Drug Makers Hope to Kill the Kick in Pain Relief

NY Times ^ | April 20, 2004 | SANDRA BLAKESLEE

[AntiGuv]

Well, yes, but people who wish to use painkillers legitimately are not going to grind them up, anyhow. The only purpose of these additives is to prevent people from grinding up extended-release tablets..

[Monty22]

And preventing people from doing that is bad.. how?

[AntiGuv]

I don't think it's bad; I think it's futile for the purpose that it's intended. The people who want to grind them up will simply make sure they get those without additives, or if worse comes to worse (for them) they'll find some other means to get the fix altogether.

The people who grind up narcotics are relatively hard-core addicts. This is not going to stop them.

[Monty22]

It won't stop them, but it'll make it harder. I don't have a problem with making criminal activity harder.

Why would anyone? It'll help people from taking more than they should due to tolerance, which will drastically cut down the accidental addict issue.

This is a good thing, all around. People that want to get off on chemicals are criminals, and need to be treated as such.

The vast majority that want to be relieved from pain will, with these steps, be less likely to turn into that kind of criminal, and will have better chances for living a normal life.

[AntiGuv]

The solution in the sense you mean would be to synthesize and equally effective, nonaddictive painkiller. The other solution is to put an end to overprescribing by doctors (the biggest problem).

My guess is that this proposed tactic will not even make it any much harder. What it may do is lead some criminal dealers who hijack shipments or rob pharmacies whatnot to pick up some pills that are useless to them. The 'inside' jobs won't be impacted because they'll know to avoid these pills. Routine addicts won't be affected to any great extent unless all the other pills are banned, which won't happen.

Odds are that the biggest impact will be some number of people paying more for pills than they need to because they are the law-abiding who don't have a problem anyhow and thus don't need them. In theory, this might help some handful of them avoid inadvertent addiction, although there are plenty of alternatives available for those who wish that, anyhow.

The ultimate solution is to end the Prohibition War and substitute harm-reduction legal & medical policies in its place. But that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

[eno_]

People that want to get off on chemicals are criminals

Which chemicals, and why?

[AntiGuv]

Oh, and it definitely goes without saying that this...

People that want to get off on chemicals are criminals

...is absolutely false on its face.

[neverdem]

They obviously can make nonaddictive painkillers, they're already doing it well.. Celebrex and Ultram are great.

For mild to moderate pain many analgesics will suffice, but for severe pain, especially when it's chronic, only opiates can cut the mustard. BTW, Ultram, aka tramadol, is a semi-synthetic opiate, and a relatively small number of folks have become addicted to it, IIRC. It does have abuse potential.

[neverdem]

Nah. The number of reported 'capsaicin allergies' will merely spike, just like the number of reported 'aspirin/NSAID allergies' did some while back...

I don't follow. Could you explain?

[ShadowDancer]

Yeah, heaven forbid that someone in pain should experience anything that feels good or makes the pain more tolerable when it can't be completely eliminated

There is a chasm of a difference between a pain blocker and an euphoira inducing drug. But, I bet you already knew that.

[ryanjb2]

I don't use painkillers, but they better never take the sleepyness out of my NyQuil.

[AntiGuv]

When alternatives to narcotics came out (i.e., Celebrex, Ultram,Vioxx) addicts merely found out what was in them and then reported allergies to some component if a physician wanted to prescribe them..

BTW, genuine capsaicin allergy can be quite vicious.

[Monty22]

No, illegal drug possession is a criminal behavior, so is prescription abuse. It's maybe 'false' in your fantasyland, but in the real world, it's how it is.

[neverdem]

I'd like to see the opiates phased out as something much better comes along.

Do you remember hearing about endorphins, i.e. a contraction of endogenous morphine. Our bodies have specific receptors for beta-endorphin and enkephalins on nerves that mediate pain. The opiates fit in those receptors like the right key for a lock. I'll be quite surprised if opiates are ever phased out.

[Monty22]

The more they are phased out, the better. Then we'll have effective, non addictive medication. It's the ultimate quest in pharmaceuticals. No addiction, no high, but treatment of the problem.

And progress is being made.

[AntiGuv]

You didn't say illegal drug possession or prescription abuse (which the latter is not illegal per se, btw). You said getting off on chemicals. Maybe grammar and definitions don't exist in your fantasyland, but here in the reality you need to say what you mean.

BTW, I unfortunately have a weakness for the chemicals in bacon double quarter pounders with cheese. Doesn't do anything for my waistline but I don't think it's criminal ... yet.

[jammer]

Celebrex and Ultram are great.

Sure. But it would be nonsensical to think that they--especially Celebrex--have the analgesic potency of opiates.

[AntiGuv]

The ultimate quest in pharmaceuticals is a cure for aging, followed closely by a cure for cancer, followed closely by a cure for heart disease, followed closely by cures for several infectious diseases. Maybe in your fantasyland the Prohibition War is the ultimate quest, but here in reality, it's not.

[Monty22]

whatever, drugs ruin more lives than all those things you list. Kill directly, maybe not. Ruin, sure.

Youre libertarian ideals amuse me, but I hope you realize how silly you are. I'm advocating non-addictive medications and you come down on me like a ton of bricks. For now, we have what we have.

If we have to add things to oxycontrin to reduce addiction, fine. If that means people can only take the prescribed amount? Fine. Who cares? There's no HARM DONE.

[AntiGuv]

No, they don't. What an absurdly inane statement that was. I guess lives in your fantasyland aren't ruined when people die. LOL!

I haven't come down on you like a ton of bricks for advocating non-addictive medications; quite to the contrary, I joined you in advocating them.

Stop being silly!