4 ms·

The war on drugs is responsible for the opioid crisis. Companies psychopathically seek out profits, and need to be kept in check, but that does not diminish th

The war on drugs is responsible for the opioid crisis. Companies psychopathically seek out profits, and need to be kept in check, but that does not diminish the fact that US (and Canadian) drug policy bears direct responsibility for opioid deaths. This kind of news story, while maybe satisfying, is a red herring. As long as addiction is criminalized, and legal drug supplies dont exist, it doesn't matter how many Purdues or McKinseys we punish, the problem does not go away.

spaetzleesser 6y ago
You don't have to choose one or the other. Even if the war on drugs got ended these companies find other unethical ways to make money.
elliekelly 6y ago
Why do you see it as mutually exclusive? I don’t think it’s really an either/or situation. It’s both.
- iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
  You know in cop shows like "the wire" when the police commissioner says he wants to see "drugs on the table" showing off what they seized from the gangs, but the detectives know it's a hollow victory that just panders to public opinion but does nothing to address the root of the problem? This is like that.
tokai 6y ago
The opioid epidemic was started by over prescription of legal opioids. The war on drugs is an inhumane disaster. But the opioid issue is on the US health system.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  No. Addicts (after being tricked into addiction by the Sacklers and McKinseys of the world) without the war on drugs could continue to consume legal, clean opiates, which would fail to lead to fent overdoses, and fail to push users into grinding poverty and crime. Being a opiate addict would be like being an asthmatic, just without the high mortality rate that asthma brings.
ThrustVectoring 6y ago
The opioid crisis would have happened without the war on drugs. The fundamental driver of it is Oxycontin's dosing schedule, which was optimized for causing addiction. Marketing for Oxycontin is all about how it "lasts twelve hours", when it often doesn't. Doctors were trained and pressured to increase the prescribed dose when patients complained of pain in the hours before their next scheduled dose, rather than switching to something like an every-eight-hours schedule. The end result is a medication profile with a pronounced sawtooth pattern. On a daily basis, patients get relief from pain, suffer waiting for their next dose through a few hours of agony, and then get relief again. If they try to fix this problem and complain of untreated pain, the doctor ups their dosage and makes the sawtooth even worse. What the war on drugs does is add inflexibility and a criminal dimension to the newly-minted opioid addict's interaction with society. Run out because you accelerated your dosing schedule in order to avoid hours of daily agony? You're not allowed to refill early for any reason whatsoever, and it may get you a drug-seeking label that kicks you out of the official reason entirely.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  That undersells their liability and (i think) evil behavior. The original Dr. Sackler invented modern marketing of drugs directly to consumers, starting with getting millions addicted to Valium - which BTW was totally gross sexism. the very Mad Men 60s style marketing /r/oldschool ridiculous keeping women in the house and dealing with their 'emotions and feelings' with downers etc. The Netflix doc the Pharmacist is really good I highly recommend. Purdue gave direct $ bonus' to their sales people, using prescriber data to knowingly target Drs. prescribing insane amounts of opiates. On purpose because they identified it as the most profitable. They also basically bribed doctors to attend conferences and put their name on BS 'research.' they spent millions to induce an earth shaking change in pain management - opiates weren't widely used long term before their 'investment.' Plus the first baseline research they use to justify this was total overstated from one Drs opinion. It's also the pharmacies, Walmart optimized profits and kept pharmacists from questioning scripts. And now last I checked the Sacklers still have their billions and are using the same playbook with a new company in the developing world/India. I'm also totally against the war on drugs and believe we need to fundamentally change attitudes and pretty much remove possession laws. Personally I would go so far as to provide free prescriptions/handouts for addicts of opiates/stims that are pure, clear doses, and safer to inject or use. Make it mandatory to interact with mental health professionals to get the drugs and offer free treatment (medication focused) when the user is ready themselves to attempt to get clean. It's also gross that it's a good amount harder for a doctor to prescribe suboxone than it is opiates. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/27/india-opioids-crisis-us-pain-narcotics https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/27/india-opioids-...
steve76 6y ago
BREAKING NEWS: Through budget reconciliation, House Democrats legalized fentanyl in the food supply and elevated junkies to protected class status. We now expect everyone to turn into Lycurgus of Sparta.
AmericanChopper 6y ago
I would say the FDA who approved the use of these drugs, and the doctors who set up businesses specifically to give bogus prescriptions to abusers are the most culpable in all of this. The people who end up paying these big settlements are targeted because they have the most money, not because they're the most culpable. The big evil company narrative is also a fantastic way to distract from the fact that regulatory failure caused a decades long epidemic of opioid deaths. "We investigated ourselves and found McKinsey were to blame".
- pessimizer 6y ago
  The same people working in the industry are regulating the industry. It's not a scapegoating of McKinsey, it's the giving of a small fine to an abstract entity that can easily absorb it while every actual person involved got rich, including at McKinsey.
foolinaround 6y ago
since we are addressing the root cause in this sub-thread, i submit that we need to go one layer deeper than just the 'war on drugs' what causes individuals to seek drugs or other harmful substances? Surely,similar substances existed throughout history? (maybe not as lethal, but still...) I think it is the despair and lack of spiritual fulfillment for a person, and i think this coincides with what has been a failure in religions to make a relevant impact in individuals lives. they have often made the situation worse by being judgemental further pushing said individual into this trap.
- strbean 6y ago
  I think drug prohibition is the lower-hanging fruit here, but it's certainly important not to overlook the deeper causes. Spiritual malaise, a feeling of disenfranchisement and lack of buy-in to society, poverty, and desperation are all tightly intertwined root causes for so many big problems we face today.
- iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
  Well, I agree, a lot about modern society contributes to the kind of mental health problems that can lead to substance abuse. But for better or worse, overall health outcomes are better than at any time in history. So if you're thinking that people being idle, bored, robbed of any agency, and unfulfilled is a root cause of drug abuse, I agree. But that boils down to being at the top of the needs hierarchy, and moving down has a set of bigger problems with it. So as long as we're here, treating opioid use as a disease or chronic condition, instead of as some kind of "criminal" hedonistic behavior we should be punished for, goes a long way to reduce any harm it causes.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >But for better or worse, overall health outcomes are better than at any time in history. This is not true? US life expectancy is actually falling now, and due to the obesity epidemic the "average" adult is fairly unhealthy.
    - 6y ago

spaetzleesser 6y ago

You don't have to choose one or the other. Even if the war on drugs got ended these companies find other unethical ways to make money.

elliekelly 6y ago

Why do you see it as mutually exclusive? I don’t think it’s really an either/or situation. It’s both.

iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
You know in cop shows like "the wire" when the police commissioner says he wants to see "drugs on the table" showing off what they seized from the gangs, but the detectives know it's a hollow victory that just panders to public opinion but does nothing to address the root of the problem? This is like that.

tokai 6y ago

The opioid epidemic was started by over prescription of legal opioids. The war on drugs is an inhumane disaster. But the opioid issue is on the US health system.

pessimizer 6y ago
No. Addicts (after being tricked into addiction by the Sacklers and McKinseys of the world) without the war on drugs could continue to consume legal, clean opiates, which would fail to lead to fent overdoses, and fail to push users into grinding poverty and crime. Being a opiate addict would be like being an asthmatic, just without the high mortality rate that asthma brings.

ThrustVectoring 6y ago

The opioid crisis would have happened without the war on drugs. The fundamental driver of it is Oxycontin's dosing schedule, which was optimized for causing addiction. Marketing for Oxycontin is all about how it "lasts twelve hours", when it often doesn't. Doctors were trained and pressured to increase the prescribed dose when patients complained of pain in the hours before their next scheduled dose, rather than switching to something like an every-eight-hours schedule. The end result is a medication profile with a pronounced sawtooth pattern. On a daily basis, patients get relief from pain, suffer waiting for their next dose through a few hours of agony, and then get relief again. If they try to fix this problem and complain of untreated pain, the doctor ups their dosage and makes the sawtooth even worse. What the war on drugs does is add inflexibility and a criminal dimension to the newly-minted opioid addict's interaction with society. Run out because you accelerated your dosing schedule in order to avoid hours of daily agony? You're not allowed to refill early for any reason whatsoever, and it may get you a drug-seeking label that kicks you out of the official reason entirely.

dillondoyle 6y ago
That undersells their liability and (i think) evil behavior. The original Dr. Sackler invented modern marketing of drugs directly to consumers, starting with getting millions addicted to Valium - which BTW was totally gross sexism. the very Mad Men 60s style marketing /r/oldschool ridiculous keeping women in the house and dealing with their 'emotions and feelings' with downers etc. The Netflix doc the Pharmacist is really good I highly recommend. Purdue gave direct $ bonus' to their sales people, using prescriber data to knowingly target Drs. prescribing insane amounts of opiates. On purpose because they identified it as the most profitable. They also basically bribed doctors to attend conferences and put their name on BS 'research.' they spent millions to induce an earth shaking change in pain management - opiates weren't widely used long term before their 'investment.' Plus the first baseline research they use to justify this was total overstated from one Drs opinion. It's also the pharmacies, Walmart optimized profits and kept pharmacists from questioning scripts. And now last I checked the Sacklers still have their billions and are using the same playbook with a new company in the developing world/India. I'm also totally against the war on drugs and believe we need to fundamentally change attitudes and pretty much remove possession laws. Personally I would go so far as to provide free prescriptions/handouts for addicts of opiates/stims that are pure, clear doses, and safer to inject or use. Make it mandatory to interact with mental health professionals to get the drugs and offer free treatment (medication focused) when the user is ready themselves to attempt to get clean. It's also gross that it's a good amount harder for a doctor to prescribe suboxone than it is opiates. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/27/india-opioids-crisis-us-pain-narcotics https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/27/india-opioids-...

steve76 6y ago

BREAKING NEWS: Through budget reconciliation, House Democrats legalized fentanyl in the food supply and elevated junkies to protected class status. We now expect everyone to turn into Lycurgus of Sparta.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

I would say the FDA who approved the use of these drugs, and the doctors who set up businesses specifically to give bogus prescriptions to abusers are the most culpable in all of this. The people who end up paying these big settlements are targeted because they have the most money, not because they're the most culpable. The big evil company narrative is also a fantastic way to distract from the fact that regulatory failure caused a decades long epidemic of opioid deaths. "We investigated ourselves and found McKinsey were to blame".

pessimizer 6y ago
The same people working in the industry are regulating the industry. It's not a scapegoating of McKinsey, it's the giving of a small fine to an abstract entity that can easily absorb it while every actual person involved got rich, including at McKinsey.

foolinaround 6y ago

since we are addressing the root cause in this sub-thread, i submit that we need to go one layer deeper than just the 'war on drugs' what causes individuals to seek drugs or other harmful substances? Surely,similar substances existed throughout history? (maybe not as lethal, but still...) I think it is the despair and lack of spiritual fulfillment for a person, and i think this coincides with what has been a failure in religions to make a relevant impact in individuals lives. they have often made the situation worse by being judgemental further pushing said individual into this trap.

strbean 6y ago
I think drug prohibition is the lower-hanging fruit here, but it's certainly important not to overlook the deeper causes. Spiritual malaise, a feeling of disenfranchisement and lack of buy-in to society, poverty, and desperation are all tightly intertwined root causes for so many big problems we face today.
iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
Well, I agree, a lot about modern society contributes to the kind of mental health problems that can lead to substance abuse. But for better or worse, overall health outcomes are better than at any time in history. So if you're thinking that people being idle, bored, robbed of any agency, and unfulfilled is a root cause of drug abuse, I agree. But that boils down to being at the top of the needs hierarchy, and moving down has a set of bigger problems with it. So as long as we're here, treating opioid use as a disease or chronic condition, instead of as some kind of "criminal" hedonistic behavior we should be punished for, goes a long way to reduce any harm it causes.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >But for better or worse, overall health outcomes are better than at any time in history. This is not true? US life expectancy is actually falling now, and due to the obesity epidemic the "average" adult is fairly unhealthy.
  - 6y ago