Excellent and very moving WSJ piece about the children who suffer because of the addictions of their parents, and the very common scenario of grandparents being required to spend their retirement years filling the parental void. Sad stuff.
Link - (
New Window )
It's damn near a daily occurance down here.
"I want to control drugs as a business to keep it respectable. I don't want it near big cities, I don't want out sold to African Americans. That's an infamnia. In my city we'd would keep the traffic to the white people, the rednecks. They're animals anyway so let the lose their souls"
Bullshit. Somehow I managed to take Vicodin and Oxycodone in the past when I've had extremely painful injuries without becoming addicted to them. In fact, the vast majority of people who take them do not become addicts.
I also tossed them to the screams and horrors of people I mentioned it to afterward. I shouldn't have received more than a handful (I'd say less than 2-3 days supply), and could likely have been prescribed something a lot less powerful.
It seems like whether accidental or intentional, the system is inadvertently creating/encouraging addiction where it might not have existed before.
There are certainly arguments in favor of legalization or at least decriminalization, but what's the indication that there will be some sort of massive bite taken out of opioid/opiate use? Vermont has one of the worst heroin problems in the country and marijuana is almost ubiquitous in the state. If you've got data to the contrary I'm certainly willing to be convinced, but to me the arguments in favor of breaking down the barriers to marijuana use are more or less independent of the issues raised by this crisis.
I also tossed them to the screams and horrors of people I mentioned it to afterward. I shouldn't have received more than a handful (I'd say less than 2-3 days supply), and could likely have been prescribed something a lot less powerful.
It seems like whether accidental or intentional, the system is inadvertently creating/encouraging addiction where it might not have existed before.
+1 -- appropriate use has gotten lost in the entire discussion. Doctors were giving them out like candy.
The other piece I forgot to mention as a cause for the explosion in opioid use is when pain became the 'fifth vital sign'. AMA finally dropped it as a vital sign:
Link - ( New Window )
I'm exaggerating -- I should have said that doctors are prescribing far more than needed b/c of pressure by patients as well as the idea that pain was a fifth vital sign. Prescribing of opioids increased dramatically after Oxycontin hit the market. And some doctors were bad actors and saw it as a money making opportunity.
Quote:
Where the major problem wasn't the drug as much as the violence. 2000 murders a year in Nyc at the peak, hence the heavy police response. The opioid scourge is far more widespread, fast-paced smaller communities where police are incapable of a dressing the problem. The drugs also kill more than craic ever did. In the afrementioned book Dream Land (I second the recommendation) the author documents how the Mexican drug business model is to intentionally target small cities without established drug gangs, only sell to whites (Mexicans aren't fond of African Americans apparently) and avoid violence. The book also discusses the flawed medical and corrupt pharmaceutical cultures.
"I want to control drugs as a business to keep it respectable. I don't want it near big cities, I don't want out sold to African Americans. That's an infamnia. In my city we'd would keep the traffic to the white people, the rednecks. They're animals anyway so let the lose their souls"
Good one Ron! Its crazy but these gusy were brilliant in their business model: They assume white communities = less violence and a more stable business. They fight competitors with price wars, not gun fights. They rotate in dealers from mexico for six months. Too savvy for these second or third tier city police departments.
Drug use and addiction are as buford noted a symptom of society. As the middle class gets hollowed out more and more the problem will increase. It can be treated as a health problem and a financial issue in terms of wealth inequality. Instead, we create a financial issue by spending billions in a silly war and create a crime problem from thin air.
Of course heroin users have used opoids. That's not proof that opoids are bad or even that drugs are bad. There's a natural (one might even say god given) reason that certain natural substances including cannibis, kratom, coca and opium have a calming and euphoric effect on our body - like other things, we take a good and natural thing and a) magnify its effects (eg heroin vs opium), b) seek to profit from it and c) those in power seek to control it.
I've had friends addicted to cocaine. I know lots of opioid users, and plenty of people who use kratom and cannibis. Nothing is close to being as destructive at an overall societal level than the most dangerous drug of all (according to most studies): alcohol.
When you make things illegal that people want to do (like recreational drugs) and have a legal but controlled option (opioids) of course people will flock to them.
And it's a racket. My wife has to visit a doctor every month for a refill of vicodin because under new rules they can't be refilled like normal drugs and can only be prescribed in small quantifies. Think doctors don't want to see a useless visit (with associated fee) each month?
Quote:
In comment 13322101 weeg in the bronx said:
Quote:
Where the major problem wasn't the drug as much as the violence. 2000 murders a year in Nyc at the peak, hence the heavy police response. The opioid scourge is far more widespread, fast-paced smaller communities where police are incapable of a dressing the problem. The drugs also kill more than craic ever did. In the afrementioned book Dream Land (I second the recommendation) the author documents how the Mexican drug business model is to intentionally target small cities without established drug gangs, only sell to whites (Mexicans aren't fond of African Americans apparently) and avoid violence. The book also discusses the flawed medical and corrupt pharmaceutical cultures.
"I want to control drugs as a business to keep it respectable. I don't want it near big cities, I don't want out sold to African Americans. That's an infamnia. In my city we'd would keep the traffic to the white people, the rednecks. They're animals anyway so let the lose their souls"
Good one Ron! Its crazy but these gusy were brilliant in their business model: They assume white communities = less violence and a more stable business. They fight competitors with price wars, not gun fights. They rotate in dealers from mexico for six months. Too savvy for these second or third tier city police departments.
They also kept low volumes of the drugs, and they would drive around with balloons of the drugs in their mouth. If pulled over they'd swallow the balloons. And they didn't really have one 'head' -- it was a bunch of cells supplying drugs.
They'd also get help from addicts to set up in new towns where they didn't know anyone.
Quote:
start there. That shit does no one any good.
Bullshit. Somehow I managed to take Vicodin and Oxycodone in the past when I've had extremely painful injuries without becoming addicted to them. In fact, the vast majority of people who take them do not become addicts.
Second that. I was placed on morphine for 5 years for chronic pain. I decided to stop on my own because of the overall negative effects. Was I addicted at that point...certainly. But by slowly reducing dosages taken, it really wasn't all that difficult to do.
I'm glad I did this for a number of reasons, but particularly because the current climate makes one feel like a criminal if prescribed opiates of any kind for pain relief.
Drug use and addiction are as buford noted a symptom of society. As the middle class gets hollowed out more and more the problem will increase. It can be treated as a health problem and a financial issue in terms of wealth inequality. Instead, we create a financial issue by spending billions in a silly war and create a crime problem from thin air.
Of course heroin users have used opoids. That's not proof that opoids are bad or even that drugs are bad. There's a natural (one might even say god given) reason that certain natural substances including cannibis, kratom, coca and opium have a calming and euphoric effect on our body - like other things, we take a good and natural thing and a) magnify its effects (eg heroin vs opium), b) seek to profit from it and c) those in power seek to control it.
I've had friends addicted to cocaine. I know lots of opioid users, and plenty of people who use kratom and cannibis. Nothing is close to being as destructive at an overall societal level than the most dangerous drug of all (according to most studies): alcohol.
When you make things illegal that people want to do (like recreational drugs) and have a legal but controlled option (opioids) of course people will flock to them.
And it's a racket. My wife has to visit a doctor every month for a refill of vicodin because under new rules they can't be refilled like normal drugs and can only be prescribed in small quantifies. Think doctors don't want to see a useless visit (with associated fee) each month?
Opioids are addictive, tolerance builds up, and overdose deaths are on the rise. These drugs need to be used carefully and cautiously. It's also in a completely different league than marijuana. Dreamland features a chapter about how the molecule itself is different than every other drug is because it cannot be reduced to water soluble glucose.
But don't take my word for it on the addictive issue, from the attached article:
"Morphine and other opiates are addictive and have been drugs of abuse for thousands of years."
Link - ( New Window )
They also kept low volumes of the drugs, and they would drive around with balloons of the drugs in their mouth. If pulled over they'd swallow the balloons. And they didn't really have one 'head' -- it was a bunch of cells supplying drugs.
They'd also get help from addicts to set up in new towns where they didn't know anyone.
Another strategy they use is to have their stash house in one state and exclusively deal in another, while only carrying small amounts at a time. This way if they're pulled over and caught with their drugs on them, their stash house stays safe. They simply provide as a home address a clean house near where they deal. Cops don't know to check the out of state house, and even the feds (DEA) often have trouble getting the jurisdiction to raid the stash house (which in addition to being out of state is often kept in another person's name).
My best friend growing up runs a DEA task force - he's got some amazing stories to tell. He lives most of the time in Guatemala and has jurisdiction to fly almost anywhere with his team to bust the cartel.
I'm not opposed to legalization in certain locations, but I'm not ready to say it should be legal anywhere. Here's my concern.
Basically, MJ is a mind-altering drug. Under its influence we don't want certain professions to operate (pilot, surgeon, etc.). It may not have a negative influence on many, many, people and even industries. Heck, it may even be beneficial to some industries (screenwriter?).
My concern is that increasing availability will increase the total number of users, which in turn will lead to more Americans pursuing certain occupations and abandoning others.
In our global economy I don't think we win if the % of smokers goes over a certain number, and I don't know what that number is. I'm also not prepared to rush into finding out what it is.
To me the nice compromise is to let certain jurisdictions operate with recreational or medical marijuana. This way you are free to move and partake, as my niece just did.
Quote:
This is a problem the Feds largely created. It's all about the money - the DEA is farce as prohibition doesn't work and never has, but when you're the one benefitting from prohibition you get brainwashed and follow the money yourselves. I have a friend who runs a private foundation affiliated with the DEA who, on the one hand, is passionate about the need to educate kids and on the other hand admits - after decades fighting a war on its own people - that our approach is a farce.
Drug use and addiction are as buford noted a symptom of society. As the middle class gets hollowed out more and more the problem will increase. It can be treated as a health problem and a financial issue in terms of wealth inequality. Instead, we create a financial issue by spending billions in a silly war and create a crime problem from thin air.
Of course heroin users have used opoids. That's not proof that opoids are bad or even that drugs are bad. There's a natural (one might even say god given) reason that certain natural substances including cannibis, kratom, coca and opium have a calming and euphoric effect on our body - like other things, we take a good and natural thing and a) magnify its effects (eg heroin vs opium), b) seek to profit from it and c) those in power seek to control it.
I've had friends addicted to cocaine. I know lots of opioid users, and plenty of people who use kratom and cannibis. Nothing is close to being as destructive at an overall societal level than the most dangerous drug of all (according to most studies): alcohol.
When you make things illegal that people want to do (like recreational drugs) and have a legal but controlled option (opioids) of course people will flock to them.
And it's a racket. My wife has to visit a doctor every month for a refill of vicodin because under new rules they can't be refilled like normal drugs and can only be prescribed in small quantifies. Think doctors don't want to see a useless visit (with associated fee) each month?
Opioids are addictive, tolerance builds up, and overdose deaths are on the rise. These drugs need to be used carefully and cautiously. It's also in a completely different league than marijuana. Dreamland features a chapter about how the molecule itself is different than every other drug is because it cannot be reduced to water soluble glucose.
But don't take my word for it on the addictive issue, from the attached article:
"Morphine and other opiates are addictive and have been drugs of abuse for thousands of years." Link - ( New Window )
No argument at all.
Because something is addictive it doesn't mean it should be illegal. Should it be used carefully? Sure.
But as an example, many people have turned to Kratom. because of the difficulty in getting opioids now and because frankly it's more benign. There's limited evidence of addictive potential, virtually no evidence of harm to speak of. But the DEA figured out people were using it, and tried to classify it as schedule 1 a few months ago. Why? All about the money and control.
Thankfully they got stopped in their tracks because hundreds of thousands petitioned to white house to intervene.
Quote:
to legalize marijuana that it might make sense to do so even if reduction of opioid use as a result is a longshot.
I'm not opposed to legalization in certain locations, but I'm not ready to say it should be legal anywhere. Here's my concern.
Basically, MJ is a mind-altering drug. Under its influence we don't want certain professions to operate (pilot, surgeon, etc.). It may not have a negative influence on many, many, people and even industries. Heck, it may even be beneficial to some industries (screenwriter?).
My concern is that increasing availability will increase the total number of users, which in turn will lead to more Americans pursuing certain occupations and abandoning others.
In our global economy I don't think we win if the % of smokers goes over a certain number, and I don't know what that number is. I'm also not prepared to rush into finding out what it is.
To me the nice compromise is to let certain jurisdictions operate with recreational or medical marijuana. This way you are free to move and partake, as my niece just did.
You aren't increasing availability to something as readily available as Cannabis. Also, no one who really wants to be a pilot or a doctor is going to not become one because they would prefer to smoke, nor should them smoking when they aren't working be any kind of issue.
Quote:
And normalize medical uses if it. We have an amazing medicianal opportunity in front of us, and one of the by products of it will be a huge kick in the gut to the opiate industry, both legal and illegal.
There are certainly arguments in favor of legalization or at least decriminalization, but what's the indication that there will be some sort of massive bite taken out of opioid/opiate use? Vermont has one of the worst heroin problems in the country and marijuana is almost ubiquitous in the state. If you've got data to the contrary I'm certainly willing to be convinced, but to me the arguments in favor of breaking down the barriers to marijuana use are more or less independent of the issues raised by this crisis.
There are studies that show states with medicinal Cannabis have lower opiate fatality rates. I've attached one.
Also, there are many reasons why we haven't seen even close to the maximum efficacy of Cannabis as a medicine, or in this case pain killer. Most importantly, since its schedule 1, we are unable to study it and create the most efficient pain killing combination. Cannabis is a VERY complicated plant, there are literally hundreds of different chemicals(cannabanoids, terpenes and flavonoids) that create an entourage effect. If we can't study it, it's impossible to create the most efficient version of it for pain killing.
Another issue is most doctors still prefer to prescribe Opiates to Cannabis, even though Cannabis doesn't come with all the dangers Opiates do. There's a few reasons for that, including fear of he federal government and lack of knowledge about its benefits.
I encourage anyone interested to read Dr Sunjay Gupta writings or his shows on Cannabis. He was once a front line anti cannabis guy, and has now become one of its most prominent and vocal proponents.
Opiate OD And Cannabis - ( New Window )
Quote:My concern is that increasing availability will increase the total number of users.
Anywhere that drugs (yes, all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, etc) have been legalized have, without fail, experienced falling addiction/use rates with the attendant reduction in crime and disease. See Portugal, Great Britain, Switzerland, specific locations in Canada.
You aren't increasing availability to something as readily available as Cannabis. Also, no one who really wants to be a pilot or a doctor is going to not become one because they would prefer to smoke, nor should them smoking when they aren't working be any kind of issue.
Really?
What if I changed this to the following: "No one who really wants to be a NFL Pro Bowl Safety is going to not become one because they would prefer to smoke..."
I beg to differ. Certain careers require an extreme amount of discipline, focus and sacrifice for a long period of time, sacrifices that have to begin in your adolescence, and while there is no really good research about the long-term effects of smoking MJ on adolescent discipline, focus and sacrifice, there's a TON of anecdotal evidence about it.
I teach in an alternative HS, and I see a lot of talented kids who come in as 8th graders with big dreams and visions. Some of them have more than enough talent and they all have enough opportunity to make something great for themselves. For many of them, MJ is a stumbling block. Not just because it's illegal, although that is an issue. It just changes their approach to life in a way that's a lot more mellow and relaxed than what is required to get into the ultra-competitive fields they find interesting pre-MJ. I don't know for sure that expanding access to legal MJ would increase the number who partake, and admitted to that earlier. I'm only worried that it might, and can't see a good reason to take that risk.
Anywhere that drugs (yes, all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, etc) have been legalized have, without fail, experienced falling addiction/use rates with the attendant reduction in crime and disease. See Portugal, Great Britain, Switzerland, specific locations in Canada.
My biggest concern isn't related to addiction, use, crime or disease. My biggest concern is with adolescent experimentation and the impact that will have on a society's ability to compete long-term.
I perhaps could have been a little clearer about that earlier.
Go check out the computer or robotics lab after hours at your local jr./high school. See the stoners there? How about the math team?
There may be some, but not many. It seems to me that once a young person becomes engaged in smoking weed with any kind of regularity they basically lose the focus, drive, discipline, determination that it takes to excel in these fields.
I believe that adult users have different needs, and that includes college students. Once they've practiced the discipline needed for academic success it seems the effect of regular MJ smoking is minimal. But if that interest starts up too early, it's a real problem.
IMO time will tell whether it's having any kind of impact in places where it's been legalized. Why not wait and see how this plays out first? In 20 years a generation will have passed, and if there is little/no evidence of societal damage then I'll be okay with it.
Quote:
In comment 13322535 jcn56 said:
Quote:My concern is that increasing availability will increase the total number of users.
Anywhere that drugs (yes, all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, etc) have been legalized have, without fail, experienced falling addiction/use rates with the attendant reduction in crime and disease. See Portugal, Great Britain, Switzerland, specific locations in Canada.
This is very misleading.
Canada has NOT made "drugs (yes, all drugs)" legal. What they did was allow doctors to medically prescribe prescription grade heroin to already addicted users when traditional addiction treatment has not proven effective, under the care and supervision of a physician. They did not legalize heroin for recreational use. This policy only began 3 months ago, so no idea how you can there are falling addiction rates. Is there a different policy you are referring to? I'm not an expert, so that's definitely possible, please provide a link so I can educate myself.
Additionally, I'm not sure the program the UK implemented was very different from what Canada approved this past fall.
the UK has been doing this for decades and I think it's like I said, misleading to say addiction rates have fallen. They're still addicts, only getting it via prescription (in a controlled and monitored manner) vs the street and not any recreational user can get it from what I've read. The number of heroin addicts in the UK is dropping, especially among younger generations, but I don't think anyone attributes it to this program which has been around for decades.
Quote:
Anywhere that drugs (yes, all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, etc) have been legalized have, without fail, experienced falling addiction/use rates with the attendant reduction in crime and disease. See Portugal, Great Britain, Switzerland, specific locations in Canada.
My biggest concern isn't related to addiction, use, crime or disease. My biggest concern is with adolescent experimentation and the impact that will have on a society's ability to compete long-term.
I perhaps could have been a little clearer about that earlier.
No indication of that as any sort of verifiable factor.
Quote:
In comment 13322946 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
In comment 13322535 jcn56 said:
Quote:My concern is that increasing availability will increase the total number of users.
Anywhere that drugs (yes, all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, etc) have been legalized have, without fail, experienced falling addiction/use rates with the attendant reduction in crime and disease. See Portugal, Great Britain, Switzerland, specific locations in Canada.
This is very misleading.
Canada has NOT made "drugs (yes, all drugs)" legal. What they did was allow doctors to medically prescribe prescription grade heroin to already addicted users when traditional addiction treatment has not proven effective, under the care and supervision of a physician. They did not legalize heroin for recreational use. This policy only began 3 months ago, so no idea how you can there are falling addiction rates. Is there a different policy you are referring to? I'm not an expert, so that's definitely possible, please provide a link so I can educate myself.
Additionally, I'm not sure the program the UK implemented was very different from what Canada approved this past fall.
the UK has been doing this for decades and I think it's like I said, misleading to say addiction rates have fallen. They're still addicts, only getting it via prescription (in a controlled and monitored manner) vs the street and not any recreational user can get it from what I've read. The number of heroin addicts in the UK is dropping, especially among younger generations, but I don't think anyone attributes it to this program which has been around for decades.
Better take another look at the facts.
Quote:
In comment 13323055 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 13322946 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
In comment 13322535 jcn56 said:
Quote:My concern is that increasing availability will increase the total number of users.
Anywhere that drugs (yes, all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, etc) have been legalized have, without fail, experienced falling addiction/use rates with the attendant reduction in crime and disease. See Portugal, Great Britain, Switzerland, specific locations in Canada.
This is very misleading.
Canada has NOT made "drugs (yes, all drugs)" legal. What they did was allow doctors to medically prescribe prescription grade heroin to already addicted users when traditional addiction treatment has not proven effective, under the care and supervision of a physician. They did not legalize heroin for recreational use. This policy only began 3 months ago, so no idea how you can there are falling addiction rates. Is there a different policy you are referring to? I'm not an expert, so that's definitely possible, please provide a link so I can educate myself.
Additionally, I'm not sure the program the UK implemented was very different from what Canada approved this past fall.
the UK has been doing this for decades and I think it's like I said, misleading to say addiction rates have fallen. They're still addicts, only getting it via prescription (in a controlled and monitored manner) vs the street and not any recreational user can get it from what I've read. The number of heroin addicts in the UK is dropping, especially among younger generations, but I don't think anyone attributes it to this program which has been around for decades.
Better take another look at the facts.
Do you have a link? Below is one link about the Canadian Heroin "legalization" from September.
Link - ( New Window )
A. Great Britain
With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit.
As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52 At first blush, this fact seems strange - why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53
A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56
To summarize, the British experience with decriminalized heroin in the clinical context was a dismal failure. When experts from British Columbia were debating whether to create a similar program, they made the following conclusions that are so important as to deserve to be quoted at length:
While some success is claimed in terms of reducing the incidence of young users, the following findings have also been noted:
1) The British approach has failed to attract a majority of addicts;
2) Many registered addicts continue to turn to illicit sources of
drugs;
3) Many registered addicts do not decrease their dosage over time;
4) Many registered addicts continue to be involved in criminal activity;
5) Many registered addicts are chronically unemployed or do not earn enough to look after themselves;
6) The death rate of registered addicts is much higher than that of the general population and may be higher than that of North American addicts;
7) Since 1960, there has been a dramatic increase in the English addict population;
8) The black market for heroin continues to thrive;
9) Law enforcement appears to remain a necessary, costly and complex control measure.
In view of the above, it is felt that the application of the British approach to British Columbia would present serious dangers.57
No indication of that as any sort of verifiable factor.
Acknowledged already. Also - cannot confirm that it isn't a factor, right?
No solid research actually exists as far as I can find, and so I revert to anecdotal evidence, of which there is plenty.
Got any evidence to the contrary of your own?
Big difference between cures everything and has efficacy for an incredible number of symptoms and conditions. So many of our pharmaceuticals are plant based, so why would it be surprising that Cannabis could be so beneficial?
Quote:
But the claims that pot cures everything and is the most miraculous wonderdrug of all time do make me roll my eyes.
Big difference between cures everything and has efficacy for an incredible number of symptoms and conditions. So many of our pharmaceuticals are plant based, so why would it be surprising that Cannabis could be so beneficial?
My wife suffers from chronic pain disorders, if the state of the law was different we would certainly consider her trying a course of therapy. However, I agree with Greg that this dogged insistence that marijuana is a wonder drug is remarkably annoying.
Quote:
A. Great Britain
With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit.
As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52 At first blush, this fact seems strange - why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53
A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56
To summarize, the British experience with decriminalized heroin in the clinical context was a dismal failure. When experts from British Columbia were debating whether to create a similar program, they made the following conclusions that are so important as to deserve to be quoted at length:
While some success is claimed in terms of reducing the incidence of young users, the following findings have also been noted:
1) The British approach has failed to attract a majority of addicts;
2) Many registered addicts continue to turn to illicit sources of
drugs;
3) Many registered addicts do not decrease their dosage over time;
4) Many registered addicts continue to be involved in criminal activity;
5) Many registered addicts are chronically unemployed or do not earn enough to look after themselves;
6) The death rate of registered addicts is much higher than that of the general population and may be higher than that of North American addicts;
7) Since 1960, there has been a dramatic increase in the English addict population;
8) The black market for heroin continues to thrive;
9) Law enforcement appears to remain a necessary, costly and complex control measure.
In view of the above, it is felt that the application of the British approach to British Columbia would present serious dangers.57
I suspect, but cannot prove, that this isn't reporting from a particular POV. It appears that the indications reported from the referenced countries are notm in accord with your referenced "facts."
Quote:
No indication of that as any sort of verifiable factor.
Acknowledged already. Also - cannot confirm that it isn't a factor, right?
No solid research actually exists as far as I can find, and so I revert to anecdotal evidence, of which there is plenty.
Got any evidence to the contrary of your own?
All I can reference you to, which I already have, is the evidence submitted by the countries I've named. I understand that I haven't cited exhaustive evidence, but frankly, I'm not going to do that on a football website. I throw the responsibility to support your assertions to you.
By percentages opiods is heavily slanted to white victims, but in total more blacks OD from opioids than from crack (and cocaine combined).
if crack ever reached these same levels of epidemic regardless of race I believe it would get the same attention.
regardless of people's perceived biases, at least in my opinion. AIDS I think may be a good example, AIDS disproportionately hit the gay and black communities, black especially, and it received a lot of attention.
the linked site doesn't show demographics of each overdose death, but I found that elsewhere. Link - ( New Window )
Based on the chart you've linked the uproar over prescription opioids is insanity. The population has increased 15% over the time period of the chart (which looks scary but in absolute numbers is puny) and the number of deaths is actually stable or decreasing.
Twice as many people die each year from accidental falls.
Quote:
there were over 30,000 deaths from opioids, 7,000 from crack (all cocaine combined), which I believe is close to the peak for cocaine.
By percentages opiods is heavily slanted to white victims, but in total more blacks OD from opioids than from crack (and cocaine combined).
if crack ever reached these same levels of epidemic regardless of race I believe it would get the same attention.
regardless of people's perceived biases, at least in my opinion. AIDS I think may be a good example, AIDS disproportionately hit the gay and black communities, black especially, and it received a lot of attention.
the linked site doesn't show demographics of each overdose death, but I found that elsewhere. Link - ( New Window )
Based on the chart you've linked the uproar over prescription opioids is insanity. The population has increased 15% over the time period of the chart (which looks scary but in absolute numbers is puny) and the number of deaths is actually stable or decreasing.
Twice as many people die each year from accidental falls.
yes, legally prescribed prescription opioids. The commercial with the soccer mom who was in a minor car accident and prescribed 20 vicodin and became a junkie heroin addict is an extreme rarity based on what I've read. In fact the link between legal prescription use and heroin use seems slim at best.
The bulk of heroin users do use pills first or at some point, but not via legitimate prescription, according at least to studies I've read.
All I can reference you to, which I already have, is the evidence submitted by the countries I've named. I understand that I haven't cited exhaustive evidence, but frankly, I'm not going to do that on a football website. I throw the responsibility to support your assertions to you.
Guess you're missing my point. What you referenced is a claim that drug use/addiction, crime and disease are reduced with legalization - right?
You do understand that's not what I'm talking about - right?
I'm talking about something very specific. I'm concerned about long-term impact of legalization on career prep.
I've already told you that - and you haven't really responded directly to it. If you have any research to share related to this then please do. If not, it's okay to admit it and we can agree that the best we have is anecdotal evidence at present.
Thanks.
There are other studies- linked a time article about another one.
As far as Vermont goes, they have a very stringent medical program, so it's not easy to get a MMJ card, esp for pain. Strictly as it relates to opiate use, you will see the most impact when doctors are prescribing cannabis for pain instead of opiates. It's not a 1:1 comparison, but cannabis works for a large chunk of the cases.
Time link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13323066 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
But the claims that pot cures everything and is the most miraculous wonderdrug of all time do make me roll my eyes.
Big difference between cures everything and has efficacy for an incredible number of symptoms and conditions. So many of our pharmaceuticals are plant based, so why would it be surprising that Cannabis could be so beneficial?
My wife suffers from chronic pain disorders, if the state of the law was different we would certainly consider her trying a course of therapy. However, I agree with Greg that this dogged insistence that marijuana is a wonder drug is remarkably annoying.
All I can state is why be annoyed when you haven't done the research on the efficacy of it? The amount of conditions it can help treat is astounding, why would that annoy you? As I said, if you're interested in learning more you can read Sunjay Guptas words on. If you want to email me I'd be happy to send over other reading material as well.
100% not what I'm saying. It's a part of the solution, but it can't be maximized as part of the solution as long as the stigma around it continues.
My point, which I've made on here several times, is that this quest for an addict deserving of our sympathy is wrongheaded. All addicts are deserving of our sympathy, because they are people, father's, sons, mothers, daughters, siblings, etc. If it's primarily a pain problem your recommendation makes all the sense in the world. Now I agree with you by and large, but not because of the opiate/opioid epidemic though.
My point, which I've made on here several times, is that this quest for an addict deserving of our sympathy is wrongheaded. All addicts are deserving of our sympathy, because they are people, father's, sons, mothers, daughters, siblings, etc. If it's primarily a pain problem your recommendation makes all the sense in the world. Now I agree with you by and large, but not because of the opiate/opioid epidemic though.
Pain can mean a lot of things, and people can become addicts for a lot of reasons. Its a longer conversation but the the reality is, as long as humans exist, they will find substances to help them get through the days. Whether those are relatively harmless like caffeine, relatively harmless in moderation but incredibly damaging when abused like alcohol or incredibly harmful on all levels like heroin, they will be sought out and used.
Its INCREDIBLY hypocritical for the US government to allow so many opiate derivatives to be legal while continuing its outdated prohibition on another drug with far more medical applications, and without all of the incredible risks and downsides of the potential of them used recreationally.
We are fighting a war that is unwinnable on too many fronts. Spending DEA money, local policing, lost tax revenue on many levels- cannabis is, conservatively, a 100 billion dollar industry on the black market. None of that revenue gets taxed, not from sales, not from income, etc.
Its not a panacea for heroin abuse, opiate abuse predates cannabis prohbition obviously. It's undoubtedly one step further to help figure out ways to reign it in though.