4 ms·

Imagine opioid pills were OTC. For a lot of people, they will initially be instant feel-good happy pills, even though people know there will be disastrous reper

Imagine opioid pills were OTC. For a lot of people, they will initially be instant feel-good happy pills, even though people know there will be disastrous repercussions to taking them indefinitely. How many people go through bouts of severe depression? Won't some percentage of them, in moments of weakness, decide to try the opioid pills, feel good, and get sucked in? Shouldn't we as a society, try to curb humanity's worst impulses for their greater good, like parents do for their unknowing child?

justinator 4y ago
I hear what you're saying, and generally I agree. But then I also see how alcohol (which for all intents and purposes will be our stand-in for opioids) abuse has ripped apart lives and families.
frant-hartm 4y ago
No we shouldn't. There is a big difference between a parent safely bringing up a child and a state interfering with what an adult person does to themselves. Otherwise you open a can of greater good worms. If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts. Yes there are individual cases, but most of these would be destroying their lives in some other available way if opiods weren't available, like heavy use of alcohol.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts There is absolutely an epidemic of opioid addicts.
  - frant-hartm 4y ago
    Let's agree to disagree.
- xp84 4y ago
  This is an area where we must acknowledge that one's "values" frame of reference is inextricably linked to how you decide this question. Yes, we definitely are sacrificing some of everyone's bodily autonomy because we think it's less bad than the consequences of putting no limits on it. Caffeine, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Cannabis, Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Fentanyl, biological weapons and on some parallel track: BB gun, .22, Glock, AR-15, automatic rifle, RPG, cannon, tank, land mines, nuclear warhead If there's even one thing on the above list that you'd not want to be automatically OK for every person in the world to own and operate (at least on a "until you hurt someone" basis), then you're putting an arbitrary limit which values "preventing likely harms to others" over absolute autonomy. Even if you'd allow the warhead I don't think either of us can be said to be 'right' or 'wrong' -- just that it's most productive if we acknowledge which "paramount value" (perfect freedom vs. reduction in predictable harms to innocent others) we are prioritizing, and acknowledge that we have to make a significant sacrifice in the other one in order to do that.
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    Are you genuinely suggesting that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol Not to mention, do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      > Are you genuinely suggesting that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol If consumed in the same quantity, it might be. > do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me Botox is a neurotoxin originally derived from a bacterium. And various pesticides are regulated. Nicotine actually is a naturally occurring pesticide, though these days BigAg companies produce far more potent "Neonicotinoids" for killing insects.
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        Please explain the mechanism by which cannabis causes DNA damage when consumed in the same quantity as alcohol. When you match recreational dose, it doesn't. There is a slight possibility of free radicals in smoke causing DNA damage but that is incredibly minor compared to alcohol and can be avoided with different methods of consumption. You can't avoid the DNA damage of alcohol at any dose or method of consumption
- knodi123 4y ago
  > If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts. Most people don't know a dealer, and don't have the confidence to try to find one without worrying about the risk of contacting a narc or a tattletale or in some other ways destroying their lives because of the legal system. Hurdles matter. It's like common sense gun control- red flag laws, waiting periods, assault weapon bans, etc. None of those things make it impossible to have a mass shooting - but they make it a little harder, and that will stop a certain percentage of people. Dangerous drugs like opioids should be available, cheaply, by prescription only, and "addiction" should be a sufficient reason for the prescription. This makes the safe and secure drug source the correct choice for vulnerable addicts, still lets us drive the black market and drug cartels out of business, it prevents crazy impulse purchases, and the requirement to renew your prescription periodically gives you a chance for a responsible adult to non-judgmentally offer you resources for achieving sobriety. It's a win-win-win, guaranteed to lower death tolls and crime rates, but unlikely to increase the number of addicts.
verilux68 4y ago
They are already available on street corners, snapchat, and the darkweb. With no authority to ensure what dosage the illicitly manufactured pressed-pills have.
- qumpis 4y ago
  Sure, but the fraction of people who would go out of their way to access these is presumably small(er), especially those who havent yet tried them and who would nt jump through so many hoops to acquire them if they dont know their effect. I know I'm happy certain drugs aren't easily available.
  - ever1337 4y ago
    The reality is that many people use drugs, likely yourself included, and they are dying from this unregulated market. Prohibition is taking lives and making addiction worse. Whether some x percentage of people may be dissuaded from using drugs is not at issue. in my mind the harm from unclean supply is much greater.
jaredhallen 4y ago
No.
zepolen 4y ago
Banning doesn't fix that, the allure is still there. Teaching what addiction is like is much better at curbing it. The easiest way to do that is to have someone hold their breath as long as possible until their body is screaming for air each time, for about half an hour. Because that is what drug addiction is like, and taking the drug is like taking that breath of air, instant relief, until you run out of air again and you're in hell waiting for the next fix. Over and over. Never ending. I'd say films like Trainspotting did a much better job at stopping heroin than any outright ban ever did.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Trainspotting made heroin more cool and increased usage. What worked was culture shifting to other new cooler drugs without the baggage of a needle.
Maursault 4y ago
> even though people know there will be disastrous repercussions to taking them indefinitely People have some funny notions about the health consequences of opioid addiction. In 1942, Burroughs enlisted in the U.S. Army to serve during World War II. After being turned down by the Office of Strategic Services and the Navy, he developed a heroin addiction that affected him for the rest of his life, initially beginning with morphine.[1] Addicted to opiates by age 23, William S. Burroughs finally died 60 years later. Opioid addiction is not really all that unhealthy, medically or biologically speaking, so long as the addict doesn't fatally overdose or expire from withdrawal. The biggest problem with opioid addiction is social stigma. Ao long as the addict can maintain their addiction, they can lead ordinarily productive lives with a normal life expectancy. Cocaine or methamphetamine or alcohol addiction, on the other hand, will kill you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs

justinator 4y ago

I hear what you're saying, and generally I agree. But then I also see how alcohol (which for all intents and purposes will be our stand-in for opioids) abuse has ripped apart lives and families.

frant-hartm 4y ago

No we shouldn't. There is a big difference between a parent safely bringing up a child and a state interfering with what an adult person does to themselves. Otherwise you open a can of greater good worms. If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts. Yes there are individual cases, but most of these would be destroying their lives in some other available way if opiods weren't available, like heavy use of alcohol.

josephcsible 4y ago
> opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts There is absolutely an epidemic of opioid addicts.
- frant-hartm 4y ago
  Let's agree to disagree.
xp84 4y ago
This is an area where we must acknowledge that one's "values" frame of reference is inextricably linked to how you decide this question. Yes, we definitely are sacrificing some of everyone's bodily autonomy because we think it's less bad than the consequences of putting no limits on it. Caffeine, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Cannabis, Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Fentanyl, biological weapons and on some parallel track: BB gun, .22, Glock, AR-15, automatic rifle, RPG, cannon, tank, land mines, nuclear warhead If there's even one thing on the above list that you'd not want to be automatically OK for every person in the world to own and operate (at least on a "until you hurt someone" basis), then you're putting an arbitrary limit which values "preventing likely harms to others" over absolute autonomy. Even if you'd allow the warhead I don't think either of us can be said to be 'right' or 'wrong' -- just that it's most productive if we acknowledge which "paramount value" (perfect freedom vs. reduction in predictable harms to innocent others) we are prioritizing, and acknowledge that we have to make a significant sacrifice in the other one in order to do that.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Are you genuinely suggesting that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol Not to mention, do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > Are you genuinely suggesting that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol If consumed in the same quantity, it might be. > do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me Botox is a neurotoxin originally derived from a bacterium. And various pesticides are regulated. Nicotine actually is a naturally occurring pesticide, though these days BigAg companies produce far more potent "Neonicotinoids" for killing insects.
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      Please explain the mechanism by which cannabis causes DNA damage when consumed in the same quantity as alcohol. When you match recreational dose, it doesn't. There is a slight possibility of free radicals in smoke causing DNA damage but that is incredibly minor compared to alcohol and can be avoided with different methods of consumption. You can't avoid the DNA damage of alcohol at any dose or method of consumption
knodi123 4y ago
> If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts. Most people don't know a dealer, and don't have the confidence to try to find one without worrying about the risk of contacting a narc or a tattletale or in some other ways destroying their lives because of the legal system. Hurdles matter. It's like common sense gun control- red flag laws, waiting periods, assault weapon bans, etc. None of those things make it impossible to have a mass shooting - but they make it a little harder, and that will stop a certain percentage of people. Dangerous drugs like opioids should be available, cheaply, by prescription only, and "addiction" should be a sufficient reason for the prescription. This makes the safe and secure drug source the correct choice for vulnerable addicts, still lets us drive the black market and drug cartels out of business, it prevents crazy impulse purchases, and the requirement to renew your prescription periodically gives you a chance for a responsible adult to non-judgmentally offer you resources for achieving sobriety. It's a win-win-win, guaranteed to lower death tolls and crime rates, but unlikely to increase the number of addicts.

verilux68 4y ago

They are already available on street corners, snapchat, and the darkweb. With no authority to ensure what dosage the illicitly manufactured pressed-pills have.

qumpis 4y ago
Sure, but the fraction of people who would go out of their way to access these is presumably small(er), especially those who havent yet tried them and who would nt jump through so many hoops to acquire them if they dont know their effect. I know I'm happy certain drugs aren't easily available.
- ever1337 4y ago
  The reality is that many people use drugs, likely yourself included, and they are dying from this unregulated market. Prohibition is taking lives and making addiction worse. Whether some x percentage of people may be dissuaded from using drugs is not at issue. in my mind the harm from unclean supply is much greater.

jaredhallen 4y ago

No.

zepolen 4y ago

Banning doesn't fix that, the allure is still there. Teaching what addiction is like is much better at curbing it. The easiest way to do that is to have someone hold their breath as long as possible until their body is screaming for air each time, for about half an hour. Because that is what drug addiction is like, and taking the drug is like taking that breath of air, instant relief, until you run out of air again and you're in hell waiting for the next fix. Over and over. Never ending. I'd say films like Trainspotting did a much better job at stopping heroin than any outright ban ever did.

ipaddr 4y ago
Trainspotting made heroin more cool and increased usage. What worked was culture shifting to other new cooler drugs without the baggage of a needle.

Maursault 4y ago

> even though people know there will be disastrous repercussions to taking them indefinitely People have some funny notions about the health consequences of opioid addiction. In 1942, Burroughs enlisted in the U.S. Army to serve during World War II. After being turned down by the Office of Strategic Services and the Navy, he developed a heroin addiction that affected him for the rest of his life, initially beginning with morphine.[1] Addicted to opiates by age 23, William S. Burroughs finally died 60 years later. Opioid addiction is not really all that unhealthy, medically or biologically speaking, so long as the addict doesn't fatally overdose or expire from withdrawal. The biggest problem with opioid addiction is social stigma. Ao long as the addict can maintain their addiction, they can lead ordinarily productive lives with a normal life expectancy. Cocaine or methamphetamine or alcohol addiction, on the other hand, will kill you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs