Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Herald)   Massachusetts governor: I'm banning this new drug because it's dangerous: Drug maker: You and what FDA?   ( bostonherald.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Massachusetts Governor, FDA, Massachusetts, new drugs, drug companies, state Department of Public Health  
•       •       •

11054 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2014 at 9:01 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-08 08:42:45 AM  
This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem
 
2014-04-08 08:45:56 AM  

somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem


My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.
 
2014-04-08 08:57:20 AM  
We're swimming in a sea of heroin, and the governor wants to cut off a pill seller.

bborchar: And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?


^ And this.
 
2014-04-08 09:01:56 AM  

bborchar: My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing? And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?


Patrick can argue that this drug would be exasperating the opiate problem in MA. Sure, the conservative governors could do this for birth control, but unless they argue that there's a shortage of a population in the state, they wouldn't have the same reasoning to use the power.

But I understand where you're coming from and am inclined to agree that this will have terrible consequences for those living in conservative states, but you also need to understand that since the recession started, we have an absolutely awful heroin epidemic
 
2014-04-08 09:04:01 AM  

bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.


Don't be silly. Democrats only do good things and evil Repukelicans only do bad things.
 
2014-04-08 09:05:33 AM  

beefoe: bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.

Don't be silly. Democrats only do good things and evil Repukelicans only do bad things.


Help help I'm having the oppression of this!
 
2014-04-08 09:05:42 AM  
Yes, because banning other drugs has worked thus far.
 
2014-04-08 09:07:00 AM  
Wait, so if someone likes a drug, it should be legal, but if they don't like it, it should be illegal?

Isn't that how pot became so illegal in the first place? Nothing wrong with prescription medication. What is wrong with why they are getting to the general public.
 
2014-04-08 09:08:34 AM  

bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.



I wonder if Patrick has received any campaign contributions from Zogenix Inc competitors?

There is already enough corruption in pharmaceutical approval without letting politicians get involved even more. This is setting a VERY bad precedent.
 
2014-04-08 09:08:46 AM  
I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.
 
2014-04-08 09:09:37 AM  

Thunderpipes: Wait, so if someone likes a drug, it should be legal, but if they don't like it, it should be illegal?

Isn't that how pot became so illegal in the first place? Nothing wrong with prescription medication. What is wrong with why they are getting to the general public.


I believe the science shows opiates are more addictive and far more potentially deadly than pot. That should inform the decision-making too.
 
2014-04-08 09:10:38 AM  

Private_Citizen: I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.


I think this is the first time in the history of the internet that someone admits to being swayed by a comment.  Good on you!!
 
2014-04-08 09:12:14 AM  
FTFA: "Every opioid medication is addictive," Galer said. "We are not alone. We should not be singled out. ... Our goal is for the governor to remove the ban and to be treated like every other opioid medication on the market."

OK, ban all opioids.

Tall all the prohibition rhetoric you want, offering one of the most addictive substances on the planet to people as medicine is not that great of an idea.  Especially considering that it's prescribed so commonly that the majority of heroine addicts I've known started with pills.  And I've known plenty: 2 dead, 1 in prison, 4 of unknown status.
 
2014-04-08 09:12:43 AM  

somedude210: bborchar: My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing? And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

Patrick can argue that this drug would be exasperating the opiate problem in MA. Sure, the conservative governors could do this for birth control, but unless they argue that there's a shortage of a population in the state, they wouldn't have the same reasoning to use the power.

But I understand where you're coming from and am inclined to agree that this will have terrible consequences for those living in conservative states, but you also need to understand that since the recession started, we have an absolutely awful heroin epidemic


And that gives a governor the right to ban a drug why? Imagine if 50 governors had the ability to ban medications. Based on what? What seems like a good reason? For farks sake, what seems like a good reason changes quite a lot from one state to the next.
 
2014-04-08 09:12:51 AM  

somedude210: bborchar: My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing? And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

Patrick can argue that this drug would be exasperating the opiate problem in MA. Sure, the conservative governors could do this for birth control, but unless they argue that there's a shortage of a population in the state, they wouldn't have the same reasoning to use the power.

But I understand where you're coming from and am inclined to agree that this will have terrible consequences for those living in conservative states, but you also need to understand that since the recession started, we have an absolutely awful heroin epidemic


I completely understand, and I'm not advocating for drug use.  I'm simply saying that the governor doesn't and shouldn't have the ability to make decisions about which drugs are safe or not.
 
2014-04-08 09:13:07 AM  
Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?
 
2014-04-08 09:15:12 AM  
I see all of the relevant points have been made.

Governor Patrick, I like you, and I know your heart is in the right place.  That said, you are wrong.
 
2014-04-08 09:16:02 AM  
I just went to a funeral for a kid that OD'd on H and Fentanyl.  I don't know if that's what was banned, but I don't think that will help.  The omission of acetaminophen makes it a safer drug than that liver-killing crap they usually give you.
 
2014-04-08 09:16:29 AM  

somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem


I think you mean "a massive reduction of underfunded pension liabilities".
 
2014-04-08 09:16:38 AM  

Private_Citizen: I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.


Sadly this.
 
2014-04-08 09:16:59 AM  

somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?


Without acetaminophen, it would be more difficult to OD on.  Acetaminophen OD is very insidious because it doesn't show up until long after the drug has been administered -- a day or two later -- and at that point a liver transplant is basically the only way to prevent death.  In that sense, this drug is safer w.r.t. OD than competing painkillers as there is no acetaminophen present.
 
2014-04-08 09:17:41 AM  
Galer said Zohydro is safer than competitor Vicodin because it doesn't include acetaminophen, which can cause liver damage.

Thats the point of putting the acetaminophen in there - so you can't take enough of the drug to get really high without killing yourself.
 
2014-04-08 09:17:57 AM  

Private_Citizen: This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.


The FDA already approved this, despite their own researchers going "yeah, this is a terrible drug and shouldn't be allowed to be consumed by the public. It's legalize opium in pill form. Don't do this," The FDA won't do a damn thing to it. Massachusetts, however, is facing a massive increase in fatal opiate overdoses in the last few years. Patrick is running out of things to do to counter this and this drug going into the legal market has just farked shiat up even more for MA, ME and NH (who are all facing opiate epidemics)

Is this an ideal solution? No, but the Feds letting this get approved for sale in the country did these states no favors in their efforts to curb fatal overdoses

/not to mention Congress not approving funding for the anti-overdose drug to the states
 
2014-04-08 09:18:31 AM  

bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

 And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?


Thread over.  Opioids are bullshiat but this is a bad precedent indeed.
 
2014-04-08 09:18:42 AM  
1) Make all illegal drugs legal.
2) Do a crime on said drugs, we harvest your organs untainted by said drugs, and turn the carcass into Soylent Drugs.
3) Nobody supports my initiatives!
4) FREEEDOM!
 
MFK
2014-04-08 09:19:14 AM  

Private_Citizen: I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.


The FDA is toothless thanks to our Republican friends in Congress who feel that "all regulation is bad hurr durr".

Keep in mind that the entire reason that New England is dealing with such a large Heroin epidemic at all is largely because of big Pharma who were pushing doctors to prescribe OxyContin and the like for every little ache and pain resulting in a huge amount of hard core opiates in everyone's medicine cabinets. By the time they realized how many people were getting hooked on them for recreational purposes, they cracked down hard on their availability and for example, required that if the pills were crushed they would turn to a goop instead of a powder. However, this was akin to closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out. What happened was that you were left with a large addict population and with pills going on the black market for $40-$60 a pop on the low end the heroin dealers swooped in and were like "you should try this. It's like Oxys only cheaper and way easier to get".
 
2014-04-08 09:20:18 AM  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kolodny-md/zohydro-the-fdaapprov e d-p_b_4855964.html

This here is an interesting link about the drug. It's 50mg of hydrocodone, ten times as potent as vicodin. An FDA advisory committee voted 11-2 against releasing it but it was approved anyway.
 
2014-04-08 09:20:26 AM  

Arkanaut: I believe the science shows opiates are more addictive and far more potentially deadly than pot.


img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-04-08 09:21:39 AM  

Target Builder: Galer said Zohydro is safer than competitor Vicodin because it doesn't include acetaminophen, which can cause liver damage.

Thats the point of putting the acetaminophen in there - so you can't take enough of the drug to get really high without killing yourself.


Exactly: acetaminophen is safer because it's poison.
 
2014-04-08 09:21:55 AM  

beefoe: bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.

Don't be silly. Democrats only do good things and evil Repukelicans only do bad things.


YOU don't be silly.  All democrats do wrong is get caught committing voter fraud over and over.  Besides that they are totally honest and immune to corruption and also are very smart and attractive.
 
2014-04-08 09:22:17 AM  

somedude210: Private_Citizen: This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.

The FDA already approved this, despite their own researchers going "yeah, this is a terrible drug and shouldn't be allowed to be consumed by the public. It's legalize opium in pill form. Don't do this," The FDA won't do a damn thing to it. Massachusetts, however, is facing a massive increase in fatal opiate overdoses in the last few years. Patrick is running out of things to do to counter this and this drug going into the legal market has just farked shiat up even more for MA, ME and NH (who are all facing opiate epidemics)

Is this an ideal solution? No, but the Feds letting this get approved for sale in the country did these states no favors in their efforts to curb fatal overdoses

/not to mention Congress not approving funding for the anti-overdose drug to the states


Interestingly, opiates are not ideal for chronic pain. Meanwhile, halucinogens are showing great promise with much reduced risk.

So we're fighting tooth and nail over a potentially poisoned cheese lump while Andrew Jackson's two ton wheel is probably one vote away.
 
2014-04-08 09:22:33 AM  

Valiente: 1) Make all illegal drugs legal.
2) Do a crime on said drugs, we harvest your organs untainted by said drugs, and turn the carcass into Soylent Drugs.
3) Nobody supports my initiatives!
4) FREEEDOM!


Are you in the running for 2016 yet? Or are you a consultant?
 
2014-04-08 09:22:55 AM  

somedude210: But I understand where you're coming from and am inclined to agree that this will have terrible consequences for those living in conservative states, but you also need to understand that since the recession started, we have an absolutely awful heroin epidemic


Eh... I'm more inclined to believe that it's more closely related to the prolonged land war in a country that produces large amounts of opium products.  Kind of like how there was a heroine epidemic right after Vietnam, there is now a heroine epidemic right after Afghanistan.

They were both heavily protested too.  Though with less anti-troop mentality and no draft.
 
2014-04-08 09:23:01 AM  

mike_d85: FTFA: "Every opioid medication is addictive," Galer said. "We are not alone. We should not be singled out. ... Our goal is for the governor to remove the ban and to be treated like every other opioid medication on the market."

OK, ban all opioids.

Tall all the prohibition rhetoric you want, offering one of the most addictive substances on the planet to people as medicine is not that great of an idea.  Especially considering that it's prescribed so commonly that the majority of heroine addicts I've known started with pills.  And I've known plenty: 2 dead, 1 in prison, 4 of unknown status.


So the problem of abusing a medication that has a place in medical use is to ban it outright?  No, I don't think so. The problem isn't the drug, it is the over-prescribing by doctors.  Which, by the way,  the governor has the authority to combat.  It isn't the easy path forward, but it is the right path forward.

I too have known my share of heroin/opiod addicts, and I blame the pushers: the doctors that prescribed the medicne to begin with without proper oversight/patient interaction.  I also have known 2 people that may or may not be addicted, but have a good medical reasons for opioid use, both related to spinal injury problems.  Banning these substances would reduce their quality of life.  Both hold full time jobs that they are able to actually function in because of prescription opioids.
 
2014-04-08 09:23:10 AM  
Not to mention that Massachusetts isn't a very big state.  It wouldn't take much to smuggle it over the border.

And of course if Governor Patrick got cancer, he'd be first in line to get a waiver so he could get whatever medicine he needed or wanted.
 
2014-04-08 09:24:17 AM  

Suflig: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kolodny-md/zohydro-the-fdaapprov e d-p_b_4855964.html

This here is an interesting link about the drug. It's 50mg of hydrocodone, ten times as potent as vicodin. An FDA advisory committee voted 11-2 against releasing it but it was approved anyway.


wat
 
2014-04-08 09:24:46 AM  
Maybe if they're facing a heroin epidemic, they should try banning heroin.

Wait, they already did that, and heroin has only gotten purer and cheaper?

It's almost like this is a stupid farking idea.
 
2014-04-08 09:25:29 AM  
This is a good test of the 10th Amendment

End the 3-letter agency fascism at the state level.
 
2014-04-08 09:25:57 AM  

wyltoknow: Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?


This is a very powerful opiate that is legal to sell via prescription and was approved by the FDA in shady as fark circumstances. Patrick is doing more about this problem then just banning this one drug. MA recently passed a bill putting the anti-overdose drug (I forget the name) as standard equipment for paramedics, we've implemented an incredibly successful drug court program that focuses on rehabilitation and not imprisonment and this drug came out of no where and has tossed a massive monkey wrench into the works to counter the epidemic.

as for the causes, the cost of prescription opiates that the pill popping craze started with years ago have become incredibly expensive and heroin has dropped in price and gives you a similar high, so the pill-poppers have all started to switch to heroin and went from spending $300/week to $300/month. Boston's NPR station did a very in-depth investigation when Markey was trying to help Taunton out with the opiate problem
 
2014-04-08 09:27:49 AM  

somedude210: heroin has dropped in price and gives you a similar high, so the pill-poppers have all started to switch to heroin and went from spending $300/week to $300/month.


So banning drugs doesn't work?
 
2014-04-08 09:28:34 AM  

wyltoknow: Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?


I'm guessing if you dig down, you'll find that the governor has close ties to some other opioid manufacturer.  A friend or relative, a significant investment, big campaign donor, etc.
 
2014-04-08 09:28:52 AM  

Target Builder: Galer said Zohydro is safer than competitor Vicodin because it doesn't include acetaminophen, which can cause liver damage.

Thats the point of putting the acetaminophen in there - so you can't take enough of the drug to get really high without killing yourself.


Well, a lot of opiate abusers either don't know that or don't care.

The ones that know and care use cold water extraction (or something else) to remove the acetaminophen.

It probably also hurts a lot of people with legit prescriptions who might cheat on how many they're supposed to take in a day.
 
2014-04-08 09:28:53 AM  

jshine: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

Without acetaminophen, it would be more difficult to OD on.  Acetaminophen OD is very insidious because it doesn't show up until long after the drug has been administered -- a day or two later -- and at that point a liver transplant is basically the only way to prevent death.  In that sense, this drug is safer w.r.t. OD than competing painkillers as there is no acetaminophen present.


this.

basically this drug seems safe for addicts. that relative false sense of safety has negative consequences but i don't think these addicts will stop taking drugs just because this one isn't easily available. Aside from the obvious issues about whether the governor has the authority to go over the FDA on this... there are also moral issues about promoting a policy that may result in more overdoses to what... punish addicts?
 
2014-04-08 09:29:39 AM  
Deval Patrick, stop making me stick up for a pharmaceutical corporation. Stop it right this instant!
 
2014-04-08 09:31:04 AM  
What Zogenix isn't saying here is that the clinical studies have shown that taken with alcohol enhances the overall buzz a taker receives...which puts the chances of this drug being abused as a party drug by the intelligence-challenged group meteorically.
 
2014-04-08 09:31:19 AM  

TheSelphie: Suflig: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kolodny-md/zohydro-the-fdaapprov e d-p_b_4855964.html

This here is an interesting link about the drug. It's 50mg of hydrocodone, ten times as potent as vicodin. An FDA advisory committee voted 11-2 against releasing it but it was approved anyway.

wat


exactly, relying on the FDA to prevent the commercial sale of this is like praying that Congress will do something about domestic spying
 
2014-04-08 09:31:54 AM  
bborchar:

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?

The Tenth Amdendment to the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
2014-04-08 09:31:55 AM  
The Fed usually frowns on states trying to do things on their own. Even if what they are doing is probably the right thing.
 
2014-04-08 09:32:05 AM  
good article about this drug in Forbes:   http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2014/03/20/the-fdas-dilemma - with-the-opioid-pain-medication-zohydro-er/

Includes this gem:

"Was the FDA asleep at the wheel on this one? What were they thinking when they approved such a dangerous drug?
Actually, they were probably thinking about the patients, the ones who are suffering constantly and for whom nothing works to alleviate their pain."
 
2014-04-08 09:32:28 AM  

TheSelphie:
Thread over.  Opioids are bullshiat but this is a bad precedent indeed.

Private_Citizen: I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.


bborchar:
My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.



Why is everyone acting like the governor believes the ban will stand?  Did you guys ever consider that he did this in order to point out a glaring flaw in the drug approval system and cause national press and attention?

If the system is broken it needs to be corrected.  Either by fixing the problem or by bypassing the system.  As Governor Patrick doesn't have the authority to fix the FDA approval system this is what he does.  Yes, it's illegal.  No, it won't stand.  However, if the people are going to initially support the idea, THEN think of the FDA's legal authority it's probably going to overturn the FDA approval.
 
2014-04-08 09:32:36 AM  
FTFA -  "Medical decisions should not be made by politicians."

Wait... a rep for Big Pharma just said that?? The same people who lobby those same politicians to make sure that cannabis will never be legal in this country because these drug vultures know their days are numbered if it ever is made so?
 
MFK
2014-04-08 09:32:53 AM  

jtown: wyltoknow: Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?

I'm guessing if you dig down, you'll find that the governor has close ties to some other opioid manufacturer.  A friend or relative, a significant investment, big campaign donor, etc.


I'm guessing that you have no idea how bad the heroin problem in New England is. In Vermont, the governor devoted most of the State of the State speech to it. It's seriously "that bad".
 
2014-04-08 09:33:13 AM  

somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem


You mean the one that is designed for patients on chronic opiate therapy, and has no tylenol to fry their liver?

That one?
 
2014-04-08 09:33:28 AM  
I haven't done the full research, but i am assuming that this is unlawful under federal pre-emption, as the FDA pretty much holds the field in drug approvals. Since all the way back at the turn of the century the courts have held that a state cannot ban a duly labeled pharmaceutical approved by the FDA.  See McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U.S. 115 (1913).

While a state can criminalize off-label or unprescribed use of a drug, my understanding is that the FDA always wins when a state tries to go up against their approvals.
 
2014-04-08 09:33:41 AM  
I propose we ban Naloxone and see how much of the problem sorts itself out.
 
2014-04-08 09:35:29 AM  

MFK: I'm guessing that you have no idea how bad the heroin problem in New England is. In Vermont, the governor devoted most of the State of the State speech to it. It's seriously "that bad".


Hell, even the governor of Maine is concerned about this
 
2014-04-08 09:35:30 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: bborchar:

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?

The Tenth Amdendment to the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


General welfare + Necessary and Proper clause makes drug safety a Federal matter, not a State matter. The power has already been delegated to the United States.
 
2014-04-08 09:35:51 AM  

bborchar: My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing? And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?


At the very least, doesn't the state legislature have to like, pass a bill or something?
 
2014-04-08 09:36:32 AM  

KidneyStone: States rights. It is how the US was supposed to operate.


Someone didn't study the Articles of Confederation in 5th grade US History.
 
2014-04-08 09:37:15 AM  

RyansPrivates: So the problem of abusing a medication that has a place in medical use is to ban it outright?  No, I don't think so. The problem isn't the drug, it is the over-prescribing by doctors.  Which, by the way,  the governor has the authority to combat.  It isn't the easy path forward, but it is the right path forward.

I too have known my share of heroin/opiod addicts, and I blame the pushers: the doctors that prescribed the medicne to begin with without proper oversight/patient interaction.  I also have known 2 people that may or may not be addicted, but have a good medical reasons for opioid use, both related to spinal injury problems.  Banning these substances would reduce their quality of life.  Both hold full time jobs that they are able to actually function in because of prescription opioids.


OK, I'm open to debate.  But the line needs to be much, much farther away.  As in, injection at the hospital only far away.

One of the dead ones actually died of prescription overdose (mixing pills and Methadone).  The one in prison was robbing a pharmacy for opioids.  Every last one of them used prescription opioids and at least three of them started on it.  It SHOULD NOT be readily available.
 
2014-04-08 09:37:25 AM  

hardinparamedic: You mean the one that is designed for patients on chronic opiate therapy, and has no tylenol to fry their liver?


I dunno, is that the one that's significantly more powerful than vicodin and is incredibly easy to OD on? That's the one
 
MFK
2014-04-08 09:38:33 AM  

somedude210: MFK: I'm guessing that you have no idea how bad the heroin problem in New England is. In Vermont, the governor devoted most of the State of the State speech to it. It's seriously "that bad".

Hell, even the governor of Maine is concerned about this


yeah, but in his typical dickhead fashion, his response is to just lock up as many users and dealers as he can get his hands on. Talk about tackling a problem from ignorance.
 
2014-04-08 09:38:37 AM  

Private_Citizen: I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.


I could see the the state of Texas banning plan b just like this nimrod and quote the reason public safety
 
2014-04-08 09:38:56 AM  
When people are bombing out their livers on lortabs, why is this idiot flipping on Z ER? Leave the drugs to the professionals and go back to doing whatever it is Governors do... like abusing their power in an ill-conceived attempt to position themselves to make a run at president. Oh, wait..
 
2014-04-08 09:39:17 AM  

MFK: The FDA is toothless thanks to our Republican friends in Congress who feel that "all regulation is bad hurr durr".


This. Like the EPA and the US Patent Office, it's a deliberately underfunded, harried agency which is only permitted to exist to give the illusion of oversight and regulation. And to take the heat off politicians and drug companies when a truly dangerous drug is allowed on the market and things go horribly wrong. I can't imagine a more depressing, soul-destroying place to work.
 
2014-04-08 09:39:36 AM  
The Texas governor wants to ban painkillers, but just for women.
 
2014-04-08 09:39:43 AM  
GORDON:  All democrats do wrong is get caught committing voter fraud over and over.

Wow, and look all all the examples you provided! I'm convinced.
 
2014-04-08 09:39:56 AM  

KidneyStone: bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.

States rights. It is how the US was supposed to operate.


Did you read that on a fortune cookie?
 
2014-04-08 09:42:08 AM  

MFK: yeah, but in his typical dickhead fashion, his response is to just lock up as many users and dealers as he can get his hands on. Talk about tackling a problem from ignorance.


I said nothing about him doing the right thing, only that he was concerned :P This is LaPage we're talking about.
 
2014-04-08 09:42:10 AM  

somedude210: TheSelphie: Suflig: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kolodny-md/zohydro-the-fdaapprov e d-p_b_4855964.html

This here is an interesting link about the drug. It's 50mg of hydrocodone, ten times as potent as vicodin. An FDA advisory committee voted 11-2 against releasing it but it was approved anyway.

wat

exactly, relying on the FDA to prevent the commercial sale of this is like praying that Congress will do something about domestic spying


It's 50mg of hydrocodone in slow-release form. It's not equivalent to vicodin... until it's crushed. But this is the same problem with other delayed-release opiods and even though some have been retooled with a "tamper-resistant" formulation, they're not tamper-proof.

As for those suggesting banning all opioids: get something like cancer or other profound pain and then come back begging. Pain management is a science unto itself that people don't appreciate until they need it.

Anyway, banning opioids would just fill the Mexican cartels with glee. It's not like you can stop everyone on the planet from growing opium poppies.

The problem is addiction. Deal with that, governor.
 
2014-04-08 09:42:56 AM  

somedude210: hardinparamedic: You mean the one that is designed for patients on chronic opiate therapy, and has no tylenol to fry their liver?

I dunno, is that the one that's significantly more powerful than vicodin and is incredibly easy to OD on? That's the one


You might want to set down for this, because it's clear you've never heard the pants-pissing terror of Morphine, Dilaudid, Demerol, or Fentanyl.

But no. Chronic liver damage and fulminate liver failure in chronic pain patients is a small price to pay for punishing addicts for the failure of our system to properly manage pain and addiction.
 
2014-04-08 09:43:09 AM  

Target Builder: Galer said Zohydro is safer than competitor Vicodin because it doesn't include acetaminophen, which can cause liver damage.

Thats the point of putting the acetaminophen in there - so you can't take enough of the drug to get really high without killing yourself.


Everything has an alternative.

http://www.rxlist.com/vicoprofen-drug.htm
 
2014-04-08 09:43:55 AM  

Private_Citizen: I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.


The problem is that in recent years the FDA has become the happy little lap dog of the pharma industry.  While other parts of the country see alot of meth we generally see more opiates, and it's usually in the form of pills.

We have a huge medical industry here.  Pharma dispatches their reps for the new drug, the drug gets over-prescribed and it makes what is already a bad problem even worse.

Is it his place to "ban" it?  Eh, no.  Not really.  But as Governor it is in his best interest to serve the taxpayers by not having more of this sort of thing around.

And before anyone says something about Massachusetts being anti-big business and anti-commerce I would challenge you to come out and take a ride up Route 128 with me and for every building we see with a big Pharma logo or a Tech company logo on it I get to punch you in the neck once.
 
2014-04-08 09:44:34 AM  

MFK: jtown: wyltoknow: Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?

I'm guessing if you dig down, you'll find that the governor has close ties to some other opioid manufacturer.  A friend or relative, a significant investment, big campaign donor, etc.

I'm guessing that you have no idea how bad the heroin problem in New England is. In Vermont, the governor devoted most of the State of the State speech to it. It's seriously "that bad".


I don't need to know how bad it is to know that banning one (1) prescribed opioid does not address a drug abuse problem.  To have an effect, they must  all be banned.  If only one is banned, the reason it was banned can't be to address a drug abuse problem.  ?Comprende?
 
2014-04-08 09:44:50 AM  
I was addicted to hydromorphone which is about 10x stronger than hydrocodone for pain  due to radiation to tonsil cancer.  I was only on it for about 4 weeks post rads, imagine someone sunburning the inner lining of your throat for 35 days in a row, that was the pain level, morphine didn't touch it.

I tapered too fast when the pain was abating and was the most miserable I've ever been in my life. I was in the fetal position scratching, sweating, freezing, tremors, booting for about 40 hrs straight.

I doubt I'll ever take them again due to how awful I felt during due to side effects while trying to get off them.

Opitates do wonders for those who need them. But holy hell stay the F away if your just messing around. Smoke some weed its far cheaper and much less trouble and honestly a better high.   I was convinced that there were people after me when I was on the hydromorphone. Was in no way an experience i want to repeat.
 
2014-04-08 09:45:58 AM  

MFK: goop


MFK: Private_Citizen: I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.

The FDA is toothless thanks to our Republican friends in Congress who feel that "all regulation is bad hurr durr".

Keep in mind that the entire reason that New England is dealing with such a large Heroin epidemic at all is largely because of big Pharma who were pushing doctors to prescribe OxyContin and the like for every little ache and pain resulting in a huge amount of hard core opiates in everyone's medicine cabinets. By the time they realized how many people were getting hooked on them for recreational purposes, they cracked down hard on their availability and for example, required that if the pills were crushed they would turn to a goop instead of a powder. However, this was akin to closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out. What happened was that you were left with a large addict population and with pills going on the black market for $40-$60 a pop on the low end the heroin dealers swooped in and were like "you should try this. It's like Oxys only cheaper and way easier to get".


Actually, people found out that if you take the new formulation and soak the tablets in soda you can crush it. People (addicts or criminals) figured it out a couple weeks after the crush-proof formulation came out.
 
2014-04-08 09:46:55 AM  
The reason there is an epidemic of addiction to pharmaceuticals in this country is because the left wing pushed for reeducation of physicians to make sure they were available to the patients more easily.  Of course all that was needed was a prescription but the left wingers went so far as to require Continuing Medical Education courses about why you should give your patients pain relievers.  In California the requirement was for 12 hours of CME time and many states followed suit.  Now in the OC more people die of pharmaceutical overdose than die in motor vehicle accidents.  The left wing never anticipates the consequences of their actions like why it's a bad idea to pay teenagers to have babies.
 
2014-04-08 09:47:04 AM  
somedude210:  Patrick can argue that this drug would be exasperating the opiate problem in MA. Sure, the conservative governors could do this for birth control, but unless they argue that there's a shortage of a population in the state, they wouldn't have the same reasoning to use the power.

But I understand where you're coming from and am inclined to agree that this will have terrible consequences for those living in conservative states, but you also need to understand that since the recession started, we have an absolutely awful heroin epidemic


Maybe Patrick can start by banning heroin.  Oh, wait.
The problem isn't the drug, and I'm pretty sure Patrick doesn't have the authority to overstep the FDA.  In order to combat a drug problem, you don't target the drugs.  I thought we as a Nation had figured that out already (even though it seems that we try to ignore it all the time).
 
2014-04-08 09:47:18 AM  
Perdue Pharma, makers of Oxycontin, will be coming out with their own hydrocodone extended release compound. Oxycontin tabs contain a tamper-resistant opioid antagonist, naltrexone, which if broken open neutralizes the narcotic and prevents the instant high.

FDA prevented generic Oxycontin from being released due to lack of naltrexone. I would guess that Zogenix would be kicked off the market as it lacks a tamper resistance.

http://timesofsandiego.com/business/2014/03/12/san-diegos-zogenix-th re atened-by-connecticut-based-perdue-pharmas-hydrocodone-success/
 
2014-04-08 09:47:18 AM  

somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem


because it sucks to be so close to Patriot fans or because New England is 2 steps away from become Old England?
 
2014-04-08 09:47:22 AM  

jtown: MFK: jtown: wyltoknow: Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?

I'm guessing if you dig down, you'll find that the governor has close ties to some other opioid manufacturer.  A friend or relative, a significant investment, big campaign donor, etc.

I'm guessing that you have no idea how bad the heroin problem in New England is. In Vermont, the governor devoted most of the State of the State speech to it. It's seriously "that bad".

I don't need to know how bad it is to know that banning one (1) prescribed opioid does not address a drug abuse problem.  To have an effect, they must  all be banned.  If only one is banned, the reason it was banned can't be to address a drug abuse problem.  ?Comprende?


What will you take for pain if you you get cancer or badly injured? Bayer Aspirin?
 
2014-04-08 09:49:55 AM  

OscarTamerz: The reason there is an epidemic of addiction to pharmaceuticals in this country is because the left wing pushed for reeducation of physicians to make sure they were available to the patients more easily. Of course all that was needed was a prescription but the left wingers went so far as to require Continuing Medical Education courses about why you should give your patients pain relievers. In California the requirement was for 12 hours of CME time and many states followed suit. Now in the OC more people die of pharmaceutical overdose than die in motor vehicle accidents. The left wing never anticipates the consequences of their actions like why it's a bad idea to pay teenagers to have babies.


I'm pregnant
 
2014-04-08 09:50:24 AM  

OscarTamerz: The reason there is an epidemic of addiction to pharmaceuticals in this country is because the left wing pushed for reeducation of physicians to make sure they were available to the patients more easily.  Of course all that was needed was a prescription but the left wingers went so far as to require Continuing Medical Education courses about why you should give your patients pain relievers.  In California the requirement was for 12 hours of CME time and many states followed suit.  Now in the OC more people die of pharmaceutical overdose than die in motor vehicle accidents.  The left wing never anticipates the consequences of their actions like why it's a bad idea to pay teenagers to have babies.


upload.wikimedia.org

That's one of the most moronic and out of touch statements I've ever read on FARK. In reality, we have a problem with under-treating and mistreating pain in the United States. Physicians are too apt to throw what are supposed to be short term opiates that have a huge abuse and harm potential at patients, rather than refer them to pain management specialists for proper treatment with opiate and non-opiate medications.

It has absolutely nothing to do with politics.
 
2014-04-08 09:51:20 AM  
jtown:

I don't need to know how bad it is to know that banning one (1) prescribed opioid does not address a drug abuse problem.  To have an effect, they must  all be banned.

Fun fact: this doesn't work either.
 
2014-04-08 09:53:44 AM  

hardinparamedic: OscarTamerz: The reason there is an epidemic of addiction to pharmaceuticals in this country is because the left wing pushed for reeducation of physicians to make sure they were available to the patients more easily.  Of course all that was needed was a prescription but the left wingers went so far as to require Continuing Medical Education courses about why you should give your patients pain relievers.  In California the requirement was for 12 hours of CME time and many states followed suit.  Now in the OC more people die of pharmaceutical overdose than die in motor vehicle accidents.  The left wing never anticipates the consequences of their actions like why it's a bad idea to pay teenagers to have babies.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]

That's one of the most moronic and out of touch statements I've ever read on FARK. In reality, we have a problem with under-treating and mistreating pain in the United States. Physicians are too apt to throw what are supposed to be short term opiates that have a huge abuse and harm potential at patients, rather than refer them to pain management specialists for proper treatment with opiate and non-opiate medications.

It has absolutely nothing to do with politics.


That comment was a good example of "this person could be a moron because they think this or they could be a moron because they are the sort of moron who thinks pretending to be a moron is less moronic than being a moron in the first place for thinking this".

So in other words - one can safely discard everything they say.
 
2014-04-08 09:54:02 AM  

scut207: OscarTamerz: The reason there is an epidemic of addiction to pharmaceuticals in this country is because the left wing pushed for reeducation of physicians to make sure they were available to the patients more easily. Of course all that was needed was a prescription but the left wingers went so far as to require Continuing Medical Education courses about why you should give your patients pain relievers. In California the requirement was for 12 hours of CME time and many states followed suit. Now in the OC more people die of pharmaceutical overdose than die in motor vehicle accidents. The left wing never anticipates the consequences of their actions like why it's a bad idea to pay teenagers to have babies.

I'm pregnant


Ha Fark just changed "0 / 10" to "I'm pregnant"... wife would be thrilled IVF is expensive.
 
2014-04-08 09:55:01 AM  

ruta: The problem is addiction. Deal with that, governor.


....he is. We have an incredibly successful drug court program for users to get help instead of going to jail. The problem here is that all our progress to helping addicts is being undercut by a legal, very powerful opiate.

jaybeezey: because it sucks to be so close to Patriot fans or because New England is 2 steps away from become Old England?


snark noted, but it's mostly because the pill popping phenomenon is far too expensive now, so those addicts are switching to cheaper heroin for the same high at half the price.
 
2014-04-08 09:56:13 AM  
RyansPrivates:I too have known my share of heroin/opiod addicts, and I blame the pushers: the doctors that prescribed the medicne to begin with without proper oversight/patient interaction.

The addict is the only one in the equation who can conclude that they are indeed an addict. Just because someone abuses a drug doesn't mean the doctor shouldn't be allowed to prescribe it to people who can use the drug without abusing it.

One of the most polished tools in an addict's toolbox is the ability to manipulate and lie. Second guessing every patient's motives is NOT the responsibility of a doctor who feels they are reasonably improving someone's existence.

I have no problem placing a significant portion of the blame on the addict, and I say this as someone in recovery myself.
 
2014-04-08 09:58:14 AM  

Pangea: I have no problem placing a significant portion of the blame on the addict, and I say this as someone in recovery myself.


I have a feeling that  RyansPrivates is the kind of person who would withhold pain medication from someone with a broken leg because they asked for something for the pain.
 
2014-04-08 09:58:31 AM  

bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.


Pay attention kid.
It seems you have an axe to grind being a liberal and all, but we're talking about Obama Lite here.
 
2014-04-08 10:00:45 AM  

WTFDYW: jtown: MFK: jtown: wyltoknow: Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?

I'm guessing if you dig down, you'll find that the governor has close ties to some other opioid manufacturer.  A friend or relative, a significant investment, big campaign donor, etc.

I'm guessing that you have no idea how bad the heroin problem in New England is. In Vermont, the governor devoted most of the State of the State speech to it. It's seriously "that bad".

I don't need to know how bad it is to know that banning one (1) prescribed opioid does not address a drug abuse problem.  To have an effect, they must  all be banned.  If only one is banned, the reason it was banned can't be to address a drug abuse problem.  ?Comprende?

What will you take for pain if you you get cancer or badly injured? Bayer Aspirin?


Thank you for missing the point of my comments entirely.  My theory is that this has to do with the governor or someone close to the governor making a lot of money by having the competition eliminated and nothing at all to do with preventing drug abuse or eliminating pain medication.
 
2014-04-08 10:01:19 AM  

mike_d85: RyansPrivates: So the problem of abusing a medication that has a place in medical use is to ban it outright?  No, I don't think so. The problem isn't the drug, it is the over-prescribing by doctors.  Which, by the way,  the governor has the authority to combat.  It isn't the easy path forward, but it is the right path forward.

I too have known my share of heroin/opiod addicts, and I blame the pushers: the doctors that prescribed the medicne to begin with without proper oversight/patient interaction.  I also have known 2 people that may or may not be addicted, but have a good medical reasons for opioid use, both related to spinal injury problems.  Banning these substances would reduce their quality of life.  Both hold full time jobs that they are able to actually function in because of prescription opioids.

OK, I'm open to debate.  But the line needs to be much, much farther away.  As in, injection at the hospital only far away.

One of the dead ones actually died of prescription overdose (mixing pills and Methadone).  The one in prison was robbing a pharmacy for opioids.  Every last one of them used prescription opioids and at least three of them started on it.  It SHOULD NOT be readily available.


That is reasonable.  (Not readily available.)  Maybe tighter regulations around administration. Maybe clinic only adminstration?  Or in the case of a pill, you have to go to the same pharmacy on some regular basis (i.e. once a week).  But I think the root of the problem is overprescription.  Recently broke my 5th metarsial.  Not pleasant mind you, but far from the most painful thing in the world.  But the doctor wrote a script for hydrocodone.  I never filled it.  I could manage my pain to a reasonable level with tylonol and cold/ice.  The doctors need to get out of the business of writing scripts for this stuff so much.
 
2014-04-08 10:05:27 AM  

mike_d85: ban all opioids


We're pretty much there already, and it does nothing to stem the flow.

The only way to control the sales and marketing of opioids is to control the sales and marketing of opioids.  As in, the government does all the sales, marketing, and distribution, and gets as many people into treatment as possible.

My brother's life was shortened considerably by heroin abuse, and he'd have fared much better with clean junk available and treatment programs required.
 
2014-04-08 10:06:19 AM  

RyansPrivates: mike_d85: RyansPrivates: So the problem of abusing a medication that has a place in medical use is to ban it outright?  No, I don't think so. The problem isn't the drug, it is the over-prescribing by doctors.  Which, by the way,  the governor has the authority to combat.  It isn't the easy path forward, but it is the right path forward.

I too have known my share of heroin/opiod addicts, and I blame the pushers: the doctors that prescribed the medicne to begin with without proper oversight/patient interaction.  I also have known 2 people that may or may not be addicted, but have a good medical reasons for opioid use, both related to spinal injury problems.  Banning these substances would reduce their quality of life.  Both hold full time jobs that they are able to actually function in because of prescription opioids.

OK, I'm open to debate.  But the line needs to be much, much farther away.  As in, injection at the hospital only far away.

One of the dead ones actually died of prescription overdose (mixing pills and Methadone).  The one in prison was robbing a pharmacy for opioids.  Every last one of them used prescription opioids and at least three of them started on it.  It SHOULD NOT be readily available.

That is reasonable.  (Not readily available.)  Maybe tighter regulations around administration. Maybe clinic only adminstration?  Or in the case of a pill, you have to go to the same pharmacy on some regular basis (i.e. once a week).  But I think the root of the problem is overprescription.  Recently broke my 5th metarsial.  Not pleasant mind you, but far from the most painful thing in the world.  But the doctor wrote a script for hydrocodone.  I never filled it.  I could manage my pain to a reasonable level with tylonol and cold/ice.  The doctors need to get out of the business of writing scripts for this stuff so much.


When I had my scrip, there was no way I could drive, no way I could take any sort of public transport due to nasea.  Back to the drawing board.
 
2014-04-08 10:08:25 AM  

RyansPrivates: mike_d85: RyansPrivates: So the problem of abusing a medication that has a place in medical use is to ban it outright?  No, I don't think so. The problem isn't the drug, it is the over-prescribing by doctors.  Which, by the way,  the governor has the authority to combat.  It isn't the easy path forward, but it is the right path forward.

I too have known my share of heroin/opiod addicts, and I blame the pushers: the doctors that prescribed the medicne to begin with without proper oversight/patient interaction.  I also have known 2 people that may or may not be addicted, but have a good medical reasons for opioid use, both related to spinal injury problems.  Banning these substances would reduce their quality of life.  Both hold full time jobs that they are able to actually function in because of prescription opioids.

OK, I'm open to debate.  But the line needs to be much, much farther away.  As in, injection at the hospital only far away.

One of the dead ones actually died of prescription overdose (mixing pills and Methadone).  The one in prison was robbing a pharmacy for opioids.  Every last one of them used prescription opioids and at least three of them started on it.  It SHOULD NOT be readily available.

That is reasonable.  (Not readily available.)  Maybe tighter regulations around administration. Maybe clinic only adminstration?  Or in the case of a pill, you have to go to the same pharmacy on some regular basis (i.e. once a week).  But I think the root of the problem is overprescription.  Recently broke my 5th metarsial.  Not pleasant mind you, but far from the most painful thing in the world.  But the doctor wrote a script for hydrocodone.  I never filled it.  I could manage my pain to a reasonable level with tylonol and cold/ice.  The doctors need to get out of the business of writing scripts for this stuff so much.



Seems like -- if that guy had to rob a pharmacy -- that prescription opiates weren't *readily* available.  I don't think robbery counts as ready-availability.

/ have had surgery a few times (will spare the details, but it wasn't pleasant) that involved being on opiates for a few weeks -- in a few cases, on a PCA pump that injected opiates (morphine or hydromorphone) continuously for nearly a week at a time
// starting & stopping seemed like no big problem, and I was glad to have the pain control
 
2014-04-08 10:09:08 AM  

somedude210: New England is facing a massive opiate problem


And it is being handled wrong.
Small scale, if your kid is on it, you go tough love, cold turkey, and where did you get it and put the dealer behind bars, and keep the kid off.
Large scale, Oh, boo hoo. let's give them an alternative addiction, dont' ask where they got it, put in clinics, and pillows and tax the public and don't come down like a ton of bricks on people selling poison on our streets.

Clinics should work like this. You walk in. You get strapped to a cot.
You want something to drink? Water.
Eat? Bread.
Want something else? Tell us who you got the junk from and we get a conviction and we'll talk peanut butter and orange juice.

LEOs should work like this: You get caught selling it you get to see a Judge. Judge should grant as much bail as if they had been selling ricin or anthrax. And charged the same. And put away the same.
Come down like a ton of granite on them and put the word out.
You get hooked, you get cold turkey
You get caught dealing, you get the max.
Do.No.Budge.an inch on this. they will walk all over you if you give them anything else.
Boo hoo. Knock it off.
 
2014-04-08 10:09:43 AM  

OscarTamerz: The reason there is an epidemic of addiction to pharmaceuticals in this country is because the left wing pushed for reeducation of physicians to make sure they were available to the patients more easily.  Of course all that was needed was a prescription but the left wingers went so far as to require Continuing Medical Education courses about why you should give your patients pain relievers.  In California the requirement was for 12 hours of CME time and many states followed suit.  Now in the OC more people die of pharmaceutical overdose than die in motor vehicle accidents.  The left wing never anticipates the consequences of their actions like why it's a bad idea to pay teenagers to have babies.


So libs are pushing the agenda resulting in prescribing all these opiates, which routes billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical companies?

Surely you can provide some citations, lest everyone just assume you're a complete liar.
 
2014-04-08 10:10:13 AM  

Thunderpipes: Nothing wrong with prescription medication.


Yes, there is.
The fact that this apparently never occurs to anyone as even a possibility, that's what is wrong.
Everyone you know taking a pill for something, that isn't right.
 
MFK
2014-04-08 10:12:18 AM  

jtown: MFK: jtown: wyltoknow: Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?

I'm guessing if you dig down, you'll find that the governor has close ties to some other opioid manufacturer.  A friend or relative, a significant investment, big campaign donor, etc.

I'm guessing that you have no idea how bad the heroin problem in New England is. In Vermont, the governor devoted most of the State of the State speech to it. It's seriously "that bad".

I don't need to know how bad it is to know that banning one (1) prescribed opioid does not address a drug abuse problem.  To have an effect, they must  all be banned.  If only one is banned, the reason it was banned can't be to address a drug abuse problem.  ?Comprende?


this is a great example of why we can't have a serious discussion on anything anymore. If a proposal to a problem isn't a magic bullet and only addresses a part of the problem, then it's declared to be a waste of time and not worth the effort.

The problem with this particular drug is that it's super pure, highly addictive and this company is suing to make it widely available in a region in the grips of the worst Heroin epidemic tin has ever faced. It's not like it's the only pain medicine on the market. This is an example of a people learning from recent history and attempting to not make the same mistakes and allow a dangerous product into the market just because there's a buck to be made by someone. 10-15 years ago, Oxy Contin was the "new wonder drug for pain". While it may have been very effective in that regard, it also created a whole new class of addicts. People who would've never thought twice about shooting up heroin had no problem snagging a couple pills from grandma's cabinet. Once the people in charge got wise to what had happened, they implemented serious reforms but the damage had already been done and people who were using pharmaceuticals now found themselves without an affordable fix and where heroin had originally been the hardest of sells now had a seemingly innocuous "gateway" for thousands and thousands of new opioid pill addicts.

I see this move by Patrick as a smart move to get in front of the "new Oxy" before it makes a bad situation even worse. Heaven forbid we learn anything from history.
 
2014-04-08 10:13:25 AM  

Arkanaut: Thunderpipes: Wait, so if someone likes a drug, it should be legal, but if they don't like it, it should be illegal?

Isn't that how pot became so illegal in the first place? Nothing wrong with prescription medication. What is wrong with why they are getting to the general public.

I believe the science shows opiates are more addictive and far more potentially deadly than pot. That should inform the decision-making too.


It should, but reason and information has never stopped the government from making catastrophic mistakes in the past.
 
2014-04-08 10:14:32 AM  

Betep: bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.

Pay attention kid.
It seems you have an axe to grind being a liberal and all, but we're talking about Obama Lite here.


Oh, you missed the point.  He meant that it's awesome this governor is doing this, but it would be terrible if those stupid conservatives started forcing children on the population.  Therefore, for the greater good, the Mass.ter race must be held back.
 
2014-04-08 10:16:04 AM  

jtown: Thank you for missing the point of my comments entirely.  My theory is that this has to do with the governor or someone close to the governor making a lot of money by having the competition eliminated and nothing at all to do with preventing drug abuse or eliminating pain medication.


It's not that your theory wasn't heard, it's just that a baseless theory isn't worth a whole lot.

This thread includes lots of comments about what else he is doing in the interest of improving the addiction epidemic in his state. There just isn't much of anything to support your claim. Forgive people if it's not that interesting to debate in a serious fashion.
 
MFK
2014-04-08 10:17:41 AM  

vudukungfu: somedude210: New England is facing a massive opiate problem

And it is being handled wrong.
Small scale, if your kid is on it, you go tough love, cold turkey, and where did you get it and put the dealer behind bars, and keep the kid off.
Large scale, Oh, boo hoo. let's give them an alternative addiction, dont' ask where they got it, put in clinics, and pillows and tax the public and don't come down like a ton of bricks on people selling poison on our streets.

Clinics should work like this. You walk in. You get strapped to a cot.
You want something to drink? Water.
Eat? Bread.
Want something else? Tell us who you got the junk from and we get a conviction and we'll talk peanut butter and orange juice.

LEOs should work like this: You get caught selling it you get to see a Judge. Judge should grant as much bail as if they had been selling ricin or anthrax. And charged the same. And put away the same.
Come down like a ton of granite on them and put the word out.
You get hooked, you get cold turkey
You get caught dealing, you get the max.
Do.No.Budge.an inch on this. they will walk all over you if you give them anything else.
Boo hoo. Knock it off.


All that will happen is that the dealers will then get their junky addicts to be the new "storefront".  A heroin addict is basically a slave to their addition. They will do "whatever it takes" to get a fix. This is often not a rational choice.  Locking up low level street dealers is a waste of time and tax money because the second one guy goes away, another one will pop up in his place. Treatment of addiction is the only way to combat this problem. The ones who are behind everything are another matter, however. If all of the resources wasted on the drug war were actually applied to going after the cartels and actual drug-runners, you might see the needle move a bit.
 
2014-04-08 10:18:20 AM  

Pangea: RyansPrivates:I too have known my share of heroin/opiod addicts, and I blame the pushers: the doctors that prescribed the medicne to begin with without proper oversight/patient interaction.

The addict is the only one in the equation who can conclude that they are indeed an addict. Just because someone abuses a drug doesn't mean the doctor shouldn't be allowed to prescribe it to people who can use the drug without abusing it.

One of the most polished tools in an addict's toolbox is the ability to manipulate and lie. Second guessing every patient's motives is NOT the responsibility of a doctor who feels they are reasonably improving someone's existence.

I have no problem placing a significant portion of the blame on the addict, and I say this as someone in recovery myself.


You are correct, the addict is not without blame. However, it is the responsibility of health care providers to be as diligent as possible to prevent this, we also may need to change the laws and practices to some extent.  I think one of the big problems is over prescription of these drugs.  That is why I think we need to start with the doctors.  The problem, of course, is big pharma loves this over prescription since it lines their pockets.
 
2014-04-08 10:19:44 AM  

vudukungfu: somedude210: New England is facing a massive opiate problem

And it is being handled wrong.
Small scale, if your kid is on it, you go tough love, cold turkey, and where did you get it and put the dealer behind bars, and keep the kid off.
Large scale, Oh, boo hoo. let's give them an alternative addiction, dont' ask where they got it, put in clinics, and pillows and tax the public and don't come down like a ton of bricks on people selling poison on our streets.

Clinics should work like this. You walk in. You get strapped to a cot.
You want something to drink? Water.
Eat? Bread.
Want something else? Tell us who you got the junk from and we get a conviction and we'll talk peanut butter and orange juice.

LEOs should work like this: You get caught selling it you get to see a Judge. Judge should grant as much bail as if they had been selling ricin or anthrax. And charged the same. And put away the same.
Come down like a ton of granite on them and put the word out.
You get hooked, you get cold turkey
You get caught dealing, you get the max.
Do.No.Budge.an inch on this. they will walk all over you if you give them anything else.
Boo hoo. Knock it off.


You act like every condition requiring pain management is temporary.

You act like every "dealer" is a street dealer.

Your world view is too myopic to be taken seriously.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-federal-judge-sentences-florida-pill-mill-do ct ors-230514610.html
 
2014-04-08 10:19:49 AM  

somedude210: wyltoknow: Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?

This is a very powerful opiate that is legal to sell via prescription and was approved by the FDA in shady as fark circumstances. Patrick is doing more about this problem then just banning this one drug. MA recently passed a bill putting the anti-overdose drug (I forget the name) as standard equipment for paramedics, we've implemented an incredibly successful drug court program that focuses on rehabilitation and not imprisonment and this drug came out of no where and has tossed a massive monkey wrench into the works to counter the epidemic.

as for the causes, the cost of prescription opiates that the pill popping craze started with years ago have become incredibly expensive and heroin has dropped in price and gives you a similar high, so the pill-poppers have all started to switch to heroin and went from spending $300/week to $300/month. Boston's NPR station did a very in-depth investigation when Markey was trying to help Taunton out with the opiate problem


What?  There was a thread, a couple of days ago, about junkies in Chicago, where they had $200/day habits.  The cost doesn't go down, it goes up.
 
2014-04-08 10:20:21 AM  
I asked my fiancee (rx tech) just what Zohydro was, and she said "Oh, vicodin without the tylenol. Someone dropped off a scrip for it and we can't get it." If the wholesaler has issues getting it to pharmacies, Patrick probably doesn't have to worry too much about people getting it and abusing it. Besides, there are all the other non-apap pain killers to abuse, plus the illegal ones.

RyansPrivates: Recently broke my 5th metarsial.  Not pleasant mind you, but far from the most painful thing in the world.  But the doctor wrote a script for hydrocodone.  I never filled it.  I could manage my pain to a reasonable level with tylonol and cold/ice.  The doctors need to get out of the business of writing scripts for this stuff so much.


Hydrocodone, or hydro/apap (or vicoprofen)? What dose? I've had customers complain that the doc's prescribed too strong a dose, or too weak a dose, so they took the "as needed" part as "whenever you want". It also seems some have forgotten that they can prescribe non-opiate pain killers like tramadol or soma.
 
2014-04-08 10:22:14 AM  

somedude210: ruta: The problem is addiction. Deal with that, governor.

....he is. We have an incredibly successful drug court program for users to get help instead of going to jail. The problem here is that all our progress to helping addicts is being undercut by a legal, very powerful opiate.

jaybeezey: because it sucks to be so close to Patriot fans or because New England is 2 steps away from become Old England?

snark noted, but it's mostly because the pill popping phenomenon is far too expensive now, so those addicts are switching to cheaper heroin for the same high at half the price.


Apparently it needs to be said twenty times in this thread in twenty different ways: abolition doesn't work.

This drug isn't even "very powerful" compared to other opioids. It just doesn't have the acetaminophen in it so it's actually less likely to result in [horrible painful you-wouldn't-wish-on-anyone] death from liver failure which is a greater risk than opioid OD.

It's also not "legal" for recreational use. It's only legal for its intended use, by the person the prescription was written for. If the doctor is writing them ongoing scripts for a drug intended for unintended use, that doctor needs to be educated on pain management and/or sanctioned or charged. Maybe the drug needs to be moved up a schedule, but banning it will not solve the problem. Banning it only increases its street value, pushes users onto something else, and takes one tool out of the already frustratingly limited pain management toolbox for those who legitimately need it.

The governor has obviously not dealt with the problem of addiction if it remains a large problem. Maybe he's doing some things, but plainly not enough is being done. Addiction is not cured simply by removing the addictive substance.
 
2014-04-08 10:22:41 AM  

MFK: The problem with this particular drug is that it's super pure, highly addictive and this company is suing to make it widely available in a region in the grips of the worst Heroin epidemic tin has ever faced.


This is a Chewbacca defense of the governor's actions. Heroin is already widely available in the region, so you want to ban something that's safer than heroin because it's not produced and distributed by the black market? It makes no sense.
 
2014-04-08 10:23:10 AM  

hardinparamedic: Pangea: I have no problem placing a significant portion of the blame on the addict, and I say this as someone in recovery myself.

I have a feeling that  RyansPrivates is the kind of person who would withhold pain medication from someone with a broken leg because they asked for something for the pain.


Nope, not hardly.  I would, however, make sure it wasn't out regularly to every tom dick and harry who interacts with a doctor.  My case (of the broken foot) was my case.  My pain was manageable.  My doctor didn't even ask if I wanted pain medication; he just prescribed.  That is a problem. If need pain meds, you should get them, opoid or othewise.  We have these medicines and they should be used; they shouldn't, however, be the default script after every injury you see the doctor about.
 
2014-04-08 10:23:46 AM  
mike_d85 - Kind of like how there was a heroine epidemic right after Vietnam...

We had a large number of heroic women right after Vietnam?

/sorry, I could not resist
 
2014-04-08 10:23:47 AM  

RyansPrivates: That is why I think we need to start with the doctors.  The problem, of course, is big pharma loves this over prescription since it lines their pockets.


The problem is the doctors. But it's not for what you claim. It's a lack of education on pain management and proper prescribing practices. It's easier for a family practice doc to throw lortab or vicoden at someone than it is for them to get them to see a pain management specialist.
 
2014-04-08 10:23:47 AM  

Pangea: vudukungfu: somedude210: New England is facing a massive opiate problem

And it is being handled wrong.
Small scale, if your kid is on it, you go tough love, cold turkey, and where did you get it and put the dealer behind bars, and keep the kid off.
Large scale, Oh, boo hoo. let's give them an alternative addiction, dont' ask where they got it, put in clinics, and pillows and tax the public and don't come down like a ton of bricks on people selling poison on our streets.

Clinics should work like this. You walk in. You get strapped to a cot.
You want something to drink? Water.
Eat? Bread.
Want something else? Tell us who you got the junk from and we get a conviction and we'll talk peanut butter and orange juice.

LEOs should work like this: You get caught selling it you get to see a Judge. Judge should grant as much bail as if they had been selling ricin or anthrax. And charged the same. And put away the same.
Come down like a ton of granite on them and put the word out.
You get hooked, you get cold turkey
You get caught dealing, you get the max.
Do.No.Budge.an inch on this. they will walk all over you if you give them anything else.
Boo hoo. Knock it off.

You act like every condition requiring pain management is temporary.

You act like every "dealer" is a street dealer.

Your world view is too myopic to be taken seriously.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-federal-judge-sentences-florida-pill-mill-do ct ors-230514610.html


When someone takes that stance there are two possibilities.

1) They either are an addict or they know people who are and are unable to discuss the topic reasonably
2) They enjoy feeling like they are taking the tough guy stance

It's irrelevant to that sort of person that there's massive empirical evidence proving that what they are suggesting will fail. Results are not important. It doesn't even bother them that they are wrong. It's more about how it makes them feel in the act of saying it. Totally irrelevant to the discussion.
 
2014-04-08 10:25:42 AM  

ruta: If the doctor is writing them ongoing scripts for a drug intended for unintended use


Derp. "... for something other than the intended use,"
 
2014-04-08 10:26:36 AM  

RyansPrivates: I think one of the big problems is over prescription of these drugs.  That is why I think we need to start with the doctors.  The problem, of course, is big pharma loves this over prescription since it lines their pockets.


I agree with this, and it's disturbing to me. Not just with pain killers either. Sooo many people are on maintenance dosages of things that are essentially forever.

Fortunately my mom fought against putting me on ritalin when I was a little kid. Yes I was annoying and hyperactive, but I grew out of it. Being prescribed medication for the rest of my life wouldn't have been a good choice.

I guess we're in agreement as long as the blame is shared with the addict. There are definitely doctors who just prescribe something based on a symptom instead of trying to get to the root of the problem. It's a tough situation and people are dying as a result of it.
 
2014-04-08 10:28:13 AM  

jshine: Seems like -- if that guy had to rob a pharmacy -- that prescription opiates weren't *readily* available. I don't think robbery counts as ready-availability./ have had surgery a few times (will spare the details, but it wasn't pleasant) that involved being on opiates for a few weeks -- in a few cases, on a PCA pump that injected opiates (morphine or hydromorphone) continuously for nearly a week at a time// starting & stopping seemed like no big problem, and I was glad to have the pain control


I see your point, but look at it this way:  In any non-rural area there is a building in almost every neighborhood that has several thousand dollars of opium-based pills in it.  I'd be willing to bet that every single block in New York City has at least a handful of opiate pills in it. That seems pretty readily available to me.

You were properly prescribed pain medication, took it properly, and stopped using it as instructed.  Many people decide they liked that prescription and tell their doctor that there is still some pain on the follow up visit.  Not a lie, but just a dull ache that Tylenol could have curbed but the good stuff knocks it right out.  It can go downhill pretty fast from there.
 
MFK
2014-04-08 10:29:26 AM  

YixilTesiphon: MFK: The problem with this particular drug is that it's super pure, highly addictive and this company is suing to make it widely available in a region in the grips of the worst Heroin epidemic tin has ever faced.

This is a Chewbacca defense of the governor's actions. Heroin is already widely available in the region, so you want to ban something that's safer than heroin because it's not produced and distributed by the black market? It makes no sense.


Despite its availability, Heroin is already banned in the region. What the governor is doing is an attempt to keep "another heroin" out of the area. Frankly, i'm a little shocked at the number of people here who think this is a good idea.
 
2014-04-08 10:30:02 AM  

bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.


He's in bounds... FDA exists because of the commerce clause... Patrick's ban does not affect interstate commerce, and since the ban is on sales, not on possession, it does not pose an obstacle to anyone's freedom of travel through the state.
 
2014-04-08 10:30:15 AM  

ruta: abolition doesn't work.


Also derp: the word I was looking for is prohibition. The 4 hours of sleep I got obviously isn't working for me.
 
2014-04-08 10:31:21 AM  

hardinparamedic: RyansPrivates: That is why I think we need to start with the doctors.  The problem, of course, is big pharma loves this over prescription since it lines their pockets.

The problem is the doctors. But it's not for what you claim. It's a lack of education on pain management and proper prescribing practices. It's easier for a family practice doc to throw lortab or vicoden at someone than it is for them to get them to see a pain management specialist.


Thanks for the info. Not a doctor, (obviously).  I would fully support your proposal, however.  Some of the best pain management I have ever had was meditation, for example

kittyhas1000legs: Hydrocodone, or hydro/apap (or vicoprofen)? What dose? I've had customers complain that the doc's prescribed too strong a dose, or too weak a dose, so they took the "as needed" part as "whenever you want". It also seems some have forgotten that they can prescribe non-opiate pain killers like tramadol or soma.


Not sure on the dose.  Agree on the second part of your statement, though.  Opiates have a place, but they aren't the only solution.  As mentioned above, I hadn't thought about pain management specialists as an option. I got a prescription for physical therapy with my foot, part of the prescription for those with more severe injuries might be opiates (or other painkiller) and a pain management specialist.  Not a doctor, but it seams reasonable to me.
 
2014-04-08 10:33:14 AM  

MFK: Despite its availability, Heroin is already banned in the region. What the governor is doing is an attempt to keep "another heroin" out of the area.


Because that ban on heroin is doing such a swell job of keeping heroin out of the area.
 
2014-04-08 10:33:18 AM  

firefly212: bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.

He's in bounds... FDA exists because of the commerce clause... Patrick's ban does not affect interstate commerce, and since the ban is on sales, not on possession, it does not pose an obstacle to anyone's freedom of travel through the state.


While an internally convincing argument the reality of it is that it will be biatchslapped senseless regardless.

This is from the system that gave us 'growing wheat for your own use and never selling it affects the overall wheat price so that's clearly interstate commerce"
 
2014-04-08 10:34:36 AM  
vudukungfu - and keep the kid off.

Umm... shouldn't you have been doing that in the first place?
 
2014-04-08 10:35:09 AM  

payattention: mike_d85 - Kind of like how there was a heroine epidemic right after Vietnam...

We had a large number of heroic women right after Vietnam?

/sorry, I could not resist


Well, there were a LOT of bra burnings...
 
2014-04-08 10:35:33 AM  

MFK: Despite its availability, Heroin is already banned in the region. What the governor is doing is an attempt to keep "another heroin" out of the area. Frankly, i'm a little shocked at the number of people here who think this is a good idea.


your house is on fire and you're trying desperately to put it out, some asshole got the fire department's permission to toss gasoline on your house. Are you not going to kick him in the balls to prevent him from doing that and making your problem worse?
 
2014-04-08 10:41:21 AM  

ruta: Because that ban on heroin is doing such a swell job of keeping heroin out of the area.


so what is your solution? Patrick is doing as much as he is legally bound to do. He has championed a bill to allow the anti-OD drug on ambulances, he's championed drug courts and increased rehab and out-patient therapy and he has made the population aware that there is a significant problem of heroin, pills and designer drugs out that that both the people and law enforcement need to be aware of.

While doing all this, some drug company paid off the FDA to approve their drug despite the FDA's own panel to vote overwhelmingly against legalizing this product. So in the middle of an epidemic you're fighting, some asshole just paid enough people off to let their drug into the legal marketplace. Are you just gonna sit by and let this shiat kill off your population? The population you've been trying to help?
 
2014-04-08 10:41:39 AM  

MFK: Despite its availability, Heroin is already banned in the region. What the governor is doing is an attempt to keep "another heroin" out of the area. Frankly, i'm a little shocked at the number of people here who think this is a good idea.


Prohibition doesn't work, so the governor is expanding it.

At best your argument is mendacious.
 
2014-04-08 10:42:25 AM  

somedude210: so what is your solution?


Recognize that the War on Drugs is ineffective and morally wrong and end it.
 
MFK
2014-04-08 10:42:48 AM  

ruta: MFK: Despite its availability, Heroin is already banned in the region. What the governor is doing is an attempt to keep "another heroin" out of the area.

Because that ban on heroin is doing such a swell job of keeping heroin out of the area.


What's your point? That because some things beyond the control of the state, they should just throw up their hands and say "fark it" when it comes to the things that they can control?
 
2014-04-08 10:45:02 AM  

YixilTesiphon: somedude210: so what is your solution?

Recognize that the War on Drugs is ineffective and morally wrong and end it.


While I agree that you shouldn't send users to jail for using, we do have a drug problem and he's not tossing users in jail. He's trying to prevent gas from being poured on the fire.
 
2014-04-08 10:46:34 AM  

somedude210: YixilTesiphon: somedude210: so what is your solution?

Recognize that the War on Drugs is ineffective and morally wrong and end it.

While I agree that you shouldn't send users to jail for using, we do have a drug problem and he's not tossing users in jail. He's trying to prevent gas from being poured on the fire.


No, he isn't. No intelligent person, which Deval Patrick is, could think that bans on drugs work. They don't. They accomplish nothing except kill more people due to bad quality and black-market violence. He is simply pretending to do something.
 
2014-04-08 10:46:54 AM  

kittyhas1000legs: I asked my fiancee (rx tech) just what Zohydro was, and she said "Oh, vicodin without the tylenol. Someone dropped off a scrip for it and we can't get it." If the wholesaler has issues getting it to pharmacies, Patrick probably doesn't have to worry too much about people getting it and abusing it. Besides, there are all the other non-apap pain killers to abuse, plus the illegal ones.

RyansPrivates: Recently broke my 5th metarsial.  Not pleasant mind you, but far from the most painful thing in the world.  But the doctor wrote a script for hydrocodone.  I never filled it.  I could manage my pain to a reasonable level with tylonol and cold/ice.  The doctors need to get out of the business of writing scripts for this stuff so much.

Hydrocodone, or hydro/apap (or vicoprofen)? What dose? I've had customers complain that the doc's prescribed too strong a dose, or too weak a dose, so they took the "as needed" part as "whenever you want". It also seems some have forgotten that they can prescribe non-opiate pain killers like tramadol or soma.


Pretty sure you can get addicted to Tramadol, too.  Tried it once and it was like a trip to the magic kingdom of happiness.  It was so nice, I said to myself, "You can never touch that again!"
 
2014-04-08 10:50:53 AM  

MFK: ruta: MFK: Despite its availability, Heroin is already banned in the region. What the governor is doing is an attempt to keep "another heroin" out of the area.

Because that ban on heroin is doing such a swell job of keeping heroin out of the area.

What's your point? That because some things beyond the control of the state, they should just throw up their hands and say "fark it" when it comes to the things that they can control?


Well they could try something that we actually know works. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminal i zation-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html
 
2014-04-08 10:51:49 AM  

somedude210: MFK: Despite its availability, Heroin is already banned in the region. What the governor is doing is an attempt to keep "another heroin" out of the area. Frankly, i'm a little shocked at the number of people here who think this is a good idea.

your house is on fire and you're trying desperately to put it out, some asshole got the fire department's permission to toss gasoline on your house. Are you not going to kick him in the balls to prevent him from doing that and making your problem worse?


Ban gasoline! Fire extinguished! HOUSE SAVED.

*wipes hands on pants*
 
2014-04-08 10:51:56 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Heroin is already widely available in the region, so you want to ban something that's safer than heroin because it's not produced and distributed by the black market? It makes no sense.


sure it does (i'm not saying i agree with gov however).  those pills just end up on the black market after they've been fraudulently obtained through insurance scams, or stolen.  my health insurance is paying for those pills, not for mexican heroin.
 
2014-04-08 10:52:35 AM  

YixilTesiphon: No, he isn't. No intelligent person, which Deval Patrick is, could think that bans on drugs work. They don't. They accomplish nothing except kill more people due to bad quality and black-market violence. He is simply pretending to do something


There is some evidence that prescription opioids can lead to opioid addiction, and when the user is denied access to their prescription, they will seek out the black market stuff.

The real problem is prohibition.
 
2014-04-08 10:54:50 AM  

YixilTesiphon: No, he isn't. No intelligent person, which Deval Patrick is, could think that bans on drugs work. They don't. They accomplish nothing except kill more people due to bad quality and black-market violence. He is simply pretending to do something.


They're already getting heroin on the cheap, a new prescription drug is going to be a boatload more expensive on the black market then the same high you can get from heroin. That said, if he was just banning the drug and tossing users and abusers in prison, then I'll agree with you that it's a terrible course of action. As it is, MA is very much trying to help addicts kick the habit. We understand what is needed to stop the epidemic. What you're seeing is a massive influx of new addicts being created and the drug courts and rehabs being overwhelmed. I understand your hatred of the War on Drugs. I agree, it is stupid and needs to stop. That doesn't excuse the drug in question, which was approved by the FDA in very questionable circumstances, from adding fuel to the fire and the governor wanting to do something to stop a bad situation from getting worse.
 
2014-04-08 10:58:04 AM  

somedude210: MFK: Despite its availability, Heroin is already banned in the region. What the governor is doing is an attempt to keep "another heroin" out of the area. Frankly, i'm a little shocked at the number of people here who think this is a good idea.

your house is on fire and you're trying desperately to put it out, some asshole got the fire department's permission to toss gasoline on your house. Are you not going to kick him in the balls to prevent him from doing that and making your problem worse?


Also, both the asshole and the fire chief who gave him permission to toss gasoline are both clearly insane. They need adequately funded mental health care.
 
2014-04-08 10:58:45 AM  

wildcardjack: Valiente: 1) Make all illegal drugs legal.
2) Do a crime on said drugs, we harvest your organs untainted by said drugs, and turn the carcass into Soylent Drugs.
3) Nobody supports my initiatives!
4) FREEEDOM!

Are you in the running for 2016 yet? Or are you a consultant?


whynotboth.jpg
 
MFK
2014-04-08 11:00:10 AM  

YixilTesiphon: somedude210: so what is your solution?

Recognize that the War on Drugs is ineffective and morally wrong and end it.


YixilTesiphon: MFK: Despite its availability, Heroin is already banned in the region. What the governor is doing is an attempt to keep "another heroin" out of the area. Frankly, i'm a little shocked at the number of people here who think this is a good idea.

Prohibition doesn't work, so the governor is expanding it.

At best your argument is mendacious.


When it comes to the regulation of what pills can be sold on the market, it absolutely does work. This is why you don't see Quaaludes anymore. This is why you can't get crushable Oxys anymore. I'm right there with you that the war on drugs is misguided and going about it all wrong, but to just open the floodgates to something like heroin just because is insane.
 
2014-04-08 11:00:33 AM  

ruta: somedude210: MFK: Despite its availability, Heroin is already banned in the region. What the governor is doing is an attempt to keep "another heroin" out of the area. Frankly, i'm a little shocked at the number of people here who think this is a good idea.

your house is on fire and you're trying desperately to put it out, some asshole got the fire department's permission to toss gasoline on your house. Are you not going to kick him in the balls to prevent him from doing that and making your problem worse?

Ban gasoline! Fire extinguished! HOUSE SAVED.

*wipes hands on pants*


www.automizeit.com
 
2014-04-08 11:02:20 AM  

ruta: Ban gasoline! Fire extinguished! HOUSE SAVED.

*wipes hands on pants*


*sigh* Patrick is cutting them off at the pass, not banning all opiates from being sold. If he was doing a total ban of all opiates, I would be in full agreement with all the arguments against Patrick. At worse, he's going "hey, we're not entirely sure you got a fair examination by the FDA. We don't want to have you selling that  in our state until we are absolutely sure that the FDA approves it and it's safe for consumption by our citizens"
 
2014-04-08 11:02:59 AM  
Pangea:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-federal-judge-sentences-florida-pill-mill-do ct ors-230514610.html


And when the sort-of-legal pill mills in Floriduh were shut down, heroin addiction blossomed.
 
2014-04-08 11:03:49 AM  
MFK:

When it comes to the regulation of what pills can be sold on the market, it absolutely does work. This is why you don't see Quaaludes anymore. This is why you can't get crushable Oxys anymore. I'm right there with you that the war on drugs is misguided and going about it all wrong, but to just open the floodgates to something like heroin just because is insane.

You can't get quaaludes because we've invented better drugs that do the same thing so they don't make them anymore.

Have you noticed that you can now get valium or alprazolam very easily?

Also we know what happens when you decriminalise everything - it works. We know what happens with prohibition. It doesn't work.

What is it about these particular substances that make people want to ignore the results of stuff we've tried.
 
MFK
2014-04-08 11:07:42 AM  

namegoeshere: Pangea:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-federal-judge-sentences-florida-pill-mill-do ct ors-230514610.html


And when the sort-of-legal pill mills in Floriduh were shut down, heroin addiction blossomed.


exactly. because heroin is cheaper, more potent, and extremely similar to the pills. By the time you are addicted to opiates, you do not have the same control of your faculties as you once did. So when a user might have been appalled at the thought of shooting up, "pills are totally safe - the doctor gives them out and he wouldn't if they weren't totally safe, right?" Take the pills away however and the user is still left with an opiod addiction. At that point, they'll do anything as long as it makes them "not sick".
 
MFK
2014-04-08 11:08:43 AM  

Tigger: MFK:

When it comes to the regulation of what pills can be sold on the market, it absolutely does work. This is why you don't see Quaaludes anymore. This is why you can't get crushable Oxys anymore. I'm right there with you that the war on drugs is misguided and going about it all wrong, but to just open the floodgates to something like heroin just because is insane.

You can't get quaaludes because we've invented better drugs that do the same thing so they don't make them anymore.

Have you noticed that you can now get valium or alprazolam very easily?

Also we know what happens when you decriminalise everything - it works. We know what happens with prohibition. It doesn't work.

What is it about these particular substances that make people want to ignore the results of stuff we've tried.


are you suggesting that we should just say fark it and let the heroin dealers do whatever they want?
 
2014-04-08 11:09:03 AM  

somedude210: They're already getting heroin on the cheap, a new prescription drug is going to be a boatload more expensive on the black market then the same high you can get from heroin.


i know too many people who have got caught up in this shiat.  every single one of them started with prescription pills, most were too proud to actually use heroin. increasing the availability of prescription opiates, especially super-strong ones just seems like the wrong thing to do when we are currently faced with the worst heroin problem we've ever faced.  i don't know what the right thing to do is, but i think the gov is more just saying "are you farking serious with this shiat right now?" than anything else.
 
2014-04-08 11:14:28 AM  

MFK: Tigger: MFK:

When it comes to the regulation of what pills can be sold on the market, it absolutely does work. This is why you don't see Quaaludes anymore. This is why you can't get crushable Oxys anymore. I'm right there with you that the war on drugs is misguided and going about it all wrong, but to just open the floodgates to something like heroin just because is insane.

You can't get quaaludes because we've invented better drugs that do the same thing so they don't make them anymore.

Have you noticed that you can now get valium or alprazolam very easily?

Also we know what happens when you decriminalise everything - it works. We know what happens with prohibition. It doesn't work.

What is it about these particular substances that make people want to ignore the results of stuff we've tried.

are you suggesting that we should just say fark it and let the heroin dealers do whatever they want?


No. I'm saying two things.

1) That the argument "you can't get quaaludes anymore so that demonstrates the effectiveness of a pill ban" is absolutely ridiculous. You can't get quaaludes because we hardly make any of them anymore. You CAN easily get the other drugs we invented to have the same effect like valium or alprazolam.

2) Decriminalise everything and provide treatment. We know this works. It's been tried. Prohibition doesn't work. We know because we've tried that too and it doesn't work.
 
2014-04-08 11:15:17 AM  

MFK: are you suggesting that we should just say fark it and let the heroin dealers do whatever they want?


Well, we let the caffeine dealers do whatever they want & just look how that turned out:

a0.muscache.com

/ I shudder just thinking all the addicts getting their fix in this den of iniquity
 
2014-04-08 11:20:36 AM  

Tigger: 2) Decriminalise everything and provide treatment. We know this works. It's been tried. Prohibition doesn't work. We know because we've tried that too and it doesn't work.


I think you are right.  I read the story about Portugal upthread.  Decriminalize (instead of legalize), is a good policy.  It allows for some "light" form of enforcement to intervene in the hard cases (real addicts) while still allowing the recreational users to skate by.  I think decriminalize is better for the harder drugs like opiates and cocaine, whereas legalize makes more sense for cannabis derived products.  The middle ground like ecstasy (in one direction) and LSD (in the other) are tougher, but I would probably lean towards decriminalize for those rather than outright legalization..
 
2014-04-08 11:21:50 AM  

MFK: namegoeshere: Pangea:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-federal-judge-sentences-florida-pill-mill-do ct ors-230514610.html


And when the sort-of-legal pill mills in Floriduh were shut down, heroin addiction blossomed.

exactly. because heroin is cheaper, more potent, and extremely similar to the pills. By the time you are addicted to opiates, you do not have the same control of your faculties as you once did. So when a user might have been appalled at the thought of shooting up, "pills are totally safe - the doctor gives them out and he wouldn't if they weren't totally safe, right?" Take the pills away however and the user is still left with an opiod addiction. At that point, they'll do anything as long as it makes them "not sick".


No.  Just on the why part.  One drug dealer went to jail, another one took his business.  At least the new one wasn't perceived to be legal.
 
2014-04-08 12:10:27 PM  

mike_d85: Betep: bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.

Pay attention kid.
It seems you have an axe to grind being a liberal and all, but we're talking about Obama Lite here.

Oh, you missed the point.  He meant that it's awesome this governor is doing this, but it would be terrible if those stupid conservatives started forcing children on the population.  Therefore, for the greater good, the Mass.ter race must be held back.


Or maybe I wouldn't give a crap what party he is, I just don't want politicians making arbitrary decisions about banning medications simply because they think it's 'bad'.  I said 'conservative governors' because it seems those states are hell-bent and determined to undermine doctors' and patients' rights to make their own decisions about drugs, and birth control in particular.  If a democrat, libertarian or republican were doing it about any drug, I would be equally against it.  It sets bad precedent.
 
2014-04-08 01:27:41 PM  
 
2014-04-08 01:35:27 PM  

beefoe: good article about this drug in Forbes:   http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2014/03/20/the-fdas-dilemma - with-the-opioid-pain-medication-zohydro-er/

Includes this gem:

"Was the FDA asleep at the wheel on this one? What were they thinking when they approved such a dangerous drug?
Actually, they were probably thinking about the patients, the ones who are suffering constantly and for whom nothing works to alleviate their pain."


Dilaudid
 
2014-04-08 01:35:44 PM  

hardinparamedic: That's one of the most moronic and out of touch statements I've ever read on FARK. In reality, we have a problem with under-treating and mistreating pain in the United States. Physicians are too apt to throw what are supposed to be short term opiates that have a huge abuse and harm potential at patients, rather than refer them to pain management specialists for proper treatment with opiate and non-opiate medications.

It has absolutely nothing to do with politics.


Yeah, I think the real answer should be with who can prescribe them.  What I'd like to see:

1)  A registry of all level 2 scripts issued.  A pharmacy can only fill a script that's in the database.  This ensures the doc must check the database before issuing it--he will see all other recent (say, 1 or 5 years) level 2 scripts issued.

2)  Level 2 drugs are limited to being prescribed by those who normally deal with or cause pain (ie, surgeons), oncologists, those providing end of life care and pain management docs.  Only the latter two can continue to write scripts for the same initial cause.  After the first script it's not an emergency situation, they can go to the specialist.  I'm exempting those providing end of life care because in that case it doesn't matter if the patient ends up hooked.  Let the hospice docs do what the patient wants.

RyansPrivates: I too have known my share of heroin/opiod addicts, and I blame the pushers: the doctors that prescribed the medicne to begin with without proper oversight/patient interaction. I also have known 2 people that may or may not be addicted, but have a good medical reasons for opioid use, both related to spinal injury problems. Banning these substances would reduce their quality of life. Both hold full time jobs that they are able to actually function in because of prescription opioids.


Yeah.  I used to have a coworker that was on something heavy because of shrapnel he caught in Iraq.  His personality wasn't exactly ideal but I suspect Iraq had more to do with that than the drugs did.


That being said, I think we need a new class of docs also:  Addiction management.  They would be allowed to prescribe even the stuff that's currently class 1, the objective being to keep the patient as a functional member of society.  While I support legalization for the non-addictive stuff I think the addictive stuff is better handled by making addiction a valid reason to prescribe them.
 
2014-04-08 02:41:20 PM  

hardinparamedic: OscarTamerz: The reason there is an epidemic of addiction to pharmaceuticals in this country is because the left wing pushed for reeducation of physicians to make sure they were available to the patients more easily.  Of course all that was needed was a prescription but the left wingers went so far as to require Continuing Medical Education courses about why you should give your patients pain relievers.  In California the requirement was for 12 hours of CME time and many states followed suit.  Now in the OC more people die of pharmaceutical overdose than die in motor vehicle accidents.  The left wing never anticipates the consequences of their actions like why it's a bad idea to pay teenagers to have babies.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]

That's one of the most moronic and out of touch statements I've ever read on FARK. In reality, we have a problem with under-treating and mistreating pain in the United States. Physicians are too apt to throw what are supposed to be short term opiates that have a huge abuse and harm potential at patients, rather than refer them to pain management specialists for proper treatment with opiate and non-opiate medications.

It has absolutely nothing to do with politics.


Absolutely spot on, man. As an MS patient, i had to roll through several doctors because the first several were throwing opioids at nerve pain... it does nothing for nerve pain... it kind of makes me not care, it makes me lethargic, and it makes me unable to work, but it doesn't actually address the problem. Gabapentin, Amitryptiline do way better, have way fewer side effects, and on good days, I can cut way back and not feel shiatty. Once a month or so, on really bad days, I'll still have a pot brownie... but none of that stuff is anywhere near as rough on me as some of the stuff I was with the first few doctors. That said, neurologist number three was a total dick who was convinced everyone was trying to work him for drugs... I had a spasm bad enough that I broke my foot (and some drywall)... when I asked him if there was anything he could do to at least slow the spasms down so I wouldn't get hurt any more, his response was "we're reluctant to give out any kind of muscle relaxers because, you know, people abuse them."

It isn't always a function of just more painkillers or less painkillers, but having a doctor take the time to actually figure out why the pain exists, and addressing that problem directly. While I'll concede there are certainly "pill mill" doctors out there, especially those in shady buildings marketing themselves as "pain clinics"... I'd still say the overall lean of doctors I've met has been to either treat it hastily (throw the wrong drugs at it) or under-treat pain, even if it means leaving a patient unable to complete activities of daily living. The issue isn't availability, it is one of competence.
 
2014-04-08 02:47:11 PM  
Federal preemption, right?
 
2014-04-08 02:48:00 PM  

namegoeshere: Pangea:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-federal-judge-sentences-florida-pill-mill-do ct ors-230514610.html


And when the sort-of-legal pill mills in Floriduh were shut down, heroin addiction blossomed.


That link was posted in response to someone who said:
"You get caught selling it you get to see a Judge. Judge should grant as much bail as if they had been selling ricin or anthrax. And charged the same. And put away the same."

"You get caught dealing, you get the max."


Are you saying keeping the pill mills open would be a better solution? A license to make new addicts and keep them addicted?

We'll have to disagree.
 
2014-04-08 03:08:13 PM  

Pangea: namegoeshere: Pangea:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-federal-judge-sentences-florida-pill-mill-do ct ors-230514610.html


And when the sort-of-legal pill mills in Floriduh were shut down, heroin addiction blossomed.

That link was posted in response to someone who said:
"You get caught selling it you get to see a Judge. Judge should grant as much bail as if they had been selling ricin or anthrax. And charged the same. And put away the same."

"You get caught dealing, you get the max."

Are you saying keeping the pill mills open would be a better solution? A license to make new addicts and keep them addicted?

We'll have to disagree.


Disagree with what? The opinion that you're apparently assigning to me?
 
2014-04-08 03:11:04 PM  

firefly212: hardinparamedic: OscarTamerz: The reason there is an epidemic of addiction to pharmaceuticals in this country is because the left wing pushed for reeducation of physicians to make sure they were available to the patients more easily.  Of course all that was needed was a prescription but the left wingers went so far as to require Continuing Medical Education courses about why you should give your patients pain relievers.  In California the requirement was for 12 hours of CME time and many states followed suit.  Now in the OC more people die of pharmaceutical overdose than die in motor vehicle accidents.  The left wing never anticipates the consequences of their actions like why it's a bad idea to pay teenagers to have babies.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]

That's one of the most moronic and out of touch statements I've ever read on FARK. In reality, we have a problem with under-treating and mistreating pain in the United States. Physicians are too apt to throw what are supposed to be short term opiates that have a huge abuse and harm potential at patients, rather than refer them to pain management specialists for proper treatment with opiate and non-opiate medications.

It has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Absolutely spot on, man. As an MS patient, i had to roll through several doctors because the first several were throwing opioids at nerve pain... it does nothing for nerve pain... it kind of makes me not care, it makes me lethargic, and it makes me unable to work, but it doesn't actually address the problem. Gabapentin, Amitryptiline do way better, have way fewer side effects, and on good days, I can cut way back and not feel shiatty. Once a month or so, on really bad days, I'll still have a pot brownie... but none of that stuff is anywhere near as rough on me as some of the stuff I was with the first few doctors. That said, neurologist number three was a total dick who was convinced everyone was trying to work him for drugs... I had a spasm bad ...


That's what I hate about our medical system right now.  It's easier (and more profitable) to treat a patient's symptoms that it is to treat the disease.  I have addison's disease and grave's disease, and I went to 5 different doctors in 2 months when I got very, very sick.  I couldn't keep my food down, could barely stand up and couldn't even walk a block before nearly fainting.  I also had a goiter in my neck that was scaring me to death.

Every doctor I went to diagnosed it as 'the flu', gave me medication for the nausea and a round of antibiotics.  It was only when I went into the ER that the doctor there was able to just look at me and diagnose me.  Addison's disease causes uneven tanning and tanning on places that don't normally tan, like the palms of your hands or your lips...and this doctor saw me and knew immediately what I had, and suspected the thyroid disease (because I had a goiter).  But it was easier for the other doctors to write me off and hope that I didn't come back than it was to refer me to someone or do a little bit of research.
 
2014-04-08 03:50:54 PM  
I suppose there's a weird logic to this.  Death is an instant and 100% effective cure for drug addiction.
 
2014-04-08 04:38:27 PM  
It's really obvious to me that most of you have never worked in health care. Here's a few insider tips:

1. It actually IS the physician's responsibility to make sure the patient is not going to abuse the drug. It's also the pharmacist's responsibility.

2. There is no need for this drug. There are many better pain medications already available (that are less easy to snort or inject) and this drug will not - I repeat, WILL NOT - bring pain relief to patients who have failed Oxycontin, MS Contin, Opana, and transdermal fentanyl. Those (very few) patients will be on intrathecal therapy.

3. This drug was approved despite the panel voting against it. That's shady and I foresee a good chance that this drug is recalled by the FDA. It does not meet an unmet need, which is required for new drugs on the market.

4. This drug will not prevent Tylenol overdoses. For one thing, it's long acting; patients will still have breakthrough pain meds (possibly with acetaminophen) available. For another, it's for chronic pain ONLY. Patients who are taking 12+ Norcos a day and are therefore at risk of liver toxicity have bigger problems. They need to tell their doctor what they're taking (and stop pestering me for early refills; the answer is no, bub) and have a new stronger drug prescribed. Norco is not meant to be taken at the max dose for long periods of time. To have liver damage, one would have to either take a LOT more than prescribed (at least double the max daily dose, and probably triple) or take more than the max dose every day for a long period of time. There is NO reason for either of those things to EVER happen. None. If your pain is bad enough that you need to take 5 Norcos every 4 hours, then you need to go to the ER, because no way in hell was it that bad in the doctor's office or you would have been admitted to the floor. If you're taking more for months and months, then you need to get on a different drug. And trust me, we'll know you're taking more because you'll be lying to us about why you always run out 10 days early on your script.


This drug is bad news. Not sure that MA should ban it because of what others have stated about other states banning birth control, etc, but it needs to go away and go away fast.
 
2014-04-08 05:30:25 PM  

Suflig: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kolodny-md/zohydro-the-fdaapprov e d-p_b_4855964.html

This here is an interesting link about the drug. It's 50mg of hydrocodone, ten times as potent as vicodin. An FDA advisory committee voted 11-2 against releasing it but it was approved anyway.


How the heck did that happen?

I'm pretty cynical, but that seems...unusual.
 
2014-04-08 06:16:33 PM  

jtown: MFK: jtown: wyltoknow: Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?

I'm guessing if you dig down, you'll find that the governor has close ties to some other opioid manufacturer.  A friend or relative, a significant investment, big campaign donor, etc.

I'm guessing that you have no idea how bad the heroin problem in New England is. In Vermont, the governor devoted most of the State of the State speech to it. It's seriously "that bad".

I don't need to know how bad it is to know that banning one (1) prescribed opioid does not address a drug abuse problem.  To have an effect, they must  all be banned.  If only one is banned, the reason it was banned can't be to address a drug abuse problem.  ?Comprende?


"My drugs are better than your drugs because I like my drugs. Nya"

So sick of pothead condescension of drugs they don't like. Personally I think Opium should be legal too. Can it kill you? yes it can, so can alcohol and cigarets.
 
2014-04-08 07:05:58 PM  

Private_Citizen: I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.


The precedent was already set in Arizona.  The message was that states cannot infringe on the enforcement power of the feds.  At least that's what the Fark Libs told us.
 
2014-04-08 07:07:55 PM  

beefoe: bborchar: somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

I have no problem with Patrick doing this, if that's the case. New England is facing a massive opiate problem

My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing?  And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

He overstepped his bounds and needs to leave this up to the correct authorities.

Don't be silly. Democrats only do good things and evil Repukelicans only do bad things.


I don't think anyone's ever said that Democrats only do good things ever.
 
2014-04-08 07:43:06 PM  

RyansPrivates: That is reasonable. (Not readily available.) Maybe tighter regulations around administration. Maybe clinic only adminstration? Or in the case of a pill, you have to go to the same pharmacy on some regular basis (i.e. once a week). But I think the root of the problem is overprescription. Recently broke my 5th metarsial. Not pleasant mind you, but far from the most painful thing in the world. But the doctor wrote a script for hydrocodone. I never filled it. I could manage my pain to a reasonable level with tylonol and cold/ice. The doctors need to get out of the business of writing scripts for this stuff so much.


And that was enough for you - good for you. However all people do not feel pain the same. Some people get pleasure from pain - real identifiable by CT scans pleasure, others don't. Just because YOU can deal without opiate pain killers doesn't mean everyone else can or should. Just because YOU will get addicted from taking them doesn't mean others will.

Pain and pain meds affect EVERYONE differently. Case and point my brother and I. My brother has a VERY high pain tolerance, he can break fingers and not even really notice, whereas I can stub my toe and feel it for hours. He however has a problem with "nagging" pains like papercuts whereas I am so used to pain 'nagging' me that rashes/papercuts don't bother me at all.

Step that up to a tiny bit of pain killers will throw him for a loop - and he's done hard drugs. I however, who have had 3 kidney stones am barely affected by tramadol and when my arthritis gets really bad I can feel it even through vicodin.

Pain killers affect different people with different brain chemistries in different ways. Pain killers have *always* made me hyper/wanting to stay busy and are better than caffeine at keeping me awake. Other people just fall asleep instantly.

Why is this all important? Since pain killers affect everyone differently, doctors need the flexibility to prescribe differently for different people in a variety of ways and situations. When your little snowflake is screaming and crying in pain because of that broken bone, the same one that you had no problem with, are you going to just say "man up, wimp" or are you going to fill that RX?

Doctors have degrees. Unless you have a medical degree, and specifically a degree in neurobiology you probably shouldn't be making any decisions regarding regulation of pain killers. Opiate, synthetic, or otherwise.
 
2014-04-08 09:35:21 PM  

Private_Citizen: I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.


Agreed.  And use this platform as a means to improve the FDA and bring more transparency.

Panatheist: So sick of pothead condescension of drugs they don't like. Personally I think Opium should be legal too. Can it kill you? yes it can, so can alcohol and cigarets.


Calling people potheads is pretty condescending too.  But of the pro-pot people I know, they are against any prohibitions and dont single out things they "dont like".  You mileage (or awareness) may vary.
 
2014-04-08 10:50:34 PM  
zimbomba63:

Pretty sure you can get addicted to Tramadol, too.  Tried it once and it was like a trip to the magic kingdom of happiness.  It was so nice, I said to myself, "You can never touch that again!"

Wtf? I've been taking Tramadol for three years for a herniated disc and never had that effect.  I wanted to buy whoever invented it all the beers because 1) it was the only thing that worked 2) never felt even the slightest bit loopy our out of it. And it's not like I've developed a tolerance - no reaction, ever, from the very beginning.
 
2014-04-09 08:47:17 AM  

brax33: RyansPrivates: That is reasonable. (Not readily available.) Maybe tighter regulations around administration. Maybe clinic only adminstration? Or in the case of a pill, you have to go to the same pharmacy on some regular basis (i.e. once a week). But I think the root of the problem is overprescription. Recently broke my 5th metarsial. Not pleasant mind you, but far from the most painful thing in the world. But the doctor wrote a script for hydrocodone. I never filled it. I could manage my pain to a reasonable level with tylonol and cold/ice. The doctors need to get out of the business of writing scripts for this stuff so much.

And that was enough for you - good for you. However all people do not feel pain the same. Some people get pleasure from pain - real identifiable by CT scans pleasure, others don't. Just because YOU can deal without opiate pain killers doesn't mean everyone else can or should. Just because YOU will get addicted from taking them doesn't mean others will.

Pain and pain meds affect EVERYONE differently. Case and point my brother and I. My brother has a VERY high pain tolerance, he can break fingers and not even really notice, whereas I can stub my toe and feel it for hours. He however has a problem with "nagging" pains like papercuts whereas I am so used to pain 'nagging' me that rashes/papercuts don't bother me at all.

Step that up to a tiny bit of pain killers will throw him for a loop - and he's done hard drugs. I however, who have had 3 kidney stones am barely affected by tramadol and when my arthritis gets really bad I can feel it even through vicodin.

Pain killers affect different people with different brain chemistries in different ways. Pain killers have *always* made me hyper/wanting to stay busy and are better than caffeine at keeping me awake. Other people just fall asleep instantly.

Why is this all important? Since pain killers affect everyone differently, doctors need the flexibility to prescribe differently for different people i ...


I have peppered my posts throughout this thread with the caveat that I am NOT a doctor.  However, I am a concerned citizen who has seen my share of addicts that got hooked (at least initially) on prescription painkillers, (leading to heroin in at least one case). This post was in response to a discussion that about what to do about this problem.  And as far as regulation is concerned: as a citizen I absolutely have a vested interest what regulations are on the books whether it is my area of "expertise" or not. That is because we (ostensibly) live in a republican democracy, not an oligarchy.  That being said, doing a Google search I found that there are multiple medical boards (California, Nevada, etc) that voiced public concerns about this problem (overprescribing), so obviously, this "not a doctor" isn't alone in his thoughts.

As I stated before in a previous post, there is a place for these drugs:
My case (of the broken foot) was my case.  My pain was manageable.  My doctor didn't even ask if I wanted pain medication; he just prescribed.  That is a problem. If need pain meds, you should get them, opoid or othewise.  We have these medicines and they should be used; they shouldn't, however, be the default script after every injury you see the doctor about.

If doctors aren't doing the right thing (and are overprescribing) are we just to leave it to them? or do we as a society have a vested interest in additional regulations?  The governor in TFA had his heart in the right place, but banning a drug that the FDA has approved I don't think is in his powers.   Doctors need just about any medicine in their arsenal they can get their hands on, because of the reasons you stated.  That doesn't, however, preclude our society from having additional regulations around certain meds.
 
Displayed 170 of 170 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report