4 ms·

> At a certain point a doctor can't control what you chose to do at home with your prescription and that doesn't mean you shouldn't have people who would use it

> At a certain point a doctor can't control what you chose to do at home with your prescription and that doesn't mean you shouldn't have people who would use it responsibly not receive it even if it means some will abuse it I'd like to think that most of those decisions are coming from datasets that suggest, on average, certain medications tend to lead to abuse, including from people with no prior history of abuse. I'm quite libertarian in a lot of my views, but this particular one on lax drug controls I've never really been able to buy into.

skippyboxedhero 2y ago
I can't remember the exact stats but something like 5% of doctors were writing 75% of the sales for these products. It isn't that they lead to abuse, it is that people who are using heroin will abuse them, and will go to doctors who facilitate that.
- wlesieutre 2y ago
  Dentists were handing opioid prescriptions out like candy to teenagers getting their wisdom teeth out. How many of those kids were previously on heroin and were picking dentists who would hook them up? It's a massively common procedure and defaulting to "here's some addictive painkillers just in case you want them" was an insane thing to do, even if only 1% of cases turn out badly.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
    I got my wisdom teeth out at 16 or 17 and was given a prescription for oxycodone. I was really excited because I had read about oxy online and wanted to try it. But also I knew it was referred to as hillbilly heroin because of how addictive it was, so I had to be careful. I didn't take any of the oxy after the surgery and just took ibuprofen, so I could save the oxy for later on. I got high off it a few times and loved it. Later on I got a chance to try some hydrocodone and I thought that was even better, because the oxycodone was a little too much for me. I didn't nod off on the hydros. Anyway, opiates are great, that's why I haven't used them since high school.
  - nielsbot 2y ago
    Exact same thing happened to me. I got my wisdom teeth pulled and the guy prescribed me Percocet. Interesting experience was signing a form in triplicate (white copy me, yellow copy walgreens, pink copy DEA) to pick it up. Never took any.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Same thing happened to me in 2007. In retrospect it seems crazy.
      - confidantlake 2y ago
        Same thing, same year. Got an entire bottle of strong painkillers and didn't need/take any of them.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  You have it exactly backwards. People got hooked by the doctors, and pivoted to heroin when they were tagged as pill seekers. I had a spinal fusion in my early 20s. I was discharged from the hospital with a script for 90 days of opioid painkillers, 3x a day. $10 copay… I took like 4-5 and was done. I had a extensive support network between my lovely wife and family… people who do not develop a opioid problem like 60% of the time. The standard of care changed because of Perdue. Dentists were handing out 30 day scripts, people were getting opioids for minor ortho issues, etc. As abuse became more prevalent, sourcing prescription pills got expensive. Heroin was more available and cheaper - the use of this stuff became way broader than the stereotype of hypes selling plasma, etc.
throwing_away 2y ago
> I'm quite libertarian in a lot of my views, but this particular one on lax drug controls I've never really been able to buy into. Ok, I'll bite ;) Let's agree that the "liberal" approach is harm-reduction -- safe injection sites, needle exchanges, free filters, test sites, community disease screening, etc. In places where this has been tried (see: SF), it seems to provide some relief to people on the ground, but it's done nothing to address in the inflow of addicts against ever more dangerous supply. What if the correct liberal position was actually "free pain pills for anyone that needs them, with compassion for all users", and what we think of as "liberal" policies even in SF are actually appeasement of a puritanical system? That would make the libertarian position "you can't be giving out free pills with government money, make them buy them when they need them like the rest of us" and the world would return to order. The right-wing position would remain "the government should use force to prevent people from doing immoral things". As for the addicts, they will now be using a safer route of administration with controlled dosing and not be economically hindered. As for the cartels, they will no longer find money in the drug trade. For a while I thought I understood the dynamics of how things got the way they are, but it seems like everyone else has forgotten, so maybe we could try a new approach soon.
- sepositus 2y ago
  I spend a good portion of my time in community service, mostly in areas where drug abuse is rampant. During this time, I've talked with a fair number of addicts, and I'd say over 90% of them stem from either being introduced to drugs by a friend (peer pressure) or following after the drug addiction of an existing family member. Generally, within a year or two, they were on the streets resorting to crime to fuel their addiction. Now, my experience is not representative as a whole, but it's generally what fuels my thoughts on this subject. If this is the story I hear quite frequently, why would I want these drugs to be introduced legally into people's lives? That's why I've always had issues understanding people pushing for legalization. I understand how it can come across as puritanical ("I know what's best for you"). However, when all data suggests that engaging in drug use almost universally results in poverty, why would we as a society want to unleash such a thing upon people? It's for the betterment of humanity that life-ruining drugs are illegal. At least those are my thoughts.

skippyboxedhero 2y ago

I can't remember the exact stats but something like 5% of doctors were writing 75% of the sales for these products. It isn't that they lead to abuse, it is that people who are using heroin will abuse them, and will go to doctors who facilitate that.

wlesieutre 2y ago
Dentists were handing opioid prescriptions out like candy to teenagers getting their wisdom teeth out. How many of those kids were previously on heroin and were picking dentists who would hook them up? It's a massively common procedure and defaulting to "here's some addictive painkillers just in case you want them" was an insane thing to do, even if only 1% of cases turn out badly.
- zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
  I got my wisdom teeth out at 16 or 17 and was given a prescription for oxycodone. I was really excited because I had read about oxy online and wanted to try it. But also I knew it was referred to as hillbilly heroin because of how addictive it was, so I had to be careful. I didn't take any of the oxy after the surgery and just took ibuprofen, so I could save the oxy for later on. I got high off it a few times and loved it. Later on I got a chance to try some hydrocodone and I thought that was even better, because the oxycodone was a little too much for me. I didn't nod off on the hydros. Anyway, opiates are great, that's why I haven't used them since high school.
- nielsbot 2y ago
  Exact same thing happened to me. I got my wisdom teeth pulled and the guy prescribed me Percocet. Interesting experience was signing a form in triplicate (white copy me, yellow copy walgreens, pink copy DEA) to pick it up. Never took any.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Same thing happened to me in 2007. In retrospect it seems crazy.
    - confidantlake 2y ago
      Same thing, same year. Got an entire bottle of strong painkillers and didn't need/take any of them.
Spooky23 2y ago
You have it exactly backwards. People got hooked by the doctors, and pivoted to heroin when they were tagged as pill seekers. I had a spinal fusion in my early 20s. I was discharged from the hospital with a script for 90 days of opioid painkillers, 3x a day. $10 copay… I took like 4-5 and was done. I had a extensive support network between my lovely wife and family… people who do not develop a opioid problem like 60% of the time. The standard of care changed because of Perdue. Dentists were handing out 30 day scripts, people were getting opioids for minor ortho issues, etc. As abuse became more prevalent, sourcing prescription pills got expensive. Heroin was more available and cheaper - the use of this stuff became way broader than the stereotype of hypes selling plasma, etc.

throwing_away 2y ago

> I'm quite libertarian in a lot of my views, but this particular one on lax drug controls I've never really been able to buy into. Ok, I'll bite ;) Let's agree that the "liberal" approach is harm-reduction -- safe injection sites, needle exchanges, free filters, test sites, community disease screening, etc. In places where this has been tried (see: SF), it seems to provide some relief to people on the ground, but it's done nothing to address in the inflow of addicts against ever more dangerous supply. What if the correct liberal position was actually "free pain pills for anyone that needs them, with compassion for all users", and what we think of as "liberal" policies even in SF are actually appeasement of a puritanical system? That would make the libertarian position "you can't be giving out free pills with government money, make them buy them when they need them like the rest of us" and the world would return to order. The right-wing position would remain "the government should use force to prevent people from doing immoral things". As for the addicts, they will now be using a safer route of administration with controlled dosing and not be economically hindered. As for the cartels, they will no longer find money in the drug trade. For a while I thought I understood the dynamics of how things got the way they are, but it seems like everyone else has forgotten, so maybe we could try a new approach soon.

sepositus 2y ago
I spend a good portion of my time in community service, mostly in areas where drug abuse is rampant. During this time, I've talked with a fair number of addicts, and I'd say over 90% of them stem from either being introduced to drugs by a friend (peer pressure) or following after the drug addiction of an existing family member. Generally, within a year or two, they were on the streets resorting to crime to fuel their addiction. Now, my experience is not representative as a whole, but it's generally what fuels my thoughts on this subject. If this is the story I hear quite frequently, why would I want these drugs to be introduced legally into people's lives? That's why I've always had issues understanding people pushing for legalization. I understand how it can come across as puritanical ("I know what's best for you"). However, when all data suggests that engaging in drug use almost universally results in poverty, why would we as a society want to unleash such a thing upon people? It's for the betterment of humanity that life-ruining drugs are illegal. At least those are my thoughts.