-
OD Moderators: Keif’ Richards | Tryptamino
Opioids Why aren't there ER or non-APAP versions of hydrocodone?
- Thread starter Harrisment
- Start date
Maybe, you should have read post #24, before you made your post. Hmmm
You only covered one of the two
xxallgoodxx
Greenlighter
I sure did. relax bro.. take a big bong hit
Have a great day.
Have a great day.
Lukasmed92
Bluelighter
I think its because the government regulated it that way
I really don't think there is a good reason why there aren't any. I just think none of the pharmaceutical companies have bothered to create any because of the popularity of oxycodone, hydromorphone, morphine, fentanyl and others for chronic pain management. A product with only hydrocodone would be just another option in the way of pain meds, especially dealing with chronic pain. Maybe it would be the best option for some patients, but there are a lot of products already out there. A hydrocodone only product is being tested? Hopefully it will get to the market, you can never have too many options.
BlueberryfishY
Bluelighter
kkkkkkkkkkkkk
They have been working on exactly that recently.
They never bothered with it before b/c they could just give oxy if they hydro wasn't enough.
Now however they are getting more serious about the danger of APAP in general so they are considering banning the hydro/apap combo and just having pure hydro pills instead. APAP is very bad for you if taken in high doses or for long periods of time so they need to do this.
I started out on hydro myself and it was my favorite until my tolerance got too high and I moved up the ladder.
As for the other ROA comment you can absolutely snort hydro even with APAP. I did so for a long time with no noticeable side effect. I have a snorting fixation and swallowing the pills made me think they wouldn't work, particularly when my tolerance grew and they barely worked anyway.
It is probably amazing that my nose is intact and that I didn't have any long term issues from it b/c I snorted a TON of hydro/apap on a daily basis for several years.
I would not suggest anyone do what I did by any means but it annoys me when people say it isn't possible or that it doesn't work as well as eating it. I always felt it faster and stronger that way. I think a lot of it has to do with your mind set and expectations though in all fairness.
They never bothered with it before b/c they could just give oxy if they hydro wasn't enough.
Now however they are getting more serious about the danger of APAP in general so they are considering banning the hydro/apap combo and just having pure hydro pills instead. APAP is very bad for you if taken in high doses or for long periods of time so they need to do this.
I started out on hydro myself and it was my favorite until my tolerance got too high and I moved up the ladder.
As for the other ROA comment you can absolutely snort hydro even with APAP. I did so for a long time with no noticeable side effect. I have a snorting fixation and swallowing the pills made me think they wouldn't work, particularly when my tolerance grew and they barely worked anyway.
It is probably amazing that my nose is intact and that I didn't have any long term issues from it b/c I snorted a TON of hydro/apap on a daily basis for several years.
I would not suggest anyone do what I did by any means but it annoys me when people say it isn't possible or that it doesn't work as well as eating it. I always felt it faster and stronger that way. I think a lot of it has to do with your mind set and expectations though in all fairness.
tk5aprt1yr8hd
Greenlighter
the answer is to prevent abuse...... duh?
Rx_
Bluelighter
Acetaminophen is the dark side of this story
Why Hydrocodone is not available without other drugs such as Acetaminophen is the dark side of this story.
Up until now, the FDA has prohibited Hydrocodone (the opiate in Vicodin), from being sold in the United States *unless* it is combined with another drug as a compound – far and away, Acetaminophen being the most popular (and most dangerous).
The question is why did the government insist that, unlike the more powerful opiate Oxycodone (which is available standalone, as Oxycontin), Hydrocodone not be prescribed by itself?
From my amateur research around the net, the answer seems to be some unusually sinister legislation originating from The War On Drugs.
In some patients, Hydrocodone can be habit-forming, and its a popular drug of abuse. The FDA wanted to make sure there was something else in the drug that people *wouldn’t* want to take too much of to discourage abuse.
Introducing Acetaminophen.
Its been known since 1970′s that too much Acetaminophen causes the unwanted side effects such as stomach upset and liver damage. So the FDA figured if that was in there too, people wouldn’t want to take too much of it.
Basically, for all intents and purposes, the FDA made an important and popular drug more harmful to discourage abuse.
Besides the fact that this was completely unethical and has probably resulted in the unnecessary liver damage and deaths of countless Americans (the vast majority legitimately ill patients to begin with), there is yet one more irony to this approach:
Many Vicodin users and addicts likely have no idea whatsoever that the government put Acetaminophen in there in the first place, nor what the reason and consequences of the Acetaminophen component are.
In other words, instead of being dissuaded from abusing the drug as intended, most Vicodin users were likely just thoughtlessly destroying their liver.
Now, if your a drug addict, I’m sure you know that drug addiction can have serious consequences on your health and perhaps even cause death – the insidious point is that the devastating liver damage they were experiencing was a conscious and deliberate act of the US government, and not intrinsic to their addiction.
Of course, there are some savvy Vicodin addicts who know how (and why) to chemically remove the Acetaminophen before taking Vicodin (and why they should), but the complexity probably makes this a tiny and fortunate minority.
Now, this isn’t to say that up until now Vicodin would not have been a popular compound with doctors anyway even without the government ban (its very effective as a combination) – plus, Hydrocodone is available as a compound with other alternate drugs besides Acetaminophen as well (such as Ibuprofen).
The real problem is all of the people who destroyed their liver who might have otherwise been prescribed Hydrocodone standalone (as Oxycontin is today), and all of the drug addicts who destroyed their liver with Acetaminophen because there is absolutely no standalone Hydrocodone available on the black market.
In a sense, Acetaminophen was used similarly to the way the government used Paraquat on Marijuana farms – stop people abusing drugs by making them poisonous.
Why Hydrocodone is not available without other drugs such as Acetaminophen is the dark side of this story.
Up until now, the FDA has prohibited Hydrocodone (the opiate in Vicodin), from being sold in the United States *unless* it is combined with another drug as a compound – far and away, Acetaminophen being the most popular (and most dangerous).
The question is why did the government insist that, unlike the more powerful opiate Oxycodone (which is available standalone, as Oxycontin), Hydrocodone not be prescribed by itself?
From my amateur research around the net, the answer seems to be some unusually sinister legislation originating from The War On Drugs.
In some patients, Hydrocodone can be habit-forming, and its a popular drug of abuse. The FDA wanted to make sure there was something else in the drug that people *wouldn’t* want to take too much of to discourage abuse.
Introducing Acetaminophen.
Its been known since 1970′s that too much Acetaminophen causes the unwanted side effects such as stomach upset and liver damage. So the FDA figured if that was in there too, people wouldn’t want to take too much of it.
Basically, for all intents and purposes, the FDA made an important and popular drug more harmful to discourage abuse.
Besides the fact that this was completely unethical and has probably resulted in the unnecessary liver damage and deaths of countless Americans (the vast majority legitimately ill patients to begin with), there is yet one more irony to this approach:
Many Vicodin users and addicts likely have no idea whatsoever that the government put Acetaminophen in there in the first place, nor what the reason and consequences of the Acetaminophen component are.
In other words, instead of being dissuaded from abusing the drug as intended, most Vicodin users were likely just thoughtlessly destroying their liver.
Now, if your a drug addict, I’m sure you know that drug addiction can have serious consequences on your health and perhaps even cause death – the insidious point is that the devastating liver damage they were experiencing was a conscious and deliberate act of the US government, and not intrinsic to their addiction.
Of course, there are some savvy Vicodin addicts who know how (and why) to chemically remove the Acetaminophen before taking Vicodin (and why they should), but the complexity probably makes this a tiny and fortunate minority.
Now, this isn’t to say that up until now Vicodin would not have been a popular compound with doctors anyway even without the government ban (its very effective as a combination) – plus, Hydrocodone is available as a compound with other alternate drugs besides Acetaminophen as well (such as Ibuprofen).
The real problem is all of the people who destroyed their liver who might have otherwise been prescribed Hydrocodone standalone (as Oxycontin is today), and all of the drug addicts who destroyed their liver with Acetaminophen because there is absolutely no standalone Hydrocodone available on the black market.
In a sense, Acetaminophen was used similarly to the way the government used Paraquat on Marijuana farms – stop people abusing drugs by making them poisonous.
Cane2theLeft
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 12,673
^ The whole FDA + Big pharma conspiracy to kill drug addicts is just a bit silly.
First off, non-combination hydrocodone isn't 'prohibited', it would just be in the same schedule (C-II) as a host of other opioids that more effectively manage pain so why would pharmaceutical companies put money into developing an inferior product with the same stringent controls?
Acetaminophen likely was added to deter abuse but if this is a conspiracy then why does every single prescription come with a detailed monogram explaining the exact limits and dangers of APAP? Furthermore the FDA doesn't allow prescribing dangerous amounts of APAP so there aren't all these people who were Rx'd it who followed the instructions dying from liver damage. Do you really think the role of government medical regulatory agencies is to ensure that medicines are safe for people who are not prescribed them to abuse?
First off, non-combination hydrocodone isn't 'prohibited', it would just be in the same schedule (C-II) as a host of other opioids that more effectively manage pain so why would pharmaceutical companies put money into developing an inferior product with the same stringent controls?
Acetaminophen likely was added to deter abuse but if this is a conspiracy then why does every single prescription come with a detailed monogram explaining the exact limits and dangers of APAP? Furthermore the FDA doesn't allow prescribing dangerous amounts of APAP so there aren't all these people who were Rx'd it who followed the instructions dying from liver damage. Do you really think the role of government medical regulatory agencies is to ensure that medicines are safe for people who are not prescribed them to abuse?
hydrochron
Bluelighter
Also doesn't hydrocodone suck if its injected or snorted?
Cane2theLeft
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 12,673
^ dangerous if injected I believe due to the high risk of pulmonary edema and given its high oral BA, probably not as advantageous as many C-II opioids snorted... oxymorphone, hydromorphone, etc.