5 ms·

> preventi g addicts from getting it (who cares?) I presume the families and loved ones of the addicts probably care...

by Zetice 4y ago

capableweb 4y ago
If a drug is available and there is addicts of said drug, the addicts don't suddenly stop being addicts just because the drug is not available, they'll just move on to a different drug. The problem is that addicts are not being treated, not that a specific drug is available or not.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  They can't become addicts if they don't start abusing the drug in the first place.
  - aarpmcgee 4y ago
    We all have addictions. For some it is substances, other relationships, power, sex, gambling, food, etc. What if yours suddenly became really difficult to manage within the societal-framework-du-jour? Just don't start doing it?
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      I think it's trivializing the concept to say "we all have addictions," since by definition an addiction is meant to be a significant impediment to living a normal life. And I'm not sure how you're answering the concern here. Like yeah, a lot of people get addicted to gambling -- that's a compelling argument against legalizing gambling.
      - aarpmcgee 4y ago
        My point was more an attempt to point at an empathetic response as a possibility. "don't start abusing the drug in the first place", to me, felt like a way to dismiss the reality that it can be really easy to fall into addiction, because most of us are broken in our own peculiar ways and have our own vulnerabilities. What if someone else's response to one's own brokenness was "just don't do that"? It doesn't really help much, because the reasons for it are valid, and the need itself needs to be seen. My own comment was a knee-jerk reactive comment in reply to what I felt in your post, which may or may not have been a real thing. Idk. My hunch is that we are all addicted to something, and if you don't see what it is yet, then either you or society (or both) must not have much of a problem with that particular addiction, and that can always change.
        emodendroket 4y ago
        My point is that seeking to prevent abuse of amphetamines is a way to avoid creating addicts in the first place.
      - TomSwirly 4y ago
        > since by definition an addiction is meant to be a significant impediment to living a normal life. Wrong. The definition of addiction is "physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance." (Oxford Dictionary) I am addicted to coffee. I get mild physical withdrawal symptoms if I quit. In no way is it an impediment to living my normal life.
        emodendroket 4y ago
        Here is how Wikipedia defines it: > Addiction is a neuropsychological disorder characterized by a persistent and intense urge to engage in certain behaviors, one of which is the usage of a drug, despite substantial harm and other negative consequences. In fact, the article goes on to specifically refute the argument you are making: > The term addiction is frequently misused when referring to other compulsive behaviors or disorders, particularly dependence, in news media. An important distinction between drug addiction and dependence is that drug dependence is a disorder in which cessation of drug use results in an unpleasant state of withdrawal, which can lead to further drug use. Addiction is the compulsive use of a substance or performance of a behavior that is independent of withdrawal. Addiction can occur in the absence of dependence, and dependence can occur in the absence of addiction, although the two can occur together.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      Citation very much needed.
- mobb_solo 4y ago
  Actually, this is EXACTLY how many addicts KICK. They make a decision.
  - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
    Not sure what you are saying here exactly, but ive heard far more stories of someone ruining their life because they turned to black market subsitutes for drugs they were previously able to obtain legally than stories of people who just decided to quit when it was no longer available.
    - yakubin 4y ago
      The latter doesn't make for as exciting a story.
DontchaKnowit 4y ago
So what? None of my business or yours. People should be allowed to destroy themselves by any means of their choosing.
- Zetice 4y ago
  Dismissing people’s pain and sadness is a pretty cynical thing to do…
  - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
    I'm not - I think its wrong and cynical to gatekeep someones usage of a drug : whos to say what is theraputic and what is degenerate junky usage? You know what is cynical? Putting up barrier after barrier that makes it hard for ANYONE to obtain a medication that can genuinely help people because we dissapprove of how some people use the drug on their own bodies. Criminalizing the possession if a drug doesnt do jack shit to help people who are addicted - it just drives them into sketchy situations to obtain it and throws them in jail if theyre caught. And to top it all off it makes it incredibly difficult to obtain it even if you play by the rules.
    - Zetice 4y ago
      Okay but there are addicts out there, they have families, and your glib reply was offensive to those people, to me.
      - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
        I did not intend to be glib or offensive. But I do not apologize for my assertion that humans ought to have sovereignty over their own bodies. It is not the job of the governmemt to concern itself with what the citizenry does to their own bodies.
        Zetice 4y ago
        That’s not what I commented about, your lack of empathy towards other human beings is callous. Don’t fall for that trap.
skissane 4y ago
Some of the rules around prescribed controlled substances seem to have no legitimate purpose in actually "preventing addicts from getting it" though. Not US, Australia, but wouldn't be surprised if same rules apply there – suppose you are prescribed 50mg Vyvanse. You start to feel like 50mg is too much (the side effects are too bad), and you want to try 40mg instead. Can the pharmacist dispense you 40mg instead of 50mg? No. Because it is a controlled substance (or "Schedule 8" as it is called in Australia), the pharmacist can only legally dispense the exact thing you were prescribed – they'll tell you to go back to the prescriber and get a new prescription. If it wasn't a controlled substance, the pharmacist would have more flexibility; in the past, I've gotten pharmacists to dispense prescription drugs without a prescription because I hadn't got around to getting a new script – something they are legally allowed to do (at least here in Australia) for non-controlled substances. They can't do that again and again – it is important the prescriber is kept in the loop – but as a short-term once-off, it does no harm. But going back to the prescriber involves getting another appointment, taking the time out of one's day to attend it, paying for it, etc. In the end one might just decide to put up with the side effects–which is a clearly less than optimal health outcome. Or, one can be reduced to trying to cut the dosage one's self – open the capsule, dissolve the contents in a measured quantity of liquid, then measure out the liquid – which will seem like too much effort to bother with. I can understand how someone who is prescribed 50mg asking for 60mg or 70mg could be a sign of a developing addiction, but asking for less than one is prescribed is the complete opposite of how an addicted person behaves. So why isn't it allowed? Because the rules only have a rather diffuse relationship with preventing addiction (or other health harms). I think, to a great extent, the rules have come to exist for their own sake, not for the sake of anyone's health.
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  Couldnt agree more. Also, try telling your doc ypu cut open the pill and took less. Id say 3 out of 10 docs in the US will immediately terminate their primary care relationship with you and refuse you any further prescriptions. Might even put you on a "list" for being a drug seeker. At the very least they will be pissed. (Most docs are megalomaniacs that cannot fathom a patient being as intellectually capable or informed as them, or having agency over their own bodies, but im off on a tangent now) Other regulations that hurt legit patients more than "drug seekers" : you cannot transfer a script between pharmacies, so if the pharmacy is out, you have to have your doc cancel the script and send to a diff pharmacy, a process which can take several days at worst. Some pharmacys say they are not legally allowed to disclose their stock over the phone, so you may need to repeat this process many times. If you are in a different state, pharmacys will not fill your script from your home state, so good luck traveling anywhere if your script ends during your travels. And some docs/pharmacies will let you fill early to avoid this problem, but they may label you a drug seeker and put you on a list.
wincy 4y ago
My next door neighbor (who has since moved away, but I see his kids around the neighborhood still) is a very successful salesman and takes 120mg of Adderall “to get out of bed in the morning”. Which I thought was crazy considering I take 15-30mg in a day, but he didn’t seem like a bad guy or to have any ill effects from it (aside from assumably spending a good chunk of change a month buying Adderall off friends/dealers). I think there’s way worse things to be addicted to than Adderall and feel like this guy is a “worst case scenario” but he’s still a productive contributing member of society.
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  Believe it or not you can be prescribed that much adderall. It takes a doc that is willing to go there, but I knew someone with a 200mg daily prescription. I suppose he could have been gaming the system somehow by going to multiple places but I thought it was all from the same doc

> preventi g addicts from getting it (who cares?) I presume the families and loved ones of the addicts probably care...

by Zetice 4y ago

> preventi g addicts from getting it (who cares?) I presume the families and loved ones of the addicts probably care...

If a drug is available and there is addicts of said drug, the addicts don't suddenly stop being addicts just because the drug is not available, they'll just move on to a different drug. The problem is that addicts are not being treated, not that a specific drug is available or not.

emodendroket 4y ago
They can't become addicts if they don't start abusing the drug in the first place.
- aarpmcgee 4y ago
  We all have addictions. For some it is substances, other relationships, power, sex, gambling, food, etc. What if yours suddenly became really difficult to manage within the societal-framework-du-jour? Just don't start doing it?
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    I think it's trivializing the concept to say "we all have addictions," since by definition an addiction is meant to be a significant impediment to living a normal life. And I'm not sure how you're answering the concern here. Like yeah, a lot of people get addicted to gambling -- that's a compelling argument against legalizing gambling.
    - aarpmcgee 4y ago
      My point was more an attempt to point at an empathetic response as a possibility. "don't start abusing the drug in the first place", to me, felt like a way to dismiss the reality that it can be really easy to fall into addiction, because most of us are broken in our own peculiar ways and have our own vulnerabilities. What if someone else's response to one's own brokenness was "just don't do that"? It doesn't really help much, because the reasons for it are valid, and the need itself needs to be seen. My own comment was a knee-jerk reactive comment in reply to what I felt in your post, which may or may not have been a real thing. Idk. My hunch is that we are all addicted to something, and if you don't see what it is yet, then either you or society (or both) must not have much of a problem with that particular addiction, and that can always change.
      - emodendroket 4y ago
        My point is that seeking to prevent abuse of amphetamines is a way to avoid creating addicts in the first place.
    - TomSwirly 4y ago
      > since by definition an addiction is meant to be a significant impediment to living a normal life. Wrong. The definition of addiction is "physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance." (Oxford Dictionary) I am addicted to coffee. I get mild physical withdrawal symptoms if I quit. In no way is it an impediment to living my normal life.
      - emodendroket 4y ago
        Here is how Wikipedia defines it: > Addiction is a neuropsychological disorder characterized by a persistent and intense urge to engage in certain behaviors, one of which is the usage of a drug, despite substantial harm and other negative consequences. In fact, the article goes on to specifically refute the argument you are making: > The term addiction is frequently misused when referring to other compulsive behaviors or disorders, particularly dependence, in news media. An important distinction between drug addiction and dependence is that drug dependence is a disorder in which cessation of drug use results in an unpleasant state of withdrawal, which can lead to further drug use. Addiction is the compulsive use of a substance or performance of a behavior that is independent of withdrawal. Addiction can occur in the absence of dependence, and dependence can occur in the absence of addiction, although the two can occur together.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    Citation very much needed.
mobb_solo 4y ago
Actually, this is EXACTLY how many addicts KICK. They make a decision.
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  Not sure what you are saying here exactly, but ive heard far more stories of someone ruining their life because they turned to black market subsitutes for drugs they were previously able to obtain legally than stories of people who just decided to quit when it was no longer available.
  - yakubin 4y ago
    The latter doesn't make for as exciting a story.

DontchaKnowit 4y ago

So what? None of my business or yours. People should be allowed to destroy themselves by any means of their choosing.

Zetice 4y ago
Dismissing people’s pain and sadness is a pretty cynical thing to do…
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  I'm not - I think its wrong and cynical to gatekeep someones usage of a drug : whos to say what is theraputic and what is degenerate junky usage? You know what is cynical? Putting up barrier after barrier that makes it hard for ANYONE to obtain a medication that can genuinely help people because we dissapprove of how some people use the drug on their own bodies. Criminalizing the possession if a drug doesnt do jack shit to help people who are addicted - it just drives them into sketchy situations to obtain it and throws them in jail if theyre caught. And to top it all off it makes it incredibly difficult to obtain it even if you play by the rules.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Okay but there are addicts out there, they have families, and your glib reply was offensive to those people, to me.
    - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
      I did not intend to be glib or offensive. But I do not apologize for my assertion that humans ought to have sovereignty over their own bodies. It is not the job of the governmemt to concern itself with what the citizenry does to their own bodies.
      - Zetice 4y ago
        That’s not what I commented about, your lack of empathy towards other human beings is callous. Don’t fall for that trap.

skissane 4y ago

Some of the rules around prescribed controlled substances seem to have no legitimate purpose in actually "preventing addicts from getting it" though. Not US, Australia, but wouldn't be surprised if same rules apply there – suppose you are prescribed 50mg Vyvanse. You start to feel like 50mg is too much (the side effects are too bad), and you want to try 40mg instead. Can the pharmacist dispense you 40mg instead of 50mg? No. Because it is a controlled substance (or "Schedule 8" as it is called in Australia), the pharmacist can only legally dispense the exact thing you were prescribed – they'll tell you to go back to the prescriber and get a new prescription. If it wasn't a controlled substance, the pharmacist would have more flexibility; in the past, I've gotten pharmacists to dispense prescription drugs without a prescription because I hadn't got around to getting a new script – something they are legally allowed to do (at least here in Australia) for non-controlled substances. They can't do that again and again – it is important the prescriber is kept in the loop – but as a short-term once-off, it does no harm. But going back to the prescriber involves getting another appointment, taking the time out of one's day to attend it, paying for it, etc. In the end one might just decide to put up with the side effects–which is a clearly less than optimal health outcome. Or, one can be reduced to trying to cut the dosage one's self – open the capsule, dissolve the contents in a measured quantity of liquid, then measure out the liquid – which will seem like too much effort to bother with. I can understand how someone who is prescribed 50mg asking for 60mg or 70mg could be a sign of a developing addiction, but asking for less than one is prescribed is the complete opposite of how an addicted person behaves. So why isn't it allowed? Because the rules only have a rather diffuse relationship with preventing addiction (or other health harms). I think, to a great extent, the rules have come to exist for their own sake, not for the sake of anyone's health.

DontchaKnowit 4y ago
Couldnt agree more. Also, try telling your doc ypu cut open the pill and took less. Id say 3 out of 10 docs in the US will immediately terminate their primary care relationship with you and refuse you any further prescriptions. Might even put you on a "list" for being a drug seeker. At the very least they will be pissed. (Most docs are megalomaniacs that cannot fathom a patient being as intellectually capable or informed as them, or having agency over their own bodies, but im off on a tangent now) Other regulations that hurt legit patients more than "drug seekers" : you cannot transfer a script between pharmacies, so if the pharmacy is out, you have to have your doc cancel the script and send to a diff pharmacy, a process which can take several days at worst. Some pharmacys say they are not legally allowed to disclose their stock over the phone, so you may need to repeat this process many times. If you are in a different state, pharmacys will not fill your script from your home state, so good luck traveling anywhere if your script ends during your travels. And some docs/pharmacies will let you fill early to avoid this problem, but they may label you a drug seeker and put you on a list.

wincy 4y ago

My next door neighbor (who has since moved away, but I see his kids around the neighborhood still) is a very successful salesman and takes 120mg of Adderall “to get out of bed in the morning”. Which I thought was crazy considering I take 15-30mg in a day, but he didn’t seem like a bad guy or to have any ill effects from it (aside from assumably spending a good chunk of change a month buying Adderall off friends/dealers). I think there’s way worse things to be addicted to than Adderall and feel like this guy is a “worst case scenario” but he’s still a productive contributing member of society.

DontchaKnowit 4y ago
Believe it or not you can be prescribed that much adderall. It takes a doc that is willing to go there, but I knew someone with a 200mg daily prescription. I suppose he could have been gaming the system somehow by going to multiple places but I thought it was all from the same doc