• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From Hero to Villain, a Story of Addiction

DONT quote me on the numbers cause I have not looked in awhile and memory is what it is but Epipen costS something like $17 to make at most but they sell for over $400, AND the boss gets paid near $100 million a YEAR....THIS IS WHERE WE ARE FOLKS.

We tried to shame them into better.

It did not work.





This is your medical system, and this is not ok.
 
The mind is non-biological.

Many atheist subscribe to the notion the mind is logically contingent on the brain. No brain, no mind. The atheist belief, and it is rational but wholly materialistic too.

So, the religious subscribe to the notion of a soul or something akin to it if they don't phrase it that way or share the exact same theology. In the case of the soul and life after death the mind is not contingent on the brain as no material body (presumably) exists after earthly death.



Why do I point this out? Because irrespective if one is atheist or religious the "choice" issue surrounds the issue of the mind (non-material) and the brain (material).

The brain like the whole of the human organism is driven by the deterministic laws in chemistry and physics. Yes, that is right, the biochemical process of your body is explainable and driven by the known scientific laws of chemistry and physics at the genetic, cellular, and processes of fluid movement through the body.

So, over eating or consuming too much sugar or carbohydrates than convert over to sugar, has been linked to self induced Type 2 diabetes.

Once the disease sets in the organism one can question if the disease itself is merely a choice. That includes self induce skin cancer from too much exposure to the sun. Is the skin cancer merely a choice and can be willed away?

If one imagines alcoholism as a self induced disease then one can question if seizures produced from withdrawal from alcoholism is merely a product of non-material mind and choice. Can one merely will, merely choose not to have withdrawal symptoms, including not having seizures that can potentially kill you, from abstaining from alcohol cold turkey?

Can one will not develop alcoholic hepatitis?

Can one will, choose, not to go through heroin withdrawal, once self induced heroin addiction biologically sets in, if we conceptualize said addiction as a disease?




Then the question arises why do some people smoke and not develop lung cancer and others do? Why do some people eat a similar diet and some become obese and others don't? Why do some develop skin cancer--like some white people--at higher rates than certain other peoples (like black people)? Why do some drink alcohol and never develop alcoholism and other do?

Why do I consume a ton of sugar but have not developed diabetes (and yearly lab results say I'm not yet at risk) and other have developed diabetes? Was it merely my choice not to develop it?

 
Excuse me sir...people have been raised to expect a pain free life, and that if there is anything wrong then reach for one of these awesome pills big pharma wants to sell you and is willing to corrupt doctoring to sell........so sure the little people decide that they should ask for the pills, and even worse say what they need to say to get them.

Then the doctors comply.

Then another citizen get hooked.

But lets just blame it all on these pills right?

Many many many things went wrong in this system administered by the elite to get here.

We need to fix these errors, and I dont appreciate the blaming of all this misery on a class of drugs, let's start fixing the big problems.



tyvm
I'm not blaming the pills. But, taking legally prescribed pills often leads to addiction and, eventually, the the need for heroin.
 
I said a few months ago that I am pretty sure that there are not a lot of them.....once you take away those who are lying to their doctors to get the drugs. If science can prove otherwise I will take the claim more seriously.

Tell that to 2 of my retired Navy veteran buddies that were pumped full of opiates by the Veterans Administration for 3-4 years because their needed operations were continuously delayed. Any competent medical doctor would have taken them off the the pain killers after seeing them drop 30 pounds, but the VA was more than happy to write a script just to shut them up and get them out the door. I watched them both lose all zest for life, and wither away until they both eventually put a bullet into their bodies.

Your opinion is not science.
 
The human of course had nothing to do with the pills ending up in him, or the heroin.

The opioid problem is complex and I do have sympathy for those who fall to it but writing as if they are innocent bystanders to their own behavior is fantasy.

To the extent that today's opioids (not yesterday's opiates) are chemically engineered to be especially effective on the human body, the human subject was tricked, and is addicted in a chemical way his predecessors could not have been.

Your point about individual responsibility is well taken, but these new pills are different, and the industry has not quite been up front about this.
 
Tell that to 2 of my retired Navy veteran buddies that were pumped full of opiates by the Veterans Administration for 3-4 years because their needed operations were continuously delayed. Any competent medical doctor would have taken them off the the pain killers after seeing them drop 30 pounds, but the VA was more than happy to write a script just to shut them up and get them out the door. I watched them both lose all zest for life, and wither away until they both eventually put a bullet into their bodies.

Your opinion is not science.

I hope you are being scientific enough to distinguish between opiates of yesteryear and opioids of today.
 
To the extent that today's opioids (not yesterday's opiates) are chemically engineered to be especially effective on the human body, the human subject was tricked, and is addicted in a chemical way his predecessors could not have been.

Your point about individual responsibility is well taken, but these new pills are different, and the industry has not quite been up front about this.

One of the documentaries I saw on this addiction problem we have today mentioned that Oxycontin was actually touted as being non-addictive. Oops.
 
I'm not blaming the pills. But, taking legally prescribed pills often leads to addiction and, eventually, the the need for heroin.

Which is ironic no? Given heroin was a pain relieving drug created by the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, for pharmacological purposes.

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

Bayer AG (/ˈbeɪər/ or /ˈbaɪər/); German pronunciation: [ˈbaɪ̯ɐ]) is a German multinational chemical, pharmaceutical and life sciences company. It is headquartered in Leverkusen, where its illuminated sign is a landmark. Bayer's primary areas of business include human and veterinary pharmaceuticals; consumer healthcare products; agricultural chemicals and biotechnology products; and high value polymers. The company is a component of the Euro Stoxx 50 stock market index.[4] The company's motto is "science for a better life."

Bayer's first and best known product was aspirin; there is a dispute about what scientist at Bayer made the most important contributions to it, Arthur Eichengrün or Felix Hoffmann. Bayer trademarked the name "heroin" for the drug diacetylmorphine and marketed it as a cough suppressant and non-addictive substitute for morphine from 1898 to 1910.

Cocaine used to be prescribed for pharmacological purposes too. Medical doctors used to prescribe it to alcoholics to help them get off of alcohol.

Actually, there are a number of prescription meds that doctors still will prescribe to both alcoholics and heroin addicts to help them manage through withdrawal symptoms. No such culture medically exists for treating cocaine addicts by the way. Even though the drug baclofen showed promise.

Symptoms by the way are subjective appraisals in terms of the outside observer trying to figure out the problem of the patient. So, in terms of the drug industry profiting from depression rates in the USA psychiatrist (medical doctors) consider the symptoms and generally treat the symptoms with prescription anti-depressant drugs. Just like over the counter medication for headaches or allergies treat the symptoms and not the root problem.

A heroin addict mentally and physically feeling the need for heroin is whether they know it or not treating the symptoms of their addiction when they snort, smoke, or inject the drug.

As of yet the life sciences have no cure for substance addiction. No way of fixing the root biological problem. So, it can only be managed mentally like diabetics have to mentally manage their disease via strict dietary watch of their carbohydrate intake. And we see how well most diabetics do at that. Which is not very well at all. Some do better at then others. Some constantly relapse into eating what they shouldn't.
 
Which is ironic no? Given heroin was a pain relieving drug created by the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, for pharmacological purposes.

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



Cocaine used to be prescribed for pharmacological purposes too. Medical doctors used to prescribe it to alcoholics to help them get off of alcohol.

Actually, there are a number of prescription meds that doctors still will prescribe to both alcoholics and heroin addicts to help them manage through withdrawal symptoms. No such culture medically exists for treating cocaine addicts by the way. Even though the drug baclofen showed promise.

Symptoms by the way are subjective appraisals in terms of the outside observer trying to figure out the problem of the patient. So, in terms of the drug industry profiting from depression rates in the USA psychiatrist (medical doctors) consider the symptoms and generally treat the symptoms with prescription anti-depressant drugs. Just like over the counter medication for headaches or allergies treat the symptoms and not the root problem.

A heroin addict mentally and physically feeling the need for heroin is whether they know it or not treating the symptoms of their addiction when they snort, smoke, or inject the drug.

As of yet the life sciences have no cure for substance addiction. No way of fixing the root biological problem. So, it can only be managed mentally like diabetics have to mentally manage their disease via strict dietary watch of their carbohydrate intake. And we see how well most diabetics do at that. Which is not very well at all. Some do better at then others. Some constantly relapse into eating what they shouldn't.

Most Junkies don't even get high from their drug anymore. They just us it to treat the immediate symptom of withdrawal. How people become junkies? The list of root causes there is long. But, first and foremost, we have people who took a drug, began abusing it and eventually developed an addiction to it. Simple stuff.

As for behavior modifiers. I can't even count the number of people I know who use Xanax every day. All of them using it with legal prescriptions. I doubt they all have such serious anxiety issues that it warrants a lifelong dependency on Benzos.
 
I have heard so many stories of how heroine addicts got started with prescription pain meds. It is a sad state of affairs.

I wish there was a way for doctors to tell who is predisposed to chemical addiction so they could weigh that in the cost/benefit analysis in deciding pain treatment.

There has to be some sort of biological reason why some people get addicted and others don't.

Apparently can be found in genetics...did not read the whole thing, but hope it helps.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715956/
 
Most Junkies don't even get high from their drug anymore. They just us it to treat the immediate symptom of withdrawal. How people become junkies? The list of root causes there is long. But, first and foremost, we have people who took a drug, began abusing it and eventually developed an addiction to it. Simple stuff.

As for behavior modifiers. I can't even count the number of people I know who use Xanax every day. All of them using it with legal prescriptions. I doubt they all have such serious anxiety issues that it warrants a lifelong dependency on Benzos.

Well, depending on the amount of the drug the individual consumes, they still will get high.

But in the case of heroin, you are correct, a many of their addicts will scrap enough money up not necessarily to get high but simply to relieve their painful withdrawal symptoms. So, that often take just enough (too little money likely) that the results are they don't get high but their body "feels normal" and they don't have leg cramps, aren't sick, and don't defecate on themselves.

Heroin and opiates have worse withdrawal symptoms than cocaine (or its crack form). Cocaine is just far more euphoric. Meth supposedly is too.
 
Maybe you should be asking the officials at the Veterans Administration this question.

It wasn't a question, it was an observation and hope. The VA simply goes along with modern medical practices, and use of opioids is part of it.

I still hope you acknowledge the differences between opiates and opioids. IMO, the latter should be withdrawn from the market. A responsible company would do so.
 
Sad to see this, and---assuming you are not a complete idiot--a good example for us all from which to learn just how fine is the line between functioning adult and full blow, thieving junkie.

How America's Opioid Epidemic Turned A Hero Into A Villain | HuffPost

Your link:

"As sad as it is, Tschaggeny’s story is far from unique.


Since 1999, opioid prescriptions and sales have quadrupled in the United States, a surge that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says “helped create and fuel” an epidemic of misuse and overdosing. In 2012 alone, U.S. doctors handed out 259 million opioid prescriptions — one for every adult in the nation. When they can no longer obtain prescription painkillers, those who have become addicted may turn to cheaper heroin. Some resort to crime to pay for their habit. Others end up a statistic, among the approximately 90 Americans that die every day from an opioid overdose, according to 2015 CDC statistics.


Few states have been harder hit by the crisis than Oregon. In 2015, nearly 1 in 4 Oregonians received an opioid prescription, and the state consistently ranks in the top five for non-medical use of prescription opioids, according to the Oregon Health Authority. Tackling the epidemic was the subject of a hearing Wednesday before the Oregon House Committee on Health Care."
 
One of the documentaries I saw on this addiction problem we have today mentioned that Oxycontin was actually touted as being non-addictive. Oops.

Correct. I cannot help but wonder whether it was accidental or intentional. Either way, once the highly addictive nature of these drugs became apparent, it seems to me that a responsible and conscientious company would withdraw its product.
 
One of the documentaries I saw on this addiction problem we have today mentioned that Oxycontin was actually touted as being non-addictive. Oops.

Yes. Take a greedy, unethical company, add some greedy, unethical docs along with docs that listen to the pharma company sales pitch and didn't do their own dd, and you get an epidemic.
How the American opiate epidemic was started by one pharmaceutical company

"The state of Kentucky may finally get its deliverance. After more than seven years of battling the evasive legal tactics of Purdue Pharma, 2015 may be the year that Kentucky and its attorney general, Jack Conway, are able to move forward with a civil lawsuit alleging that the drugmaker misled doctors and patients about their blockbuster pain pill OxyContin, leading to a vicious addiction epidemic across large swaths of the state.

A pernicious distinction of the first decade of the 21st century was the rise in painkiller abuse, which ultimately led to a catastrophic increase in addicts, fatal overdoses, and blighted communities. But the story of the painkiller epidemic can really be reduced to the story of one powerful, highly addictive drug and its small but ruthlessly enterprising manufacturer.

On December 12, 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the opioid analgesic OxyContin. It hit the market in 1996. In its first year, OxyContin accounted for $45 million in sales for its manufacturer, Stamford, Connecticut-based pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma. By 2000 that number would balloon to $1.1 billion, an increase of well over 2,000 percent in a span of just four years. Ten years later, the profits would inflate still further, to $3.1 billion. By then the potent opioid accounted for about 30 percent of the painkiller market. What's more, Purdue Pharma's patent for the original OxyContin formula didn't expire until 2013. This meant that a single private, family-owned pharmaceutical company with non-descript headquarters in the Northeast controlled nearly a third of the entire United States market for pain pills.

OxyContin's ball-of-lightning emergence in the health care marketplace was close to unprecedented for a new painkiller in an age where synthetic opiates like Vicodin, Percocet, and Fentanyl had already been competing for decades in doctors' offices and pharmacies for their piece of the market share of pain-relieving drugs. In retrospect, it almost didn't make sense. Why was OxyContin so much more popular? Had it been approved for a wider range of ailments than its opioid cousins? Did doctors prefer prescribing it to their patients?"
 
It wasn't a question, it was an observation and hope. The VA simply goes along with modern medical practices, and use of opioids is part of it.

I still hope you acknowledge the differences between opiates and opioids. IMO, the latter should be withdrawn from the market. A responsible company would do so.

I do not really know the difference to be honest.
 
I do not really know the difference to be honest.

"Opioids include opiates, an older term that refers to such drugs derived from opium, including morphine itself. Other opioids are semi-synthetic and synthetic drugs such as hydrocodone, oxycodone and fentanyl; antagonist drugs such as naloxone and endogenous peptides such as the endorphins."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid
 
I do not really know the difference to be honest.

Thank you for your honesty.

In short, the poppy flower and the opium it produces have been around on this planet for many hundreds, if not thousands of years. Even though the hypodermic syringe was not invented until about 1860, the medicinal uses of opium were known by men a very long time ago, and of course it was known to be addictive.

It was not until modern chemistry came up with a synthetic version of the various opium products that we had opioids. They are especially dangerous and especially addictive.

Old-fashioned opiates like morphine are plenty effective for pain. I've been administered that drug.

New (20 years old now) opioids are chemically engineered for the human body. They are apparently more than the average human can handle.
 
Yes. Take a greedy, unethical company, add some greedy, unethical docs along with docs that listen to the pharma company sales pitch and didn't do their own dd, and you get an epidemic.
How the American opiate epidemic was started by one pharmaceutical company

"The state of Kentucky may finally get its deliverance. After more than seven years of battling the evasive legal tactics of Purdue Pharma, 2015 may be the year that Kentucky and its attorney general, Jack Conway, are able to move forward with a civil lawsuit alleging that the drugmaker misled doctors and patients about their blockbuster pain pill OxyContin, leading to a vicious addiction epidemic across large swaths of the state.

A pernicious distinction of the first decade of the 21st century was the rise in painkiller abuse, which ultimately led to a catastrophic increase in addicts, fatal overdoses, and blighted communities. But the story of the painkiller epidemic can really be reduced to the story of one powerful, highly addictive drug and its small but ruthlessly enterprising manufacturer.

On December 12, 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the opioid analgesic OxyContin. It hit the market in 1996. In its first year, OxyContin accounted for $45 million in sales for its manufacturer, Stamford, Connecticut-based pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma. By 2000 that number would balloon to $1.1 billion, an increase of well over 2,000 percent in a span of just four years. Ten years later, the profits would inflate still further, to $3.1 billion. By then the potent opioid accounted for about 30 percent of the painkiller market. What's more, Purdue Pharma's patent for the original OxyContin formula didn't expire until 2013. This meant that a single private, family-owned pharmaceutical company with non-descript headquarters in the Northeast controlled nearly a third of the entire United States market for pain pills.

OxyContin's ball-of-lightning emergence in the health care marketplace was close to unprecedented for a new painkiller in an age where synthetic opiates like Vicodin, Percocet, and Fentanyl had already been competing for decades in doctors' offices and pharmacies for their piece of the market share of pain-relieving drugs. In retrospect, it almost didn't make sense. Why was OxyContin so much more popular? Had it been approved for a wider range of ailments than its opioid cousins? Did doctors prefer prescribing it to their patients?"

Yep. The real drug pushers in America wear suits, have corner offices, drive BMW, live in gated communities, are well-connected with politicians and doctors, and have 100-million dollar stock portfolios. The kids in the hood peddling dime bags are simply a symptom. Junkies only come to them when the prescriptions run out.
 
Back
Top Bottom