4 ms·

While I agree that drugs like this shouldn't necessarily be handed out like candy (ignoring the lumping-together of amphetamines and opiates in the headline), i

• spicybright 4y ago
  In the same boat. I've been off it for months now and it's been the worst time I've had in a while. I lost my job pretty quickly and just can't keep track of time all day. It's so tough to stay on top of making the phone calls every 30 days to fill it, and now figuring out what meds are actually available and what would work for me that I've pretty much given up at this point.
  • junofan 4y ago
    It’s disgusting that psychiatric medication is lumped in with opiates by the DEA and subject to many of the same hamfisted policies.
    • PraetorianGourd 4y ago
      Opiates are incredibly effective at treating debilitating pain. Not headaches, not toothaches, but overwhelming “please just kill me” pain. I take adderall with a prescription but I am not going to pretend that my psychological needs are somehow more worthy of medication than another’s pain. You want to get real angry? Cannabis and psilocybin are both schedule I drugs while cocaine is schedule II. I know cocaine has medical uses and is unfairly maligned, but still.
      • catchnear4321 4y ago
        You do yourself and others a disservice by treating physical pain as “more real” than the psychological pain that can be caused by simply not functioning the way one wants and knowing a restricted pill could help. Comparing one’s pain to another is meaningless, if the pain of both can be treated. Pain isn’t necessary. It is enforced.
• phpisthebest 4y ago
  >>I suppose what I'm saying is that while I understand the need or desire to regulate powerful drugs I dont. We have now almost 60 years of drug prohibition, and increasing levels of criminality of abuse of drugs with nothing really to show for it except billions, or trillions in wasted resources, the millions of destroyed lives with little or no evidence that any of the criminalization has done anything to curb abuse of drugs If nothing else is clear, one thing for sure is.. the DEA is the most ineffective federal agency ever created bar none. >>I fear further zealous overreach by the DEA et al that has already made it difficult for responsible users to access important medications. It absolutely has, and likely has increased overdose's and death at the same time.
  • HybridCurve 4y ago
    Not just ineffective, incompetent. They've ignored pursuing policies that focus across the spectrum of illicit drug use and instead implement hamfisted solutions to problems only when they've grown so bad that legislators have to intervene. Often thier approach, purely from a law enforcement perspective, is interdiction and supression. To them drug abuse is a criminal problem which can only be solved by aggressive policing, confiscations, and arrests. Now I hear that dealers in the US are cutting opioids sold to PWID with Xylazine which is highly destructive to tissue. There is no healthcare system to speak of available to the addicts so they don't end up in healthcare until their wounds have become gangrenous. It's no wonder an enforcement agency fails in this area because their mission is not to provide care and rehabilitation to criminals. Drug trafficking is supply and demand, maybe they should realize focusing on only half the problem isn't going to be a comprehensive solution.
• PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > I suppose what I'm saying is that while I understand the need or desire to regulate powerful drugs, I fear further zealous overreach by the DEA et al that has already made it difficult for responsible users to access important medications. This shouldn’t impact patients with an existing doctor and prescription. It only applies to initial visits. This rolls back a COVID exception that allowed internet companies to remotely prescribe Schedule II drugs after a cursory call. Companies were using it to create Adderall subscriptions as a service. In fact, the rampant overprescribing might be why you’re seeing shortages right now.
  • pksebben 4y ago
    It already is affecting patients with existing prescriptions. Every time I move I have to jump through a series of hoops to get my doctor comfortable enough to prescribe, and I've been on the stuff for well over a decade. For a while, having the receipts for previous scripts was enough. Then they started needing medical records, which is like, okay fine. This most recent move has my new physician demanding I get rediagnosed (in an area where the next available appointment with a psych taking new patients is in, like, July). Because "this is a family practice, my license is on the line". The gradual ratcheting of pressure by the nanny-state DEA has doctors spooked. Never mind that the more beurocratic hoops you put in front of someone with an executive function disorder, the closer to impossible you make it for them. And the shortage is because of the dea. They placed arbitrary limits on what any one producer is allowed to make, so when one of them has supply chain issues, no one can cover for them. Disband the DEA.
    • protectionrkt 4y ago
      The Constitution protects citizens' Equal Liberty to Pursuit of Happiness. It says "Equal Justice Under Law" on the front of which building? Isn't the prescription system an illegally discriminatory protection racket? How can the state grant rights on the basis of medical status as determined by a physician that the citizen must pay? "You may only legally risk [juggling chainsaws in the privacy of your Lawrence v home] if you have a qualifying disability as determined by a physician you must pay?" Physicians can self-prescribe controlled substances. Patients can risk unintentional self-harm by choosing to participate in a Clinical Trial of a wholly-untested treatment; they do have such Equal Liberty as is necessary to pursue Happiness. Do pharmacies have the right to deny service? Per the more recently fraudulently-packed Supreme Court ("Where's his birth certificate,[ tax return, arrest records, and level of foreign debt]"), You don't have to serve a gay cake to a gay wedding. The UNDHR (UN Declaration of Human Rights) specifies "Equal Protection" of "Equal Rights" as fundamental rights. Shouldn't a US Constitutional Amendment be necessary to unequally deny rights on the basis of medical status (under the guise of authorization of right to regulate substantial affectation of Interstate Commerce), if an amendment was necessary to (also unequally) prohibit alcohol? How can we work together on our shared objectives: maximize compliance with the Constitution, provide for the national defense, minimize self-harm and physician liability, and secure the blessings of Liberty? How and why is there a profit margin in pharmaceutical resale without a license? What is the comparative cost of the pharmaceutical generic? We could give people a discount - equally - for speaking with a physician. There should be a financial incentive to work with a physician on what works and isn't working. https://is-this-valid.github.io/liberty/ https://is-this-valid.github.io/liberty/