Fentanyl - the next nightmare drug

[IronMonster]

I didnt mean you as in you, worded that kind of funny, sorry about that.

And I do know plenty about addiction. I have to deal with mothers who report their addicted children and then get angry when I arrest their angel. I deal with victims of someone's bender-induced assault or worse. I go on raids that result in the seizure of all sorts of drugs, drug money, etc. I see the dead bodies after drug deals gone bad.

You see the effects of the criminalization, if you took the money out of drugs no more cartels, gangs and king pins. If you made drugs cheap, controlled and readily available no more crime to get them. Drug users for the most part (with the exception of meth users but even them to a lesser extent) would largely cease to be a problem to law enforcement if drugs were treated like alcohol.

I am in no way saying drugs are "good" But the war on drugs is clearly not working. There is a better way. Around here its pretty typical for a guy with a few dozen pot plants to get a longer prison stay than an assault or robbery. Working in the addiction field I have seen hundreds if not thousands of regular people who where ruined just as much by the legal system as their addiction.

Most addicts want help. Most addicts want to stop. Once you get to the addiction stage using drugs is not enjoyable, its a nightmare. But an addict cannot simply quit, they have a mental illness. Locking them up just puts a burden on the taxpayers both for enforcement and incarceration because 9 times out of ten they will be right back to using the first day out... Because they need treatment to have any hope of breaking the cycle.

 

[Member 5605]

14 years sober.

I've seen the downsides and spirals of meth in the past, currently watching somebody dear spiral from heroin. In and out of trouble.

Addiction is not a mental disease in my opinion. I say this and I will also admit I have an addictive personality. I'm easily moved towards a feel good thing. I've learned to control that part of my personality.

Saying an addict IMO is faulty by mental defect sets them up for failure. I believe real recovery comes with help in three areas: physical, mental and spiritual.

I have LEO's as friends as well but compassion cannot turn it's eye to those in need. Legalizing is not the solution nor is what we are currently doing as a nation.

 

[Alexx1401]

14 years sober.

I've seen the downsides and spirals of meth in the past, currently watching somebody dear spiral from heroin. In and out of trouble.

Addiction is not a mental disease in my opinion. I say this and I will also admit I have an addictive personality. I'm easily moved towards a feel good thing. I've learned to control that part of my personality.

Saying an addict IMO is faulty by mental defect sets them up for failure. I believe real recovery comes with help in three areas: physical, mental and spiritual.

I have LEO's as friends as well but compassion cannot turn it's eye to those in need. Legalizing is not the solution nor is what we are currently doing as a nation.

I don't really know what the "magic answer" is. I do know I am sick to death of being told I need to support this scum. When I see them paraded into the ER over and over for me to pay for it just burns me good.

 

[No_Regerts]

You see the effects of the criminalization, if you took the money out of drugs no more cartels, gangs and king pins. If you made drugs cheap, controlled and readily available no more crime to get them. Drug users for the most part (with the exception of meth users but even them to a lesser extent) would largely cease to be a problem to law enforcement if drugs were treated like alcohol.

I am in no way saying drugs are "good" But the war on drugs is clearly not working. There is a better way. Around here its pretty typical for a guy with a few dozen pot plants to get a longer prison stay than an assault or robbery. Working in the addiction field I have seen hundreds if not thousands of regular people who where ruined just as much by the legal system as their addiction.

Most addicts want help. Most addicts want to stop. Once you get to the addiction stage using drugs is not enjoyable, its a nightmare. But an addict cannot simply quit, they have a mental illness. Locking them up just puts a burden on the taxpayers both for enforcement and incarceration because 9 times out of ten they will be right back to using the first day out... Because they need treatment to have any hope of breaking the cycle.

I wish drug treatment was effective enough to be evidence based, but its not. The only thing thats worse by statistics is domestic violence treatment. It actually has a higher correlation with reoffense!

If we had a way to have a greater success rate with treatment, say 70% or better, I would be all for it. We just arent there yet. Just the other day, I had to talk a kid out of a bathroom who had a boxcutter to his own neck. He had gotten back on opiates the week he graduated from in-patient treatment.

 

[Mistman]

Well, Imma have to agree that something is amiss regarding the usage/prescribing and abusing of prescription drugs. I've been hurt a lot, in recent years there seems to be more of a push to make the patient 'feel' better. They are very concerned about your pain level and what it will take to make you comfortable. I've been on a steady diet of opioids a few times and getting over the dependency is part of the total recovery that's not mentioned at the beginning of the treatment. I've never been one to push things and when it's over, it's over and I move on. It's not fun but it's not supposed to be, laying in a hospital bed isn't fun either.

It's easy to see how some people can become more than a little dependant. I grew up in a household where 'mothers little helper' was employed, abused and eventually led to the demise of the mother. She was found w/3 fentanyl patches on her by her husband as she was taking a nap in '06. It was an eventuality, my siblings and I had been fighting w/it since we were kids. She doc shopped, was a hypochondriac and spent literally years of our childhood in the hospital chasing unknown ailments to get her fix. Most of her family was in denial, it was sad.

Pain is a part of life, sometimes it's the only thing that makes you realize you're really alive. I feel for those who need the help and loath the ones who just want to feel better.

I'm sympathetic to people who can't walk away from the pull of addiction, it truly can be a life and death struggle that no one else will ever understand. I've seen wonderful people fall and have poured out my soul to help them unsuccessfully, it touches us all and changes many on both sides of it. I have a very solid wall that I can now put up to keep me from being affected but I'm not dead yet and have children and a heart. There's no guarantees in life, some of us struggle more than others, none of us see things the same. I hear prayer helps........

 

[Stomper]

How about leaving the users alone (legally speaking), and make being a drug dealer an automatic death penalty if found guilty?

 

[edslhead]

How about leaving the users alone (legally speaking), and make being a drug dealer and automatic death penalty if found guilty?

Didn't Obama let all the pushers out just before he left? Nutcase

 

[IronMonster]

How about leaving the users alone (legally speaking), and make being a drug dealer and automatic death penalty if found guilty?

You still end up with addicted users committing crime and being a burden on the system.

We are a long way from any alternative system but as long as there is black market money drug machine the crime element wont go away.

 

[Camelfilter]

It's neither a sole medical nor mental health nor criminal issue, yet a combination of all.

Choices need to have consequences.

As far as legalizing addictives goes? Absolutely not. IMO.

Marijuana, on the other hand? Absolutely. And tax the $hit out of it. It's still inexpensive, and you have now created a legitimate industry with tax payers.

Legalizing marijuana, removes it from street dealers...you know those folks whom want return customers at any cost. The dealers whom have no qualms about selling hard addictives, because they "ran out" of there customers pot.

The advent of technology makes (...or can/will make it...) harder for folks to Doc shop. Shared PMI (personal medical informatics), will make it safer for clinicians to recognize when someone has gone from pain management to addictive necessity.

The war on drugs can work, but it takes a vested interest from all involved parties. Governments job is to protect us the citizens, and that includes stopping the inflow of contraband as well as the domestic production of such.

The criminal justice systems job is to incarcerate, to protect us the citizens. Not to rehabilitate. Look at your county bookings, and most folks arrested with a meth charge are catch and release, that does absolutely zero good. Makes the problem worse IMO.

If they are incarcerated, then they could have access to medical and psychological assistance. At that point the medical system can either help them, or point out that, you know what-this particular person will NEVER be a positive member of society. Or this particular person may be, with SOME help.

Consequences.

The person who may be a positive member of society, has given up rights by there actions. They need to recognize there own addictive personality, follow whichever program is deemed to work for them. Or they go back to jail, and you know what? They do not get out.

Again, some folks just can not be part of normal society. Ever.

Catch a criminal, and releasing them just sends them a message that it's a-ok. Oh and they tell all there criminal friends as well.

 

[Misteramax]

How about leaving the users alone (legally speaking), and make being a drug dealer and automatic death penalty if found guilty?

Again...when are you running for office?

I have often thought fish and game should let us have crack head permits. Cops roll up...nope, not murder, he's got his tags.

On a serious note, I have zero interest in excuses for trying a drug. I get that it's addicting. I get it. You also deserve what you get for making a bad choice. For many, it's definitely a bad decision to try a drug in the first place. Growing up I never gave in. I was always too afraid of my dad and in my opinion not enough children fear their fathers anymore. As an adult...I don't care how bad my life gets. I don't need drugs to make me feel better. Homeless? Save your donations for taking baths in a creek and go get a job. Even while having a job, my house is torn up now. Water damage. I have a toilet and garden hose until the contractor is done. I shower myself with a hose, everyday. Rain. Cold. Night. My point is...when stuff doesn't go right, don't be a bit#@.

 

[RicInOR]

couple random thoughts ...

I disagree. It seems like more and more people think decriminalization of drugs is the answer. We are dissolving our moral fiber every time we decide to decriminalize something. That doesn't solve the problem, it just means we are turning a blind eye to it. One example is property crime in WA. People thought it wasn't a reason to incarverate people. We now have the worst property crime rate in the US, we just aren't doing anything about it.
.

You can't legislate morality.


What is 'right' today is 'wrong' tomorrow.
examples:
colored (OR used to prevent Colored from being in our state)
Gays (people knew they existed, but not openly)
Abortion (used to be illegal to murder an unborn human)
Suicide (legal in OR, now)

Very few things should be regulated.

Behaviour - measurable behaviour can be legislated.

example:
Guns are illegal -vs- pointing a gun at a human being

If guns are decriminalized, how would that reduce the moral fabric of society?




If a person is drunk - a behaviour which is measurable - should that itself be prevented? Many religions teach that this very act is a a sin (violation of that religion) But so what? Could you be drunk and not harm anyone, not even yourself? Being drunk does impede judgment - so says science (and experience) so being drunk may lead to bad outcomes, but it is not a bad outcome itself. If you drive drunk we say that is bad - yet it happens all the time - what we really have is if you come to the attention of law enforcement and they determine you are under the influence, then bad outcome for you.

I get we like to simplifiy things.

Another pet peeve of mine - driving under the influence of a cell phone. So what? Some people are not safe under the influence of a coke - or Big Mac. Don't ban cell phone use. Ban the measurable driving defect that will draw the attention of LEOs - ie swerving, etc.



----

Your welfare, food stamps, housing, treatment/recovery, health care insurance, etc..., etc..... etc...... Nor, will I be responsible for your family's expenses. If you should die. Oh well. And BTW, don't expect me to bury your a$$. Nor, pay for your survivors to live at Govt expense.

I don't want to pay for your bad behaviour either. If you are on welfare because you are lazy should I have to pay for that? How is that really differnt from someone who uses drugs


-----


I do think it is a mistake to classify addicts ( alcoholics ) as medical problems - disease.
Is all addiction medical?
What is addition and how do you prove it?
If you are an addict with job, are we prevented from terminating you? much like we'd be prevented from terminating someone with cancer who is missing work due to treatment.


What do we do with people who enable bad behavour - the drug sellers (pushers) or parents who provide food and shelter?



I don't have a solution - just pointing out this is complex.

I am on the side which says the war on alcohol proved to be a mistake and led to violence and the war on drugs has done worse.
(behaviour due to alcohol use was a real problem at the time of prohabition, and given our moral choices at that time - a wife beaten by her drunk husband had no recourse - as one example - we had to look for meaningful solutions. One was providing clean water for drinking. In 1900 you should not drink the water, which is one reason so many were drinking beer all day long.

I think this was on the TV show the Wire - but making a relaxing drug, pot, available might get a lot of people off harder drugs, like heroine (well maybe new users) Maybe not.

But if you eliminate the drug dealing relating shootings - gang vs gang and cops vs gangs - what percent of gun crimes (shootings) would go away? Half?

 

[ma96782]

I think you are quite confused. The tax burden you pay to enforce drug law and house prisoners is easily 10 times the cost of treating addiction as a medical condition.

Tax burden? For a lot of the criminals locked up for various crimes......I got a solution. It would cost only about $0.30 OK, Ok, ok......a firing squad would actually a bit more. Anyway, I doubt that the LEFT would like it, if I had it my way.

Medical Condition. I guess you're one of those that would like it if "drug addiction" was a medical condition (and also a pre existing medical condition). Just so that taxpayers would be on the hook for endless cycles of costly treatment & rehabilitation? I wonder.....how would/does that affect the costs to the Health Care system? Cough, cough... WOW, think about it......collecting SS Disability Payments for being a drug addict.

As I see it.......the costs of enforcement and incarceration seems small enough. BTW, I'm in favor of more forfeiture of assets from drug dealers. And, why not expand that to the small time users too? Only truthfully, I'd rather see it in FINES.

Not to mention.....that our own Govt is IMHO going down the wrong path. Do you watch....Nat Geo's....Drugs inc.? Cultivating fields/tons of MJ in CA is only a misdemeanor in a lot of cases. Medical Marijuana.....Rrrright.

So.....what do I know about drug addicts? You're a volunteer fire fighter and a business owner. While I was just an LEO. Oh well.

Perhaps it's just better to agree to dis-agree?

Aloha, Mark

 

[coastal steelheader]

Before legalization is ever put on the table, they need to get a uniform, evidence based treatment that is accessible (i.e. cheap) and cost effective.
As it is now its too expensive and the failure rate is too high, and its turning into an industry.

 

[IronMonster]

Tax burden? For a lot of the criminals locked up for various crimes......I got a solution. It would cost only about $0.30 OK, Ok, ok......a firing squad would actually a bit more. Anyway, I doubt that the LEFT would like it, if I had it my way.

Medical Condition. I guess you're one of those that would also qualify "drug addiction" as a pre existing medical condition. Just so that taxpayers would be on the hook for endless cycles of costly treatment & rehabilitation? I wonder.....how would/does that affect the costs to the Health Care system? Cough, cough...

As I see it.......the costs of incarceration seems small enough. BTW, I'm in favor of more forfeiture of assets from drug dealers. And, why not expand that to users too?

Not to mention.....that our own Govt is IMHO going down the wrong path. Do you watch....Nat Geo's....Drugs inc.? Cultivating fields/tons of MJ in CA is only a misdemeanor in a lot of cases. Medical Marijuana.....Rrrright.

So.....what do I know about drug addicts? You're a volunteer fire fighter and a business owner. While I was just an LEO. Oh well.

Perhaps it's just better to agree to dis-agree?

Aloha, Mark

yeah.... A trillion dollars is "tiny"

Opinion: War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure - CNN.com

The Alarming Annual Cost of the War on Drugs and Why It's a Failure

Wasted Tax Dollars | Drug War Spending | Drug Policy Alliance

 

[bolus]

Well, Imma have to agree that something is amiss regarding the usage/prescribing and abusing of prescription drugs. I've been hurt a lot, in recent years there seems to be more of a push to make the patient 'feel' better. They are very concerned about your pain level and what it will take to make you comfortable.

You can thank Purdue pharma for that. When they came out with oxycontin, they had a small study that said it was a very safe pain reliever and was not addictive (completely wrong but who cares when money is involved). They then got the American Pain Society and the Joint Commission on their side to begin telling doctors about oxycontin. If you dont know the joint commission, they determine hospital accreditation. When they show up at a hospital for a site visit, they have so much power that administrators care for nothing else.

So the Joint commission and the American pain society then started telling doctors that they were terrible people for letting patients suffer in pain. I remember the lectures in my training from "experts" in pain management. We were to treat it like blood pressure - keep giving meds like oxycontin until the pain was gone.

The Joint commission then started requiring that every patient be asked their pain level. It became the the "6th vital sign" You would get in big trouble if you did not ask it.

So a decade goes by and now we have an epidemic of opiate abuse 70% of the worlds opiates are used in the USA.

Purdue got in a bit of trouble (from wikipedia)

"In May 2007, the company pleaded guilty to misleading the public about Oxycontin's risk of addiction, and agreed to pay $600 million in one of the largest pharmaceutical settlements in U.S. history. Its president, top lawyer, and former chief medical officer pleaded guilty as individuals to misbranding charges, a criminal violation, and agreed to pay a total of $34.5 million in fines.[11][12] Those executives are: Michael Friedman, the company's president, who agreed to pay $19 million in fines; Howard R. Udell, its top lawyer, who agreed to pay $8 million; and Dr. Paul D. Goldenheim, its former medical director, who agreed to pay $7.5 million."

Does not matter though. The family that owns Purdue is in the top 20 richest families on the planet. Michael Friedman is still worth $150 million. Cartels kill less people than this guy did. The Joint Commission did not get in any trouble. You still have to ask every patient about pain or else suffer the consequences.

Newly implemented though is "Pay by patient satisfaction" where medicare and other insurances determine reimbursement levels by how doctors score on patient satisfaction scores. So if you deny the drug seeker patient more oxycodone, they give you a low score and you get paid less.

 

[coastal steelheader]

Tax burden? For a lot of the criminals locked up for various crimes......I got a solution. It would cost only about $0.30 OK, Ok, ok......a firing squad would actually a bit more. Anyway, I doubt that the LEFT would like it, if I had it my way. Aloha, Mark

I am not sure I could go that far at this point. If it gets worse though it might become an unavoidable conclusion to the drug war, if we don't come up with some solutions.

 

[No_Regerts]

couple random thoughts ...





You can't legislate morality.


What is 'right' today is 'wrong' tomorrow.
examples:
colored (OR used to prevent Colored from being in our state)
Gays (people knew they existed, but not openly)
Abortion (used to be illegal to murder an unborn human)
Suicide (legal in OR, now)

Very few things should be regulated.

Behaviour - measurable behaviour can be legislated.

example:
Guns are illegal -vs- pointing a gun at a human being

If guns are decriminalized, how would that reduce the moral fabric of society?




If a person is drunk - a behaviour which is measurable - should that itself be prevented? Many religions teach that this very act is a a sin (violation of that religion) But so what? Could you be drunk and not harm anyone, not even yourself? Being drunk does impede judgment - so says science (and experience) so being drunk may lead to bad outcomes, but it is not a bad outcome itself. If you drive drunk we say that is bad - yet it happens all the time - what we really have is if you come to the attention of law enforcement and they determine you are under the influence, then bad outcome for you.

I get we like to simplifiy things.

Another pet peeve of mine - driving under the influence of a cell phone. So what? Some people are not safe under the influence of a coke - or Big Mac. Don't ban cell phone use. Ban the measurable driving defect that will draw the attention of LEOs - ie swerving, etc.



----



I don't want to pay for your bad behaviour either. If you are on welfare because you are lazy should I have to pay for that? How is that really differnt from someone who uses drugs


-----


I do think it is a mistake to classify addicts ( alcoholics ) as medical problems - disease.
Is all addiction medical?
What is addition and how do you prove it?
If you are an addict with job, are we prevented from terminating you? much like we'd be prevented from terminating someone with cancer who is missing work due to treatment.


What do we do with people who enable bad behavour - the drug sellers (pushers) or parents who provide food and shelter?



I don't have a solution - just pointing out this is complex.

I am on the side which says the war on alcohol proved to be a mistake and led to violence and the war on drugs has done worse.
(behaviour due to alcohol use was a real problem at the time of prohabition, and given our moral choices at that time - a wife beaten by her drunk husband had no recourse - as one example - we had to look for meaningful solutions. One was providing clean water for drinking. In 1900 you should not drink the water, which is one reason so many were drinking beer all day long.

I think this was on the TV show the Wire - but making a relaxing drug, pot, available might get a lot of people off harder drugs, like heroine (well maybe new users) Maybe not.

But if you eliminate the drug dealing relating shootings - gang vs gang and cops vs gangs - what percent of gun crimes (shootings) would go away? Half?

Any crime isn't a bonafide crime until it is adjudicated. It doesn't mean its not bad or victimless. When we decriminalize, it doesn't get rid of the problem. It just means we can no longer use enforcement as a means to decrease the problem. Until we have effective means of treatment, the only way to keep people safer is to lock up the usersand dealers. It doesn't stop things, but it slows it down.

As far as wrong today, right tomorrow, the examples you gave were biological. Not bad choices.

 

[IronMonster]

So I had a thought while I was in the shower (where I often do my best thinking)

Much of the argument is that drug users are "scum" "welfare dirtbags" or some such or that using drugs is some sort of moral failing or they are simply weak people.

Are people who drink scum? Do they have a moral failing? More people die from alcohol use than any illegal drug. (and alcohol is a drug of course) Alcohol is by far one of the most addictive drugs used in the US and it is the only one that you can die from the withdrawals. How about smokers? Are they scum? Tobacco killis a magnitude more people than all illegal drugs combined. What makes them different? Well, a law. Someone wrote on paper that these were OK but the others were not.

Opium, Heroin, Cocaine, and even pot for that matter all used to not only be legal but sold in countless goods and concoctions. Were the people who used them then scum? Or did they only become scum when a group of guys got together and wrote it on some paper that it was wrong to use them?

Much of the attitude towards drug users is due to the fact that they are defacto criminals by the act of consuming a drug.

Most people, somewhere around 97%, can use a drug and not become addicted. The 3% that become addicts (which includes alcoholics who have the same predisposition due to brain chemistry) will likely be addicts no matter what the law says.


My argument is not for a "drug utopia" Its for taking the money out of the drug trade and ending the drug war. I dont want drugs in my town anymore than the next guy but I would much rather have safe, regulated drugs bought at a corner store than stuff that is killing people run by cartels and gangs that users had to steal to pay for.

Drugs are not going away, No "war" will make a dent in the supply as long as there is money to be made. Much better to take the money out of it, regulate and control it.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

How about leaving the users alone (legally speaking), and make being a drug dealer an automatic death penalty if found guilty?

didnt they do that in the phillippines

 

[coastal steelheader]

didnt they do that in the phillippines

Duarte took out a large number of gangs involved in the drug trade, but I'm not sure if it has worked or if others took their place. Might be worth investigating for sure.