who only drink also end up committing acts that are illegal, dangerous and often deadly. They choose to obey one law and ignore others. So is it the legality that restricts them to only booze, or just personal preference?
Also remember that are still counties in the USofA where booze is still illegal, and they have a bootlegging problem in pretty much all of them. The fact that it is illegal there doesn’t seem to stop them from using any more than it did during prohibition. (Dry Counties. Good Lord, WHY??)
What counties? When a county goes dry, it means you can’t sell alcohol at the retail level. Which means your outta luck if you want to open a bar or run down to the Quik-E Mart. But you can certainly buy booze in wetter areas, bring it home, and imbibe to your liver’s contempt.
ETA – Moonshine is about making money, and skipping out on paying taxes; it’s been around longer than the Republic has been around.