Except it wasnt.
Very worthy your time listening to this guy if you are interested in the topic.
I can remember back in the late 1990s, there was a huge push from the medical community to be more open about prescribing pain medication. A lot of pain wasn't being adequately treated.
As a result, doctors loosened their reigns over prescribing and things moved drastically in the opposite direction. People were getting strong narcotics for pain that they never would have gotten it for in the past.
As a result, we have a huge upswing in addiction.
My concern is that we're now going to swing back the other way and people will get hurt. There are people out there where narcotics are the only thing that works for their pain. Sometimes they need a lot of them as well, we're talking hundreds of milligrams of morphine per day. They will have physical withdrawal symptoms if they were to stop, but they aren't addicted in the way we think. They don't exhibit "drug seeking" behavior.
I'm worried folks like this will get cutoff and have to live a life in terrible pain. All because other patients get addicted.
Illinois won't allow sending pain scripts any more, so we have to go to the hospital to pick it up every month. They won't allow you to fill it more than a single day before you need it, and many pharmacies won't have the total number of pills prescribed in stock. If you accept a partial fill - you forego the remainder. Getting the doctors AND insurance (either of which will likely block it) to understand you had to do a partial fill and thus issue your refill before 30 days is a Sisyphean task.
All this means if the pharmacy at the hospital doesn't have enough Morphine on hand to fill her one month description the day we pick it up - we have 24 hours to play Pharmacy Whack-a-mole trying to find one that both does have enough pills and won't just arbitrarily decide to say no. Even better - while sometimes you can call ahead and ask, often they are afraid you are probing for large supplies with intent to rob them, so they won't always tell you if they have it in stock.
It's a huge pain in the ass with multiple able-bodied family members in her corner. I can't even fucking imagine how torturous this whole process is for someone in her situation without that kind of help.
* What role the doctors, drug companies, and even government policies play in causing the epidemic
* How the largest suppliers of heroin came to be, and how they compete based on customer service
* How drug addictions can be caused by supply as much as demand.
* In the USA, heroin overdosing now takes more lives than all homocides
I'd been hearing about the heroin epidemic for years. I saw articles about needles in Golden Gate park, I saw discarded needles and black-lit restrooms in Vancouver, but it didn't really have weight until I read that 30,092 people died of opioid overdoses in 2015. In the US alone. Over 30,000!
Anyway, I'm just writing this on the off chance that there are others who are still blissfully unaware.
 black light makes it difficult to locate a vein for shooting up.
They're mostly right if they're talking about acute pain - post operative pain, for example.
When I was being prepped, the anesthesiologist joked "ready to feel the best feeling your body will ever experience?"
He wasn't joking - my entire body felt like it was floating, my mind cleared of every negative feeling, and for the 15-20 seconds I remained awake, I honestly thought I was in heaven.
I can totally understand how someone could get addicted to that feeling.
Might have just been mine wasn't into giving out prescriptions or they didn't think I would need them.
I have a friend who has so many pain prescriptions after his back surgery that I've lost count of and they either don't work or lose effectiveness or he can't deal with the side effects. The scary part to me is there will never be an end for him unless there is some miracle in medicine that his doctor doesn't know about yet.
I know that's not the same as Codeine
People talk about how addictive methamphetamine is. I know people who tried and never wanted to try it again. It was the most unpleasant experience. Like you drank way too much coffee and had all the anxiety and jitters to go along with it. For other people, it's like heaven.
This goes back to the idea of "self-medication" as a root cause of drug addiction. People get psychologically addicted to a drug because it solves a psychological issue for them. Depression? It goes away when I take meth. Anxiety? Gone when I take oxy.
Thinking about it that way, we shouldn't really be that surprised when people have trouble beating an addiction. Even with all the negative side effects, would you want to stop taking a drug that cured (imperfectly) a severe problem you've had your whole life?
I am not going to go into detail but that really resonates with me.
I'm not addicted to anything don't worry!
Anything from tobacco on up seems to be about getting that bit of relief from the demons of everyday living.
I am so glad I had it done, but I would never have it done again, if that makes sense =)
It was the worst four months of my life after the operation, with basically my entire sternum broken. However, it was amazing what a difference it has made since. I don't remember my number, but the metric I do remember was that my heart was pushing into my left lung, causing about a 35% decrease in lung capacity.
I do miss eating cereal out of my chest, which always made my friends in high school laugh.
Curious why you say that? I was always told that this is what you were supposed to do
However, presuming you're not on a septic system, they end up in the river, just like any other form of pollution.
Lots of police departments are taking them no questions asked. The city where I work's police/public affairs building has a big metal box with a one-way lid for unused drugs.
Where I live? eh... it's not common, but it definitely happens. And it's probably not just for opiates, but anything will probably do. I do get that putting them into the river/ocean is undesirable, though.
I dont think that everyone who feels anxious taking pain pills becomes addictive. My take is there is a lot more at play.
the trouble is when someone do not have that.
The CDC says there's no evidence opiods reduce pain (at all) in the long run, and that's been my experience, too. But when you don't remember previous pain clearly enough to be sure you're back where you started (despite the drug) and you know that even partial withdrawal is really painful; it's easy to believe that the drug is still doing you good.
In my experience, this means that most who people taking opiods for long periods end up back at their old pain levels, but aren't able to clearer remember what their pain was like before, whereas they know all too clearly that less painkiller means more pain right away, so they stay on the drugs. Even though they may now be getting no long-term benefit in reduced pain. But once they complete withdrawal they'll tell you that they don't seem to be worse off, for pain now that they've fully quit the opiods. Their pain levels seem about the same.
Evolution has robbed us!
Prove this, and most of the arguments over opiods for chronic illness and pain may end.
One time, I heard a recovering addict talk about his hair hurting. He had been numbing himself for so long, the movement of the hair on his scalp felt agonizing to him.
"You're currently in a lot of pain. You don't realize it because you've never not had this pain. The drugs take that pain away, then you know what it's like not to have it and you can't go back."
There's the study on monkeys later on, but that's talking about BU08028, which isn't mentioned as being an active component of Oliceridine (the main drug being promoted in this article). I actually don't see anything here that makes the claim that Oliceridine will be less addictive. It appears to just be a conclusion that people are supposed to assume is implied without a close reading of the article and information.
For pain relief they are great. I went from "I'm being eaten by a bear" to "Meh" pain levels in minutes. But other than that it wasn't too pleasant. There was no euphoria just dizziness and constipation. As soon as I could switch to Ibuprofen, I did.
According to my doctor, there is a genetic component in how people respond to opiates. Guess I was lucky.
Over the counter painkillers work just fine on the other hand; never had a problem with ibuprofen, acetaminophen, etc.
For instance, there are people with spine damage who feel chronic, unrelenting pain every day of their life. On the other hand, for any drug that makes you "feel good" (oxycodone, morphine, even Adderall), your body eventually builds a tolerance and requires more and more of that substance to achieve the same level of "happy". So why doesn't the body do that with pain — where it eventually gets used to your "average pain state" and requires ever more intense infliction to feel the same level of "hurt"?
Not standing in fire is always relevant even if your leg is broken. However, not finding a mate because you just ate, or not eating because you found a mate is counter productive.
Also, as I understand it evolution cares less about edge cases than we do. Improving average outcomes can be worth not regrowing limbs for example.
It's totally reasonable to treat pain as a distinct item, especially in patients where the cause of pain is vague, or the surgical fix carries high risk - ex: chronic back pain.
EDIT: and maybe this? http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-oxycontin-part3/
One of the best ways to help patients avoid addiction would be to decriminalize these compounds and reduce or eliminate the prohibitions against them. That's a strong statement, so please allow me to make the case.
(1) the iron law of prohibition says this: prohibition drives out all but the most potent, and hence easiest-to-smuggle, formulations of the prohibited substance. During alcohol prohibition in the USA, NOBODY smuggled lite beer. It takes the Busch Clydesdales to move the stuff around, and it's too obvious. It was ALL strong stuff like whiskey and "white lightning." The most potent formulations of opiates are easier to misuse in a way that promotes addiction.
(2) a corollary to the iron law is this: people without training in chemistry or sterile procedure will adulterate the strongest stuff so they can sell more nickel bags, or whatever, on the street. That makes the dosages unpredictable. Unpredictable dosages promote addiction by unpredictably pushing a user's thresholds. Adulterants can be be dangerous and can induce pain.
(3) if the stuff's illegal it's expensive. Then addicts have the incentive to sell some to their friends to help pay for their habits. Teenagers get addicted this way.
(4) offering the substances to addicts at reasonable cost in competently supervised circumstances allows for a variety of treatment options for addiction. At the same time, addicts' lives don't fall apart. Treatment regimes can, brought out of the shadows, be examined for their success rates by agencies like Cochrane: http://www.cochrane.org/CD011117/ADDICTN_opioid-maintenance-... . The current "state of the art" in treatment is cold-turkey twelve-step. It works for some people, but is it evidence-based? Sure it's evidence based, like reducing stress helped people with stomach ulcers until pylobacter was discovered.
(5) if the government stops demonizing addicts as they have been doing for almost a century then they can come out of the shadows and deal with their problems.
(6) decriminalization weakens the incentives for pharmaceutical companies like Purdue Labs to create supposedly "safe" time-release formulas like Oxycontin, and then promote those formulas in ways that lead to addiction. http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/
(7) We won't have to hear news about people with names like El Chapo any more. Any aura of underworld glamour around this stuff will evaporate. It will become boring and fluorescent-lit like pharmacies should be.
Why is this change difficult? It challenges the narco-industrial complex. Decriminalization means lots of police will be laid off. It will cut profits for big pharma. It will cut government revenues by cutting into civil asset forfeitures. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
It's also difficult because of recent successful efforts to decriminalize cannabis. The successful argument in Massachusetts USA and Colorado USA for decriminalization has been one of recreation. "It's safer than alcohol, so go for it." That's obviously a crazy argument to make for decriminalizing opioids : because it's NOT safer, and because it plays into peoples' prejudices (see point 5 above).
Edit: The research looks interesting though.
Also, Opium is not really a compound, it's a mixture (which is maybe getting pedantic, but it's ~8th grade science).
The latex used in India would seem to be opium (which is a dried latex obtained from the opium poppy)
To my knowledge, the industry has moved away from poppies that produce morphine (they still technically grow p. somniferum, but a special cultivar with low morphine content to discourage theft).
Instead they extract the opioid compound thebaine, which is then converted to powerful name-brand pain meds. This is why they're called "semi-synthetic opioids", because they require thebaine as the primary ingredient.
So yes, those could have been used to produce pain meds the "old-school" way but I doubt they'd be of any use to western pharmaceutical companies.
I'm not sure that's the whole story, if you look at the statistics then it rather looks like poppy production has increased since the US/NATO occupation , at least compared to the, very low, numbers in 2000.
Turkey is one example of a country that successfully managed to legalize their poppy production, but it's questionable if that approach would work just as well in Afghanistan .
https://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/... (Page 14, Figure 2)
Apparently the main issue the OP had was with the seeds part.
It's also possible it may have applications in addictions management with people who are on harder things.
But yeah, everything with a grain of salt, and it's good to be aware there is a risk.
It's not quite as simple as 'all mu-opioid agonists are bad'.
Mitragynine and 7-OH-mitragyine (the primary alkaloids in kratom) have been shown to be G-protein biased - which is why tolerance doesn't build like it does with almost every other opioid, why the side effects such as constipation are much less, why many people appear to have very mild withdrawals, and perhaps most importantly why it doesn't cause respiratory depression (this is what kills with most opioids)
What my point is - that you likely missed - is the innate "harm reduction" pursuit with respect to long-term therapies. Opiates have a use for sure but I think eventually the dosage / toxicity becomes a valid concern. Then up to the next threshold of potency, and on and on. If Kratom has just 50% better results than opiate treatments in equivalent doses, that's a great discovery in my opinion.
All this talk about being "health care consumers" really looks like bullshit when we get down to the nitty-gritty of Doctors still holding power with their pens and pads and saying Yes or No with the DEA looking over their shoulder.
Here's a study (free access) from Columbia University researchers on the activation patterns of Kratom alkaloids:
I think we would get far more mileage from alternative pain relief (e.g. cannabis) than we would from alternative detox methods—ensure people don't get opiates unless absolutely necessary.