AlsoTapered
Bluelighter
I can name 1 drug that effectively treats fentanyl dependence (it's x20 M but the KEY is that it binds to that extra site that other substitution medicines do not. It was widely used in The Netherlands BUT 1 accidental poisoning saw it banned. Now while a terrible accident, 1 doesn't seem sufficient to stop all use of an effective treatment. I sense that it was used as an excuse to ban the stuff. It's not THAT costly - it's potency overcomes the higher costs.
An then of course the O-acetyl derivative of R-4066 which is x212 M, binds to that extra site and has such a long duration that it can be given to clients 3 times a week. It IS costly, but given the potency, it's still cheaper than methadone.
Of course, aMF IS orally active and amenable to producing a prodrug that would allow it to be given once a day.
In short, politicians don't want to spend ANY money on treating addiction. I mean, the Swiss found that overall, giving people heroin free was an overall saving. Crimes related to drugs (such as burglary) went down by 95% so insurance premiums went down. People getting seriously ill likewise went down saving their health system VAST amounts.
But it's such an easy target for popularist politicians to claim that drug addicts are costing a nation some HUGE amount of money... they NEED those crimes as it forms the basis of their entire political career.
Since the US blocked the widespread use of opioids - suddenly millions of otherwise law abiding citizens were flung into the position of having no option but to buy street drugs. The Sackler family took as much money out of their business as possible and went bankrupt to avoid having to pay the true cost.
Since they KNEW of the overprescribing and the method by which they sold the medicine should have seen criminal law being involved and them being stripped of their wealth and imprisoned.
But they are to politically connected. They are above the law.
An then of course the O-acetyl derivative of R-4066 which is x212 M, binds to that extra site and has such a long duration that it can be given to clients 3 times a week. It IS costly, but given the potency, it's still cheaper than methadone.
Of course, aMF IS orally active and amenable to producing a prodrug that would allow it to be given once a day.
In short, politicians don't want to spend ANY money on treating addiction. I mean, the Swiss found that overall, giving people heroin free was an overall saving. Crimes related to drugs (such as burglary) went down by 95% so insurance premiums went down. People getting seriously ill likewise went down saving their health system VAST amounts.
But it's such an easy target for popularist politicians to claim that drug addicts are costing a nation some HUGE amount of money... they NEED those crimes as it forms the basis of their entire political career.
Since the US blocked the widespread use of opioids - suddenly millions of otherwise law abiding citizens were flung into the position of having no option but to buy street drugs. The Sackler family took as much money out of their business as possible and went bankrupt to avoid having to pay the true cost.
Since they KNEW of the overprescribing and the method by which they sold the medicine should have seen criminal law being involved and them being stripped of their wealth and imprisoned.
But they are to politically connected. They are above the law.