This has already been answered to a degree, but as one who purchases controlled substances in the US, I can tell you the distributor cost is even cheaper than WhyNot’s link. I can get 100 tablets, 30 mg each, for $12, and a 20ml vial of injectable for $14.
No idea what the street value is, but even if the cost was doubled to a consumer, that’s pretty darned cheap. It’s the illegal route that’s expensive.
My dad was a hospital pharmacist for several decades.
I recall him mentioning on two occasions nurses stealing pain killers from patients on the burn ward.
Like hell an addict wouldn’t steal from patients in pain. It happens.
I won’t go into how many ways this is wrong but your lack of of “perspective” provides a better understanding of your naivety in asking the question in the OP in the first place.
Bottom line: Opiate addiction so feared because it’s horrible. More horrible than you can imagine not having been there. As I responded in my first post in this thread, in theory you are sort of right. In practice… not so much.
I’m going to back this up.
My father is also a hospital pharmacist with several decades’ experience. One of his responsibilities is to ensure total compliance with all federal and state laws regarding proper storage and dispensing of medications. This means that one of his responsibilities is to catch nurses and others who steal narcotics from patients and to refer them to management for referral to the state program for impaired nurses. So, yeah, they can and will steal from patients who need those drugs.
See, spanky, what you’re not understanding is that addiction of any kind makes people desperate. A smoker who runs out of cigarettes will pick through the trash looking for butts that are long enough to light. An alcoholic will drink mouthwash if he can’t get anything else. An addict will do anything to get his fix. They will sell all of their possessions, including their bodies, to buy drugs. They will lie, cheat, steal, commit assault, and kill if they’re desperate for a fix.
Case in point: My cousin was in and out of juvenile hall and prison for various crimes related to his addiction. He was raised in a good, well-off family, but his addiction got the better of him. Would he have been better off if he’d never touched the stuff? Of course. But he did start using, and once that happened, he stole from his family and did Lord knows what to feed his addiction, because the pain of withdrawal was worse than anything else he could possibly imagine. Fortunately, he was able to enter a drug treatment program in prison, spent some time in a halfway house, and has been clean and sober since. Without the drugs, he’s a fine, upstanding, responsible citizen. When he was on drugs, he was a monster. In other words, it’s not the addict who’s the problem, it’s the addiction. And he’s not an outlier. I know many other people who have the same story.
Because he gave up the smack in the early 80s. Or at least that’s what he says, and that’s what all of his biographers say, and no-one who’s in a position to know has ever said any different. Keith being a junkie is a story people like, so the fact of him not having been one for the last 30 years gets overlooked.
Keith looks bad because he’s a heavy drinker and smoker and has apparently never used sun block in his life.
In Spain you pretty much can only get it by being waiting for the thin man. Having seen its effects, I’m glad of the limitation.
I am not denying there are addicts that steal from people in pain. I am simply stating that these people have poor moral character.
An addiction does not **force **you to steal drugs from people who really need them.
What people are telling you here (and history has shown) is that is exactly what addiction to opiates seems to do. Call it a moral failing or a symptom of the disease, the reality is that enough people addicted to opiates will do anything to get their next fix.
And my point is this is mostly because the addicts who would do this are already predisposed to dishonesty and selfishness.
Cite?
I can’t cite it, but it would be an interesting study to do. Get 100 scumbags and 100 apparently decent folk addicted to smack, and watch what they do. I guarantee there would be a huge difference.
During college I experimented a bit and one drug I will never forget was a sort of synthetic opiate (I think) called fentanyl. After that experience, I felt I had a pretty good idea why so many people would throw away their lives for a chemical. I don’t want to go into too much detail, but it creates a euphoria that could easily take priority over everything, especially you’re life is not particularly satisfying to begin with. Watch “Trainspotting” for a better idea I guess.
If you use history as a study, it would indicate that you are wrong.
It depends on how you interpret the history. If we have 100 heroin addicts, of whom 80 go and rape their grandma for drugs, and 20 of whom go without, I will argue that is evidence the 80 were latent scumbags who scumbashiness was brought out by the drugs, you will argue that their scumbaggishness was caused by the drugs.
It is possible in principle to tell but I am not aware of anyone doing such a study to find out.
You’re not going to find such a study because there is no gene for “scumbagginess,” and raping your grandma doesn’t get you a fix. But if you made even the slightest effort to talk with professionals who deal with addiction you’d quickly learn how misguided your premise is. It’s a common misconception, though.
The fact is that “morality” isn’t simply defined for the sake of study in adults, but the most recent research has been demonstrating how addiction affects the prefrontal cortex of the brain, (which is known to be where most moral cognitive processing seems to take place), and showing how it impairs "moral’ thinking. If you want to argue that those 20 addicts were born with some kind of neurological protection against that, you’d be hard pressed.
impair in what respect?
If the addicts, if asked, state that it would be moral for them to steal drugs from patients then I will concede the point.
But I bet they won’t.
Deactivate, or “lateralize” when observed with MRIs under certain test situations. This kind of research is pretty new, so it’s hard to make any definite conclusions. But if you think that the reason why some addicts don’t steal and others do is because the thiefs are scumbags, people who work with addicts (of all types) will tell you that it’s that actually the former just have access to money, not that the later are inherently more scumbaggy.
Regarding the specific concern of opiates raised in the OP, the U.S. has recently seen a huge increase of high-income people getting addicted to opiates by way of pills. However, you’re not going to see these people in court for doing “scumbaggy” things because they can afford to doctor shop. You’ll see nurses stooping to stealing drugs on the job more often because their income runs out sooner than that of the doctor working with them.
I know a guy–a born again Christian, extremely moral, etc.–who’s a hosptial technician who got addicted to pain pills, and eventually got to the point of stealing morphine drips (and injecting himself). Now in recovery, he’s the last person you’d call a “scumbag,” but he was stealing from his work site.
However, I agree with you that in some ways it’s a chicken and egg question with people who get addicted in youth, because we now know that that part of the brain doesn’t get fully developed until a person is in his 20s, so you could in a way say that that person never fully grew a “non-scumbag” brain.
It seems a bit bizarre to me that opiate addiction is so horrible we must do everything possible to cut off the drug supply of addicts, but then when they resort to crime or theft of meds out of pure desperation we hold that up as an example of why opiates are so horrible.:smack:
Do people really think if a bottle of morphine pills or whatever could be purchased for a few bucks and the flash of an ID card to prove age you would still see these stories about stealing meds from burn patients or whatever?
This is perhaps the only claim I have ever seen of opiates or opium making one violent and murderous, It sounds like some kind of cultural practice rather than an effect of the drugs themselves.
Why would you do that? Ever heard of suboxone or buprenorphine? Miracle drugs that eliminate withdrawal and help you through the physical dependence.
Addiction is something different, and makes you seek even when not dependant, and therefore sick when without.
Yes.
Much cheaper.
Fentanyl is actually used in micrograms because it is so strong, and it is considered a WMD/Chemical Weapon in quantity. Remember the theatre hostages in Russia or wherever?
The twelve steps of any recovery program only mention the substance in the first one. It is, in fact, about the person, not the substance.
And if you think 12 step programs are woo, then you probably wouldn’t be boasting about someone in recovery.
I have been a teen crack addict criminal, and stopped.
I have been a fifteen year two-pack a day smoker and stopped.
I have been dependent on opiates, and easily stopped.
I have become addicted to opiates, and less easily stopped.
I spent 6 years, 7 months, and 14 days sober from everything but nicotine and caffiene when in recovery from the teen years, and saw lots and lots of people go in and out in that environment. I have also known lots of folks over the twenty years since.
I think all drugs should be legalized. The Hunter S. Thompson quote posted on Wikipedia is perfect, except the only ones getting rich are in law enforcement and recovery hospitals…
[QUOTE=Wikipedia/Hunter S. Thompson]
He told an interviewer in 1997 that drugs should be legalized “Across the board. It might be a little rough on some people for a while, but I think it’s the only way to deal with drugs. Look at Prohibition: all it did was make a lot of criminals rich.”[59]
[/QUOTE]
I am not sure what this references, but I am betting it is because the original reference is in spanish. Definition of ‘the thin man’ in this context?