Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Mhm. I'll bite. Got a source? Government wants kill people who use a lot of Oxycontin to kill the people who snort it or something?

I could not verify this particular claim in under an hour of online searching. Relevant facts:

Oxycontin used to contain talc, and this came with prominent health warnings. Shooting up dissolved oxycontin pills containing talc is dangerous. See http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/020... ("with parenteral abuse, the [inactive ingredients], especially talc, can be expected to result in [many bad things]").

As of some time in 2014, oxycontin no longer contains talc -- it has been replaced by magnesium stearate. However, that health warning that parenteral abuse causes many bad things has not been altered except to remove the phrase "especially talc". Pulmonary granulomas are still specifically called out as something bad that will happen to you if you inject oxycontin. See the current usage information at http://app.purduepharma.com/xmlpublishing/pi.aspx?id=o .

SPECULATIVELY: this means that while talc is no longer present, oxycontin might still contain legally-mandated adulteration. I found no evidence for a legal mandate, but this was not a comprehensive investigation.

It has long been the explicit policy of the United States that people who abuse otherwise legal chemicals deserve to be poisoned to death, and we have had and do have laws to this effect. See http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa... .

It's that last point that makes me hesitate to slam your parent comment for fearmongering.

It was not simply the consolidation of our petroleum interests we were after, no? Hamid Karzai (our man) afforded us unprecedented access to humans favorite narcotic. Poof! An unprecedented alkaloid epidemic.

Acetaminophen is added to many prescription opiates in part to prevent abuse. (There's some question as to whether it aids in pain reduction beyond what the opiate would provide, but it certainly has near term implications for severe abuse.)

There's no question. Unlike, say, ibuprofen and acetaminophen, there is no "synergy bonus".

The added pain reduction effect of acetaminophen stands in no relation to what the opioid is doing. There's no research anywhere showing that the combined effect is any more than the literal addition of taking both (for which there would be no reason if you could just as easily take a tiny bit more of the opioid that you'd be taking any way).

All it does is take away an addict's choice not to wreck their liver. And the system encourages the availability of this unnecessarily dangerous substance by awarding it a less restrictive drug schedule.

The incentives are rather twisted in this particular case.


> but it certainly has near term implications for severe abuse.

the implications being death and permanent liver damage (it's not actually stopping addicts). but looking only at the numbers, it seems to limit abuse, even in the near term. ugh.

edit 2 seeing some of the other comments, apparently it's not just this particular case. I only knew about this one

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact