Why are opioids are so little used outside the US or Europe?

[modocmodoc]

And the only answer is absolute decriminalization. Yeah, that might put a dent in the fact that 85% of violent crimes are committed by or against someone intoxicated with alcohol.

Again, regulation ruined it so they legalized the most dangerous one that disinhibits the worst and is the cheapest.

In other words, ask black people ffs.

 

[deficiT]

Your post doesn't make any sense. You're saying we need responsibility and yet at the same time you're saying professionals utilizing responsibility and preventing people from getting drugs IS a problem. Don't you see the flaws in your logic? We NEED everybody to have responsibility and because we live in a world where drugs are dispensed by professionals, they NEED responsibility in order to ascertain whether a certain drug is suitable based on that individuals circumstances. That's how a transformation in drug policy would work whereby drugs are decriminalized but their availability is regulated and based on the harms they cause to society. Opioids cause serious harms and have a VERY HIGH addicting potential and we could on forever comparing them to other drugs like cannabis and psychedelics for example with relatively low harms. But yet you want to be able to get drugs whenever you want and for society as a whole not to collectively shoulder that responsibility? You want a doctor to write you a script for a highly addicting drug and not care about the consequences?

What you are prescribing is precisely the problem we have in the world in regards to drugs and addiction. It's just shrouded in sherking responsibility and a positive spin put on it. Whatever way drug policy is defined, drugs will ALWAYS be regulated and their use ALWAYS regulated. Even in a world where drugs are decriminalized, being able to obtain crack or cocaine or heroin will never literally be as simple as a walk in the park.

There is a difference between responsibility and lack thereof. What you seem to be wanting is a world where people can do whatever the f*ck they want. That's not responsibility, that's a ticket to the destruction of society from the inside-out. Just let everybody do what they want, right? Let everybody run themselves into the ground and for society not to give a f*ck about them. That works, if you live in a world where nobody gives a f*ck about one another. Even with responsibility there are limits. Just because you should be able to do whatever you want with your body doesn't mean that there would be no rules. Anybody who believes a completely free and open world consists of no rules is precisely what you stated at the start of your reply - infantile. We NEED rules. Otherwise this entire thing you call society wouldn't exist for very long.

You don't need a medical degree to see how your philosophy has resulted in a drug war that's killed or incarcerated millions.

Fact is, opioids serve an important medical function and many people need something to get by. Yes, you can paint with a broad brush and say society needs "rules", which I could agree with on some fronts. But it's clear that our current system is failing everyone. People that use drugs shouldn't be criminalized, full stop. Prohibition has been ruining lives for decades.

 

[modocmodoc]

Not only failing its users but has been turned into a gigantic cash cow by uncountable entities (three letter agencies, pharmaceutical lobbies, private prisons)..

 

[finitelifeform]

You don't need a medical degree to see how your philosophy has resulted in a drug war that's killed or incarcerated millions.

Fact is, opioids serve an important medical function and many people need something to get by. Yes, you can paint with a broad brush and say society needs "rules", which I could agree with on some fronts. But it's clear that our current system is failing everyone. People that use drugs shouldn't be criminalized, full stop. Prohibition has been ruining lives for decades.

Some facts here because your comment is grossly inaccurate.
The war on drugs started by Nixon to attempt to destabilize and divide certain groups in American society, mainly those against war. Nixon's advisor on his death bed admitted they absolutely knew drugs had nothing to do with it but they needed a reason to be able to get themselves deep into these groups. This was when it seemed more and more people were against war efforts in Vietnam and so Nixon had to find a way to divide and conquer the population through a new threat. This new threat was drugs.
Where in my post was there ANYTHING about demonization of drugs through corrupt political decisions based on racist and unethical policies?

What I said is we need rules. We can't have carte blanche everybody being able to get hold of drugs freely and without society offering some form of restraint because then we live in a world where everybody can do whatever they want. If you want something like that, you go visit some places around the world where law and order barely exists and corruption is rife. Most people have a naive childlike idea of what drug reform policy would mean. It doesn't mean what most people think it means. Some people need to really study the reality of drug reform policies because they think it means the gates open and everybody is allowed to smoke crack in public in front of kids. Or that every shop will sell highly addicting painkillers. Or that dealing drugs becomes legal and your community now can be dominated by rival drug gangs without intervention from the police in any way.

There is a difference between decriminalization and regulation. The use of drugs would become decriminalized, but it wouldn't mean we live in a society dominated by drugs and there be no safeguards in place to prevent communities becoming overrun by drugs and therefore causing more harms than before the reform policies came into effect. It wouldn't mean drug addiction and abuse would be promoted because, hell why not, drugs are now legal. It would be mean strict regulation and drugs would be regulated based on their realistic harms to the individual and society. That means based on these regulations, certain protocols would exist, certain laws, certain rules etc would exist to enable a balance between these drugs being bought, consumed etc and their harms.

If you go to any country where they have already begun introducing drug reform policies you'll see that there is a very elaborate system in place that goes beyond what most people naively perceive as a free-for-all because things have changed. Drugs should always be regulated, as should their use within context of the individual situation. Drugs should always be responsibly consumed and this is something drug reform policy would aim for without compromise.

The fact also is, opioids are a SERIOUS problem, especially in the US. If you think a change in policy is going to make them freely available and for people to freely take them like we live on a magical cloud, you've got another thing coming. That will NEVER happen. That's got nothing to do with prohibition, everything to do with an evidence based fair, transparent and responsible drug reform policy. The main goal is to NOT encourage drug addiction and/or abuse. The main goal is to DISCOURAGE these things. The only difference would be that the procurement, consumption and possession of these drugs no longer would automatically determine you as a criminal and/or demonized and pigeonholed according to their own choices.

 

[deficiT]

Some facts here because your comment is grossly inaccurate.
The war on drugs started by Nixon to attempt to destabilize and divide certain groups in American society, mainly those against war. Nixon's advisor on his death bed admitted they absolutely knew drugs had nothing to do with it but they needed a reason to be able to get themselves deep into these groups. This was when it seemed more and more people were against war efforts in Vietnam and so Nixon had to find a way to divide and conquer the population through a new threat. This new threat was drugs.
Where in my post was there ANYTHING about demonization of drugs through corrupt political decisions based on racist and unethical policies?

What I said is we need rules. We can't have carte blanche everybody being able to get hold of drugs freely and without society offering some form of restraint because then we live in a world where everybody can do whatever they want. If you want something like that, you go visit some places around the world where law and order barely exists and corruption is rife. Most people have a naive childlike idea of what drug reform policy would mean. It doesn't mean what most people think it means. Some people need to really study the reality of drug reform policies because they think it means the gates open and everybody is allowed to smoke crack in public in front of kids. Or that every shop will sell highly addicting painkillers. Or that dealing drugs becomes legal and your community now can be dominated by rival drug gangs without intervention from the police in any way.

There is a difference between decriminalization and regulation. The use of drugs would become decriminalized, but it wouldn't mean we live in a society dominated by drugs and there be no safeguards in place to prevent communities becoming overrun by drugs and therefore causing more harms than before the reform policies came into effect. It wouldn't mean drug addiction and abuse would be promoted because, hell why not, drugs are now legal. It would be mean strict regulation and drugs would be regulated based on their realistic harms to the individual and society. That means based on these regulations, certain protocols would exist, certain laws, certain rules etc would exist to enable a balance between these drugs being bought, consumed etc and their harms.

If you go to any country where they have already begun introducing drug reform policies you'll see that there is a very elaborate system in place that goes beyond what most people naively perceive as a free-for-all because things have changed. Drugs should always be regulated, as should their use within context of the individual situation. Drugs should always be responsibly consumed and this is something drug reform policy would aim for without compromise.

The fact also is, opioids are a SERIOUS problem, especially in the US. If you think a change in policy is going to make them freely available and for people to freely take them like we live on a magical cloud, you've got another thing coming. That will NEVER happen. That's got nothing to do with prohibition, everything to do with an evidence based fair, transparent and responsible drug reform policy. The main goal is to NOT encourage drug addiction and/or abuse. The main goal is to DISCOURAGE these things. The only difference would be that the procurement, consumption and possession of these drugs no longer would automatically determine you as a criminal and/or demonized and pigeonholed according to their own choices.

You definitely alluded to criminalization with your blurb about law and order.
Decriminalization doesn't mean I want everyone to have instant access to heroin. You're right opioids are a serious problem, and the drug war has contributed to that. Many people are on heroin because pills are either unaffordable or inaccessible. It's basic cause and effect. Pharma made products like oxycodone will always have a better safety outlook than street drugs like heroin/fent. This is basic HR.

What's wrong with people being able to do what they want? Sorry I don't consider bodily autonomy or liberty naive, I haven't given up on them yet.

 

[Gormur]

Forgive me for butting in on this thread, but I'd assumed there were quite a few heroin users in Colombia and maybe in Venezuela and Ecuador as well. I think I recall reading that the numbers were under-reported in these countries. I'd also guess that Mexico has heroin users. Maybe I'm missing something

 

[kaosisallwesee]

You don't need a medical degree to see how your philosophy has resulted in a drug war that's killed or incarcerated millions.

Fact is, opioids serve an important medical function and many people need something to get by. Yes, you can paint with a broad brush and say society needs "rules", which I could agree with on some fronts. But it's clear that our current system is failing everyone. People that use drugs shouldn't be criminalized, full stop. Prohibition has been ruining lives for decades.

Opioids have also ruined countless lives, and not because of criminalisation, but because when abused they can ruin lives and be extremely dangerous. I was all for legalisation of ALL drugs, until I became heavily dependant on opioids. After that it became all drugs apart from opioids and probably benzos but I've got little experience with them.
A lot of people struggle to control their use even when it's strictly supervised in a medical setting, let alone when they can buy them freely. For example, a decadenor so ago when I was starting out 15mg/5ml codeine linctus could be bought for 2 quid (~$3) per 200ml bottle at any pharmacy you walked into. No questions asked. There were well over 100 pharmacies within 3 miles from my home, a few would even do under the counter sales of prescription strength codeine, dihydrocodeine, tramadol, fuck some were even known to sell expired or diverted oral morphine solution and alprazolam. My point being, it was too easy to let abuse take over when it's so easily and cheaply available. I wasn't alone in this either, countless people became heavily addicted to opioids because of the UKs lax approach to OTC codeine/dihydrocodeine or themore being "prescribed" by dodgy online pharmacies with in house "doctors", who would prescribe 100s of the previously mentioned meds after a 5 min online survey was submitted, with no record or communication between pharmacies.

 

[crazyhairman]

Yea...I don't think that's accurate, all over the world and throughout history people use opioids to excess. Whether it's the opiate WARS of the 1800s (brittan literally fought a war with China over trade roughts regarding opium )

Or the millions of veterans and house wives that were hooked on potions or elixirs containing morphine during the 1900s "shit was leagal to sell back then.
Or the millions of youths in the middle east that start smoking H in the street. Afghanistan was kinda the world suppliers of h after all.

Even people in Russia who never prescribe anything stronger than Tramadol somehow managed to bring us such a wonder drug like crocodile. Not allowing something simply drives it underground.

If your point is that currently certain geographic parts of the world are doing slightly better in thier efficiency in harm reduction for opioid use, I'd agree with that. But it's been a 200+ years opiet use data.

That's kinda the thing with opioids, they find you wherever you are and no matter who you are you will either like them or fall head over heels in love with them...

We gotta learn to live with ourselves