2 ms·
Indeed. It’s created a system where everyone’s scared. So those who need it legitimately often cannot get it. Which honestly is a false sense of security at thi
by jdefr89 3y ago
Indeed. It’s created a system where everyone’s scared. So those who need it legitimately often cannot get it. Which honestly is a false sense of security at this point as it’s easier to get these drugs on the street rather than legitimately through a doctor and that’s what most now do. If anything, the abrupt disappearance of legitimate pharmacy grade drugs made way for the current problem Fentnyl. Taking away and restricting OxyContin literally made the issue worse. Almost no one can get their hands on pharmaceutics opioids and yet the overdose rate has skyrocketed! People just don’t learn… You take something away and people only tend to want it more. Prohibition simply does not work and we have years of experience and history to show this time and time again and yet not a single thing has changed. Never see any new approaches or ideas to fix this issue because it goes far deeper than drugs themselves. People want to self medicate because they suffer, but we haven’t discussed why so many suffered and what we could do about it. Probably because the answer to that question isn’t going to be easy and hard work will be involved.
- fifteen1506 3y agoDon't forget pharmacy chains use a mathematic naive formula to stop selling opioids. As seen in HN a few months ago, if one kind HNer can add the link here.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoThat is what happens when the government hits them with nebulous liability for political points. Government leaders do not want to clearly define the rules, but still want to pin the problem on others. If the government makes the rules clear, and the policies result in failure, then they get blamed. If the government outsources the policing, then the government leaders can point fingers and satisfy public outrage, at the expense of the affected public which is not politically powerful enough to do anything about it.
- fifteen1506 3y ago[flagged]
- lotsofpulp 3y agoDo you have any evidence to show the blame lies somewhere in the middle? As far as I can tell, a retail pharmacy’s role is to dispense medication per a prescription, while avoiding errors caused by mixing medicines and advising people how to take medicine. A retail pharmacy’s role is not to be the de facto front line workers for the DEA. So when our government collects fines from businesses for not policing their customers, expect the business to start discriminating against the customers, due to the lack of liability shield the government has. An even simpler way to put it is, why would a business that earns money selling things want to sell less of those things (legitimate prescriptions)? The answer has to be the risk of selling is too high.
- fifteen1506 3y agoWell yes, because OxyContin was oversold and the company's behaviour was unethical. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/health/purdue-opioids-oxycontin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/health/purdue-opioids-oxy...
- lotsofpulp 3y agoI cannot read the article. What is the pharmacy’s role? OxyContin requires a prescription, so did the pharmacy sell without prescriptions? Bottom line is, do you want pharmacies to be making non medical judgment calls on which prescriptions to fill and not fill? If so, then don’t complain when they exercise judgment. I, for one, would rather not deputize everyone I interact with.
- fifteen1506 3y agoYou do have a point. MDs should have been prosecuted. Execs should have been prosecuted. But alas, they did not. https://www.wsj.com/articles/founder-of-purdue-pharma-made-a-fortune-from-addictive-painkiller-oxycontin-donated-generously-to-charity-1500647400 https://www.wsj.com/articles/founder-of-purdue-pharma-made-a...