3 ms·

Junkies are junkies... as in... what? they are always going to chase the high? or they are less of a person than a non-junkie? The answer to heroin abuse is no

by robbiep 11y ago

Junkies are junkies... as in... what? they are always going to chase the high? or they are less of a person than a non-junkie? The answer to heroin abuse is not prescription fast acting opiates, which themselves have significant abuse potential, but treatment programs such as suboxone, bup or methadone. The pattern of use needs to change from the epic highs and withdrawal cycles which generate the behaviour of an addict (and is still there with oxycodone due to the pharmacology of the drug) to a substance that maintains opioid receptor agonism for longer periods

aianus 11y ago
It's up to them to decide to seek treatment. Until they feel they need or want to stop being a junky, restricting their access to pills will just push them to heroin. They're not going to throw their hands up and go 'whelp, can't get any more legal oxy, time to quit drugs'.
- robbiep 11y ago
  You're absolutely right that you can't make someone accept treatment. But enabling someone by giving them access to a drug of abuse when they are clearly abusing it is not the answer. The answer is to get them onto treatment programs, not further their addiction with access to drugs they are abusing
  - aianus 11y ago
    If you cut off their access to the drugs, you're strong-arming them into accepting treatment or else. Like you said, that strategy doesn't work and is a net harm to addicts and society in general. Treatment programs should be available and encouraged, of course, but if the guy really wants to continue abusing his prescription medication, that's his choice and I don't see the issue in supplying him. Doctors encourage their patients to quit smoking, they don't jack up their cost of cigarettes 1000% and then shake their heads and absolve themselves of all responsibility when the patient isn't ready to quit and goes broke buying cigs instead.
    - robbiep 11y ago
      firstly, if a doctor is prescribing appropriately, and a patient is using appropriately, then there shouldn't be dependence and addiction issues. So one problem is doctors prescribing irresponsibly, because just writing the script is easier than explaining to a patient how a certain level of pain should be expected post surgery, etc. But if someone wants to abuse drugs, then they shouldn't be given access to them. I really don't think you have any conception of how destructive opiate addictions are over the medium to long term. I don't accept your arguments that it is simply a factor of choice, and if someone wants to abuse a serious drug, then they should be enabled by providing them with access to a restricted drug , that is being used for the purpose of abuse. It's not acceptable in civilised society. As to your supporting argument, yes doctors do encourage their patients to quit smoking. But in Australia we have jacked up the price of cigarettes to act as a disincentive as well. And, guess what - it works. The idea that we should make it easy for patients to access drugs of abuse, for the purpose of abuse, is severely flawed and your argument is bunk. An opiate is a drug of abuse and a restricted drug for a reason, and that reason should never be the recreational consumption.
      - aianus 11y ago
        > I really don't think you have any conception of how destructive opiate addictions are over the medium to long term. The destruction is a direct result of prohibition, it is not inherent in the drug. People can and do take opiates long-term with little harm. > But in Australia we have jacked up the price of cigarettes to act as a disincentive as well. Yes, but not to the level that people have to prostitute themselves or rob others to get their fix. I didn't say it had to be dirt cheap, just cheap enough to sustain an addiction without turning to crime or selling one's house. > An opiate is a drug of abuse and a restricted drug for a reason, and that reason should never be the recreational consumption. I also didn't say it should be sold like candy to anybody at the corner store. But cutting somebody off who is already addicted like they do in the US is what ruins lives, not the pills.

by robbiep 11y ago

aianus 11y ago

It's up to them to decide to seek treatment. Until they feel they need or want to stop being a junky, restricting their access to pills will just push them to heroin. They're not going to throw their hands up and go 'whelp, can't get any more legal oxy, time to quit drugs'.

robbiep 11y ago
You're absolutely right that you can't make someone accept treatment. But enabling someone by giving them access to a drug of abuse when they are clearly abusing it is not the answer. The answer is to get them onto treatment programs, not further their addiction with access to drugs they are abusing
- aianus 11y ago
  If you cut off their access to the drugs, you're strong-arming them into accepting treatment or else. Like you said, that strategy doesn't work and is a net harm to addicts and society in general. Treatment programs should be available and encouraged, of course, but if the guy really wants to continue abusing his prescription medication, that's his choice and I don't see the issue in supplying him. Doctors encourage their patients to quit smoking, they don't jack up their cost of cigarettes 1000% and then shake their heads and absolve themselves of all responsibility when the patient isn't ready to quit and goes broke buying cigs instead.
  - robbiep 11y ago
    firstly, if a doctor is prescribing appropriately, and a patient is using appropriately, then there shouldn't be dependence and addiction issues. So one problem is doctors prescribing irresponsibly, because just writing the script is easier than explaining to a patient how a certain level of pain should be expected post surgery, etc. But if someone wants to abuse drugs, then they shouldn't be given access to them. I really don't think you have any conception of how destructive opiate addictions are over the medium to long term. I don't accept your arguments that it is simply a factor of choice, and if someone wants to abuse a serious drug, then they should be enabled by providing them with access to a restricted drug , that is being used for the purpose of abuse. It's not acceptable in civilised society. As to your supporting argument, yes doctors do encourage their patients to quit smoking. But in Australia we have jacked up the price of cigarettes to act as a disincentive as well. And, guess what - it works. The idea that we should make it easy for patients to access drugs of abuse, for the purpose of abuse, is severely flawed and your argument is bunk. An opiate is a drug of abuse and a restricted drug for a reason, and that reason should never be the recreational consumption.
    - aianus 11y ago
      > I really don't think you have any conception of how destructive opiate addictions are over the medium to long term. The destruction is a direct result of prohibition, it is not inherent in the drug. People can and do take opiates long-term with little harm. > But in Australia we have jacked up the price of cigarettes to act as a disincentive as well. Yes, but not to the level that people have to prostitute themselves or rob others to get their fix. I didn't say it had to be dirt cheap, just cheap enough to sustain an addiction without turning to crime or selling one's house. > An opiate is a drug of abuse and a restricted drug for a reason, and that reason should never be the recreational consumption. I also didn't say it should be sold like candy to anybody at the corner store. But cutting somebody off who is already addicted like they do in the US is what ruins lives, not the pills.