• 💊 OTHER DRUGS 💊 Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Notable Threads 1 Notable Threads 2
    Dangerous Combos Addiction Support
    Emergency Services Benzo Guide v.1
    Addiction Stories Scary Case Studies
    Biology, Pharmacology & Drugs 101
  • Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

Opioids Do you think Schedule I is inappropriate for diamorphine?

J

JM357

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
308
In the U.S. diamorphine is schedule I meaning under no circumstances can it be prescribed/utilized by a medical professional; the definition of a schedule I drug is that it is highly addictive psychologically, causes physical dependence, and has no accepted medical use- the only way to possess a schedule I substance is for the purpose of research, and I don't mean like what we call an RC, I mean like a major university giving it to rats for a study- I'm sure there is a shit ton of paperwork involved (this info will be known to most BLers but in case there is someone who is from overseas who isn't familiar with the U.S. law on this). I'm not denying heroin is addictive, causes dependence, etc. but no medical uses? There are other medicinally used opioids that are as addictive (fent is more so from my experience with its short half life and rapidly building tolerance while requiring a higher equivalent dose when used recreationally (and more dangerous)) and diamorphine according to some experts can kill more pain for a given amount of respiratory depression than any other opioid. Does scheduling work in a manner like: if it was proven that diamorphine (or marijuana- whose schedule of I effects far more patients) had an acceptable medical use would it then be moved to schedule II (is it doctors/experts saying those are the attributes of the drug determining scheduling or is scheduling saying there are no medical uses)?

Is it really appropriate that the use of diamorphine is banned even in patients with cancer or other terminal illnesses and in extreme pain?

In other countries diamorphine is allowed to be prescribed- is this one of those once in a blue moon medications where most people won't even know someone who has been administered it? (I thought I had heard in the UK it isn't rare for it to be used in the ER for severe trauma, like someone in a bad car accident would actually likely be given it, is this the truth?)

Does the allowing of a schedule I substance being used in research mean it could potentially be given to people during that research (for example a university studying if HAT could be effective or studying management of pain in terminally ill patients)?

Just out of curiousity- when a research permit is given how the hell do universities acquire them? Are they ordered from overseas or are there US pharma/chem companies producing diamorphine (obviously in extremely limited quantities)?
 
of course its innapprorpiate but it doesnt really matter because doctors can just prescribe morphine or another strong opioid instead. Morphine and diamormorphine are so similar that we don't really need both of them.
 
Well, I'm a firm believer in free will and that all drugs should be legal unless taking them causes a clear and immediate danger to others around you, so I'd say yes
 
It's innapropriate for anything to be schedule 1. Prohibition doesn't work. It makes criminals out of people who aren't criminals, and it doesn't stop people from doing illegal drugs.

Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal problem. there are no bad drugs, just bad information
 
I don't believe in drug schedules. They exist though so I would settle if they just got rid of S1, and put all the S1 stuff on S2. If a doctor has a sound argument for using heroin to treat a patient, he should be free to do so.
 
Oh, I agree with everything said about the drug war- I'm not 100% sure about for example letting just anyone buy any drug in any amount at any time BUT I would never throw anyone in jail for a drug charge. How many lives could we save from both death and a lot of suffering (both the addict and those around them) if for example we allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts? Yes, you would still need it but I think people could be functional, property crime would go way down, and you wouldn't need to spend every dollar on it. I truly think the drug war is 100% about profit at this point: high level dealers make huge amounts due to the black market jacking up prices, the prison industry makes a ton of money etc. And it is about control- the drug war really kicked into gear as the new way to oppress the masses after the civil rights movement (and I'm not saying racism disappeared or whatever at that point, but the prison system is the new "legit" way to exert certain controls).

I think though that even under the current scheduling system it is inappropriate.
 
Definitely. Many many countries use it as a medical analgesic, which it is and is very good at. An important detail for Schedule I drugs is that they have no practical medical use, which is completely incorrect for diamorphine. (Of course, it's also incorrect for a bunch of other Schedule I drugs, but that's not what the question is about.)
 
Heroin should not be schedule 1. There are a few drugs that honestly should be, but heroin is not one of them.

As a one-time heroin addict, when my mother was dying from cancer a few years back, all I could think of was how much better she'd have felt with diacetylmorphine being administered in hospice care vs standard morphine. She was on a morphine drip; I think it was 6mg/hour. Don't get me wrong, the morphine helped, a lot, but morphine has more side effects and less 'good vibes' in my experience then good old dope. She had tumors literally throughout her body and was in agonizing pain - in addition to the horrible mental aspect of knowing that she was dying.

Cancer is horrible, she was in agony - why not give her the stuff that'll make her feel the best?

H is a great painkiller for those in the most severe pain with less side effects then morphine. I guess most hospitals now are moving towards dilaudid, but H shouldn't be ruled out; in certain cases, there is definitely a medical justification for it.
 
that sucks they only gave her 6mgs spaced over an hour. In my darkest morphine days I would shoot 3 kadian 100s....2 if i just wanted to not be sick for a while.

I think people that have terminal illnesses should be allowed whatever chemical they wish. If they want a speedball, let them have one. If they want to trip one last time...please by all means. If they want to roll just to feel that amazing wellbeing one last time...for the love of god have respect for their wishes.

In orlando they give dilaudid for headaches, morphine for body pain, ativan 2mg IV for intense panic attacks, and 1mg ativan pills for calming a patient down. I have also seen valium. (I have been hospitalized a number of times in panic attacks that I actually thought were heart attacks....) Ativan burns when it goes in, but like 5 minutes later you are feeling so much better. I have also had to go to a hospital when I got stuck in a thought loop and wouldn't leave my house for a week. I lost a bunch of weight because I wasn't eating and finally I called an ambulance.
 
My UK heritage forces me to point out we can still technically get Diamorph ampoules on the taxpayer dollar, however, it is never prescribed (well, I've heard of 4 cases, total) and even impossible to source post-DN.
Diamorphine does have legitimate use, and I'd put it ahead of both Hydro and Oxymorphone in terms of analgesia relative to duration relative to "fuck yo' willpower" power.

<3
 
I agree with Burnt. In a blind study, they gave addicts morphine instead of diamormphine to see if they could tell the difference and many could not. They believe the desire has more to do with the ROA and attachment to the needle itself than the chemical structure, but I could be wrong. It likes comparing wine to vodka, both have the same effects on yoru brain, just one is more concentrated and thus gets you drunk faster.
 
I'm sorry, wut?

BO didn't post here and I can damn sure tell you if you replaced my gear with Morphine, at relative potency, I'd know and "not be too pleased".

<3
 
think he was referring to me. personally, i would have no complaints if i had an endless supply of morphine. my best opiate high ever was off a combo of oral morphine and poppy tea. Blue heroin out of the water in every way, minus the rush (obviously since I didnt IV it).
 
Obviously it should not be sched 1. If you are telling me Heroin has no pain killing effects your caveman mentality stupid.
 
Manyboychef, I also use to shoot 2 100's in a spoon on occasion but morphine is only 60mg/ml and I was using a 1 ml barrel and definitely felt the 200 mg shots more than the 60 mg shots, any explanation from anyone?
 
I've often wondered the same thing smokey- it does seem like people fit a lot more in a 1cc than we would think. Maybe even though only 60mgs of morphine can fully dissolve in 1ml of fluid you could still get a bit more in just not dissolved fully (like the solution would crash if you let it settle).

You're also right that no one denies it has painkilling abilities- I always used to think they were saying it doesn't have superior painkilling abilities to schedule II opioids that can be used and is more addictive. But there is no where in schedule I where it says "has only the same or less medical use and is more harmful" it simply says there is "no medical use." (even if that was the case) You could argue a lot of schedule II substances are inferior for their medical use (unless there is some specific use for an opioid that has an effect on seratonin I'd say meperidine (Demerol) has been found to AT BEST be equal to morphine (at a dose of equal effect) at killing pain and is a risk for causing seratonin syndrome; I do know people who claimed it was very euphoric when properly dosed but have never taken it (it seems to mostly have fallen out of favor and when reading up on it it sounds like only older doctors who are used to implementing it might)).
 
And as far as someone said they'd be happy to have a limitless supply of morphine- so would I, I wouldn't complain about it a bit :) . On a similar side note they either have or are going to be doing a study in Canada of an injectable opioid to give for maintanence. They will be using hydromorphone I guess b/c diamorphone would be hard to supply. Wonder how it will go- on one hand they have the rush hydromorphone gives (which is equal to or superior to diamorphone's) but most claim hydromorphone doesn't give much other than its rush and obviously you wouldn't be in WDs. If they told me they could supply me with an injectable opioid but would have to be one currently available for prescription I think I would either go with oxymorphone or levomorphone as both have long half-lifes (you could possibly get by with 2, at most I would think 3, injections a day as oxymorphone has like a 7-9hour half life and I think levomorphone's is a little longer).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top