• Welcome Guest

    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
    Fun 💃 Threads Overdosed? Click
    D R U G   C U L T U R E

Why Anti-Abuse Formulations Are So Bad

J

JOCO

Greenlighter
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
2
Hello Everyone!

Ok, let's be real. When anyone is in the game of trying to use medication in a route other than prescribed, that will generally lead to issues. Whether a Pearson has legitimate pain, a legitimate script and just 'sort of' misuses their mediciation for better analgesia, or if that person is using drugs in a manner to obtain a recreational high, illicitly purchase their meds and have no script, both can lead to significant health issues.

That is, in itself, common sense. However, when opioid use began to skyrocket (at least numbers should an increase) the FDA and federal government began to worry. Whether it was intended or not, this opened up an avenue for big pharma companies to extend their exclusivity through parents by an additional 20 years. That is bad for competition and very uncapitalistic. At least with how we in the US describe capitslism. For that reason, the proliferation of consumers gettin screwed by insurance and medical necessities has continued. I can get into all of the business analytics with anyone who wants to. I am well versed in most opioid anti-abuse mechanisms. This isn't the big issue though.

The real harm, and the reason these anti-abuse mechanisms within pain meds are so bad is this. As mentioned to start this post, it doesn't matter if you are a legit patient or a rec user, if you need more analgesia then you are going to find it. These abuse deterrent mechanisms have made the 'differential' use of the medications extraordinarily dangerous for the user. Even if you don't use a needle and instead prefer to snort, these mechanisms cause horrible issues for the lungs. People will either grin and bare the issues the new formulation have caused or they will go get a different drug to accomplish their ends. Generally that different med is heroin. Heroin is not an awful thing in itself. When it is cut with tootsie rolls or coke syrup, baby powder or some other powder, or even fentanyl and its analogues that is when it becomes hyper dangerous.

Getting into the efficacy of the meds is another reason the anti abuse mechanisms are probably bad. I have had experience with these sorts of meds no longer working orally. So what am i supposed to do? I can't snort or inject so i am left with finding a different drug (which i have been lucky to do legitimately).

At the end of the day, the federal government has made a huge mistake here. It shouldn't be about making these anti abuse pills. It should be about starting a campaign to educate the masses. Put people in rehab not jail. Legalize the drugs so that back alley danger, drugs cut with poison, a relentless chase for relief leading to breaking laws, these are all reasons it makes no sense to have a war on drugs that the country spends billions on and is wildly losing. Not to mention they could make tax money and keep US currency circulating in the US and not going to Mexico or China or the Middle East.

I'd be happy to discuss all of this if anyone has interest but that is just my two cents and i am very curious to hear what others think? Like are there legitimate patients that disagree? Maybe even rec users? What about if you do agree and why?

Regards everyone!

JoCo

PS- this is my first post so i hope it is in the right location!
 
Welcome to Bluelight. Thought this was better suited for the DC forum since it doesn't directly involve the use of any drug or questions regarding one's use.

The legality of drugs isn't a good idea in my opinion.. It will be extremely easier for users to carry on their addictions and not be forced to turn their life around by sitting in jail or rehab. Users will never learn. Just because it's legal doesn't mean the same drugs can't be cut with the same substances, whether it's fentanyl, a research chemical or household cleaner. Although the anti-abuse pills force those who take their medicine other than prescribed to find harmful ways to make them abusive or search for similar street drugs, not everyone knows where to get these street drugs. It isn't as easy as people make it seem.

Tolerance develops over time. If you're repeatedly taking the same medication over and over at the same dose, your body adjusts to it and you soon require more & more to achieve the same effect. I'm sure doctors keep this in consideration. I know someone who switches between Vicodin & Percocet every couple of months for that reason. Discuss your issues with your doctor and perhaps you can get a slight increase in your dose if you aren't already at the max amount.

The US making tax money on legal street drugs? I don't think there will be dispensaries for heroin or cocaine. The dangers of these drugs, whether cut or not, is widely known and won't change depending on their legal status. I'm sure dealers would make more money by acquiring more users in that way. But this is just all my two cents. Perhaps you'll get other answers. :)
 
I'm definitely going to agree with cannabliss. I don't think legalization across the board is going to solve our problems. I do think, however, that we need a common fucking sense policy when it comes to drafting our drug laws and doing research on controlled substances. I don't think our government should tell us what can and can't be used as medicine while experts in the field tell us their laws are antiquated. Psychedelics are a great example! Ruling agencies stand by the decision that they can't be used as medicine while decades of what little research is allowed to be done openly disputes their stance. Cannabis is another no brainer, and I think Colorado, Oregon, Washington, etc have all proven that. At least medicalize it!

Right now, people who know nothing about neuroscience and pharmacology are making legalizative decisions on what can and can't be used as medicine, and that is absolutely absurd. It's worsened by the fact that they dump millions into research on abuse while they dole out pennies into the pockets of a few who are allowed to actually conduct scientific studies on these controlled substances.

Sorry for the rant, but this is a very touchy subject for me haha. Also, the anti abuse formulations shouldn't affect drug efficacy very much. I imagine tolerance over time is playing a much bigger factor in your medicines losing effectiveness over time. And honestly, I think that if youre snorting your pain meds you need to find a manageable solution and I certainly wouldn't blame drug companies for not allowing you to easily snort your meds. Snorting pills is almost always a bad idea, and often times the oral BA is comparable. By snorting, you increase the peak concentration and cause a more rapid decline, so while you get better relief, you also have higher highs and lower lows which reinforces addictive behavior. Snorting and IV is neither a good nor sustainable road if youre a pain management patient
 
cannablissss said:
Welcome to Bluelight. Thought this was better suited for the DC forum since it doesn't directly involve the use of any drug or questions regarding one's use.

The legality of drugs isn't a good idea in my opinion.. It will be extremely easier for users to carry on their addictions and not be forced to turn their life around by sitting in jail or rehab. Users will never learn. Just because it's legal doesn't mean the same drugs can't be cut with the same substances, whether it's fentanyl, a research chemical or household cleaner. Although the anti-abuse pills force those who take their medicine other than prescribed to find harmful ways to make them abusive or search for similar street drugs, not everyone knows where to get these street drugs. It isn't as easy as people make it seem.

Tolerance develops over time. If you're repeatedly taking the same medication over and over at the same dose, your body adjusts to it and you soon require more & more to achieve the same effect. I'm sure doctors keep this in consideration. I know someone who switches between Vicodin & Percocet every couple of months for that reason. Discuss your issues with your doctor and perhaps you can get a slight increase in your dose if you aren't already at the max amount.

The US making tax money on legal street drugs? I don't think there will be dispensaries for heroin or cocaine. The dangers of these drugs, whether cut or not, is widely known and won't change depending on their legal status. I'm sure dealers would make more money by acquiring more users in that way. But this is just all my two cents. Perhaps you'll get other answers. :)
Click to expand...

I'm going to play devils advocate here. Opiates are not inherently dangerous or destructive to the body like say meth or other drugs. If opiates were legal and regulated then you wouldn't ever have to worry about a hot shot or a fentanyl cut batch. And if they were legal and affordable, would it really be so bad to just live life as an opiod addict, if it's just and easy to get a hold of safe opiates, what's the big deal? If they were cheap enough, as they should be cause they cost pennies to make, people also wouldn't resort to crime to find there habit. It's like the heroin maintenance trials in Sweden or Denmark or the Netherlands or wherever, it has proven to keep addicts much safer, using more safely and getting there life back together, becoming a functioning member of society with a job again etc.

The bad parts of opiate addiction come when your in withdrawal and don't have access to easy opiates, then the crime and junkie behaviour starts.
 
Opioids still aren't safe drugs to take. I think you at least need counseling from a doctor or pharmacist. You would be very surprised at some of the bizarre interactions some seemingly benign combinations of prescription medicines can have. Sometimes underlying conditions can cause really weird reactions to some medications as well. I'm all for opening up access, but I don't think a heroin dispensary being run by Joe across the street is a good idea. I say medicalize everything.
 
Thank you for the responses everyone.

So, the little tidbit at the end I said regarding taxes wasn't meant to be taken as a legitimate justification for legalisation of anything. I live in Colorado and while I supported the move to legalizing marijuana, using taxes as a means by which to justify that switch was something I disagreed with. I think using financial gains as a means to justify a 'grey area', potentially abusable item is pretty low class.

So, I want to clarify, I do take medication but I have taken it only as prescribed for 6 years. I was not on any of the medications that were re-do emulated at the time the switch was made. Though in the two biggest cases of this occurring, with oxycontin and opana, I was given them before and after the reformulation. While I didn't notice much efficacy difference with the oxycontin, the opana was pretty dramatic. Do I wish everyone had open and honest relationships with their doctors? Of course, that would go far in diminishing the diversion of prescription meds to recreational users, as well as making it less necessary for legitimate patients to seek alternative means of therapy.

To my point of legalisation. I should have clarified that I don't think heroin or cocaine dispensaries would diminish recreational use. I guess they would vastly diminish illegal use, lol, but that isn't the point. There have been some countries that have legalized all drugs. Places like Portugal decriminalized the use of all drugs. Since they did this they have had a decrease in recreational use of all drugs by over 95%. Instead of putting someone in jail, where they don't learn anything except how to be a hardened criminal, they began putting people who had been caught in possession of drugs into rehab as opposed to jaik, calling it a public health issue weather than a criminal one. Possession of the drugs was and is still illegal, but having it in your system wasn't (except in the same way driving under the influence with a BAC of over .1 is illegal but being at home with a BAD of .4 is legal).

So, what I am getting at here is that there is obviously a systemic issue within our government with regards to the war on drugs. It isn't a small issue either. Countless tax dollars are going to trying to quell illegal use of drugs while the actual rate of use continues to increase. It is my assertion that when it comes to heroin, part of the increase is due to the anti abuse formulations that have been presented in certain opioids. That same anti abuse mechanism makes the drugs much more dangerous to use in a way other than prescribed. Which of course should never be done anyways, but it is going to happen. I guess I just feel that when someone is uneducated on the dangers of something and they chose to partake in it, I can't really feel they deserve to be punished for it (injecting one pill of reformulated oxy can kill you, that's a punishment.)

Street drugs of all types, be they RCs or some other illicit cocktail, are very bad. Making other legitimate medications less effective is certainly not the way to go about lessening the impact of street drugs. So, don't have a corner store selling the illegal drugs. But make the possession of them a public health/safety issue and not a criminal one. Make the use of the drug something you aim to treat instead of just diminishing the person as a junkie criminal.

Before the prohibition morphine and diacetylmorphine were both available at corner stores. Cocaine was used by FDR to help with a cold. Benjamin Franklin was a prolific weed smoker and nudist taboot. What people view as being a junkie is a result of what society deems that to be.

At the end of the day, I just think the whole direction the medical industry has gone in their own efforts to diminish abuse has only served to accomplish one thing. They have placed more power in the hands of pharmaceutical companies which in turn gives more power to insurance companies. They are, without meaning to, pushing some legit patients away from legal settings (luckily not me) and they are helping to proliferate the very problem they claim to want to fix. They don't really want to help with drug abuse though, they want people to stop pointing at them (Purdue Pharma and Endo) as part of the issue. They would be happy with people just using heroin because then they wouldn't have to shoulder blame. Plus, those big companies have both gotten an additional stay for their new patents. Which are just reworked formulations of the same drug. Of course Endo screwed up and are now facing major FTC backlash for delayed AG drug agreements.

It is a weak game where the only loser is the consumer. Legit or rec, the people lose. Less healthy, arguably less effective, more dangerous drugs that cost a ton more to manufacture and even more to purchase. That doesn't seem like fair market anything to me, in fact that is abuse of the system to maintain monopoly and sacrifice public well being to do so. A free and fair market would respond to this through the use of generic companies to chose the best 'winner' but in the medical industry that has been lost.

So I apologize I made it seem like I was saying she'll everything to anyone. I made the tax comment simply because if the government did chose to sell some lower end meds at the corner store they could and they would guarantee the safety of the product through regulation.

It's probably obvious but I am a big supporter of a small government. At least when it comes to the government's role in my personal life, I feel it should be exceedingly limited. Educate the masses and then let them decide for themselves what they want to do. If they possess some drug they will be forced into rehab and on a second violation they go to jail.

I guess it is just my opinion but I get annoyed when government agencies act like they don't want to proliferate monopolistic practices by private sector firms, but when it deals with some company like a bank or massive pharmaceutical conoany, all of a sudden bail outs and parent renewals abound.

I may have presented my case purely at first. I don't support illegal use of drugs. I never have and never will. I don't support legalizing the possession of any drug except insofar as it goes to decriminalize possession and alter the educational scheme in an effort to curtail the issue.

In the end, Endo and Purdue (Purdue is a better example) have benefited greatly through their manipulation of the FDA and their use of loopholes in patent law. I am just saying the only loser are the people. Maybe some are junkies, some are legit patients, others have nothing to do with pain killers at all. Even those with nothing to do with the meds are losers though. Precedent is set and it will continue to hurt the consumer. At least that's my opinion.
 
pbuilder said:
I'm going to play devils advocate here. Opiates are not inherently dangerous or destructive to the body like say meth or other drugs. If opiates were legal and regulated then you wouldn't ever have to worry about a hot shot or a fentanyl cut batch. And if they were legal and affordable, would it really be so bad to just live life as an opiod addict, if it's just and easy to get a hold of safe opiates, what's the big deal? If they were cheap enough, as they should be cause they cost pennies to make, people also wouldn't resort to crime to find there habit. It's like the heroin maintenance trials in Sweden or Denmark or the Netherlands or wherever, it has proven to keep addicts much safer, using more safely and getting there life back together, becoming a functioning member of society with a job again etc.

The bad parts of opiate addiction come when your in withdrawal and don't have access to easy opiates, then the crime and junkie behaviour starts.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you, although I have to stand by the fact that opiates still aren't relatively safe. A number of people (including ones who post on BL themselves) mix opiates with other things, and that's when a majority of accidents happen. Opiates by itself are safe until your doses become higher and higher, or you take too much and end up having respiratory depression, vomiting, and other things. Personally, I use Vicodin and Percocet myself sparingly, and I only get effects from doses of 20mg & up from each. Typically upwards of 30mg. If you're careful, and know what you're doing, it's safe. The unsafe things do come from junkies, until they use all of their own medication or money from street medication to keep up with their habit. That's when people start synthesizing chemicals and what not into these new "opiates" ...

Not all drug users are irresponsible. Some smoke, some are on cocaine and some are doing meth after coming home from work, we don't know. They can keep their personal and business lives separate (if drugs were legal) but there will always be a stereotype against drug users especially among employers.
 
I support the legalization of all drugs.

Of course problems would result, but I'd rather live in a world with those problems than continue to live under the system of prohibition *shrug*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top