Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was watching a documentary on the current heroin/fentanyl crisis going on in Florida. A state official said, "We anticipated when we shut down the pill mills in 2010 that there would be a spike in heroin deaths. What we didn't anticipate was how large it would be." According to stats, in 2016, there were 2,798 opioid-related overdose deaths*** in Florida. That's roughly 7.5 per day and one cop in one city says he responds to about 8-9 calls a day for OD's.
Let's analyze this for a moment: the pill mills are shut down, good thing. Then doctors and pharmacies are scared stiff by the DEA threats to yank their licenses if they prescribe/fill opioids, bad thing. Dr. Memet Oz said 80% of heroin users started on prescription opioids. That means the heroin epidemic should gradually be declining by roughly 80% as these former pillheads get used to life without prescriptions, right? Wrong, the heroin epidemic is skyrocketing. Seems like shutting down opiate prescriptions, far from being a smart thing actually turned out to be the dumbest thing the governments could have done if they really wanted to stop this heroin crisis. What am I missing here?
Did Federal and state governments create the current heroin/fentanyl crisis?
You caused it.
When hospitals began conducting marketing surveys in the early 1990s, it was impossible for hospitals not to see the overwhelming correlation between hospital ranking and level of pain.
Those patients who experienced minimal pain in hospital rated the hospital highly, giving a score of "excellent" and would recommend the hospital to others.
Those patients who experienced high levels of pain in hospital rated the hospital very poorly, and would not recommend the hospital to other patients, which is not good for the hospital's reputation.
Those patients who experienced more than minimal pain, but not excruciating pain in hospital gave the hospital a mediocre rating, which is not good for a hospital's reputation, either.
You, and you alone, forced hospitals to initiate pain management protocols, because hospitals cannot endure bad reputations from patients claiming the hospital wouldn't do anything about their pain levels.
In Cincinnati, Providence Hospital and Deaconess Hospital don't exist anymore, because they had reputations as horrid places where you languish in pain, because the medical staff didn't give a damn if you were in pain and wouldn't do anything about it. And, yes, people talk and they tell others about their bad experiences. The data consistently shows that if someone has a bad experience with any business including the healthcare business, they will tell seven people, but if they have a good experience, they'll only tell one other person about it.
Since pain can only be managed through the use of pharmaceuticals, the call went out, and drug companies responded, with Oxycontin being introduced in 1996.
Things went downhill from there.
Yes, it was egregious that companies like Perdue Pharmaceuticals claimed Oxycontin was not addictive, but even if they had not hidden that fact, people would still be using Oxycontin, because there are few alternatives.
If hospitals and doctors had known of the addictive properties of Oxycontin -- and all opioid-based drugs are inherently addictive --- would they have managed the situation better?
When hospitals began conducting marketing surveys in the early 1990s, it was impossible for hospitals not to see the overwhelming correlation between hospital ranking and level of pain.
Those patients who experienced minimal pain in hospital rated the hospital highly, giving a score of "excellent" and would recommend the hospital to others.
Those patients who experienced high levels of pain in hospital rated the hospital very poorly, and would not recommend the hospital to other patients, which is not good for the hospital's reputation.
Those patients who experienced more than minimal pain, but not excruciating pain in hospital gave the hospital a mediocre rating, which is not good for a hospital's reputation, either.
You, and you alone, forced hospitals to initiate pain management protocols, because hospitals cannot endure bad reputations from patients claiming the hospital wouldn't do anything about their pain levels.
In Cincinnati, Providence Hospital and Deaconess Hospital don't exist anymore, because they had reputations as horrid places where you languish in pain, because the medical staff didn't give a damn if you were in pain and wouldn't do anything about it. And, yes, people talk and they tell others about their bad experiences. The data consistently shows that if someone has a bad experience with any business including the healthcare business, they will tell seven people, but if they have a good experience, they'll only tell one other person about it.
Since pain can only be managed through the use of pharmaceuticals, the call went out, and drug companies responded, with Oxycontin being introduced in 1996.
Things went downhill from there.
Yes, it was egregious that companies like Perdue Pharmaceuticals claimed Oxycontin was not addictive, but even if they had not hidden that fact, people would still be using Oxycontin, because there are few alternatives.
If hospitals and doctors had known of the addictive properties of Oxycontin -- and all opioid-based drugs are inherently addictive --- would they have managed the situation better?
Maybe, then again, maybe not.
It’s actually written into law and accreditation agencies in many states that the hospital has to control pain before the patient leaves. The government also ties reimbursement to survey results so doctors need to let patient leave happy.
It's impossible for the amount of drugs in this country...to be coming in taped to some abuelas thigh..
Think about it...all the big cities...all the little cities...even places way out in podunk
..and all the different kinds of drugs
There's just way too much.....tons ever week
It has to be riding around in tractor trailer rigs up and down I-10, I-70...you name it
What if we went further back, and theorised the the epidemic was created by pharmaceutical companies that have been allowed to run wild, to a certain extent, with the FDA underfunded, with advertising allowed that used to be forbidden, with lobbyists buying government acquiescence?
I was watching a documentary on the current heroin/fentanyl crisis going on in Florida. A state official said, "We anticipated when we shut down the pill mills in 2010 that there would be a spike in heroin deaths. What we didn't anticipate was how large it would be." According to stats, in 2016, there were 2,798 opioid-related overdose deaths*** in Florida. That's roughly 7.5 per day and one cop in one city says he responds to about 8-9 calls a day for OD's.
Let's analyze this for a moment: the pill mills are shut down, good thing. Then doctors and pharmacies are scared stiff by the DEA threats to yank their licenses if they prescribe/fill opioids, bad thing. Dr. Memet Oz said 80% of heroin users started on prescription opioids. That means the heroin epidemic should gradually be declining by roughly 80% as these former pillheads get used to life without prescriptions, right? Wrong, the heroin epidemic is skyrocketing. Seems like shutting down opiate prescriptions, far from being a smart thing actually turned out to be the dumbest thing the governments could have done if they really wanted to stop this heroin crisis. What am I missing here?
You're missing the fentanyl part.
Once an addict loses the guaranteed potency of a pharmaceutical drug, he will seek the same strength of drug on the street.
Fentanyl is hell for lethal, but it supercharges the high of a weak street drug. And of course, all opioids are lethal themselves.
A guy who is living a life of chronic pain that is so severe he cannot function as a happy, useful human being doesn't care about anything except the pain. Once the pain is diminished enough to function, that's enough for him.
He will certainly prefer to take a pharmaceutical pain reliever, because he soon learns how much it takes to kill the pain. All addicts main objective is to maintain and avoid pain.
If they can't use legal drugs, then they'll use illegal drugs. If that means taking a much greater risk, so be it.
For sure, opioids can get a person stoned. That's part of the pain relief, and psychological pain is just as real and can be just as severe as physical pain. Opioids do pretty good at relieving both at the same time, but they carry the price of addiction.
The question must be asked: For addicts, what are the benefits of sobriety?
If an addict's life isn't any better sober, then why not stick with the opioid? Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
When hospitals began conducting marketing surveys in the early 1990s, it was impossible for hospitals not to see the overwhelming correlation between hospital ranking and level of pain.
Those patients who experienced minimal pain in hospital rated the hospital highly, giving a score of "excellent" and would recommend the hospital to others.
Those patients who experienced high levels of pain in hospital rated the hospital very poorly, and would not recommend the hospital to other patients, which is not good for the hospital's reputation.
Those patients who experienced more than minimal pain, but not excruciating pain in hospital gave the hospital a mediocre rating, which is not good for a hospital's reputation, either.
You, and you alone, forced hospitals to initiate pain management protocols, because hospitals cannot endure bad reputations from patients claiming the hospital wouldn't do anything about their pain levels.
In Cincinnati, Providence Hospital and Deaconess Hospital don't exist anymore, because they had reputations as horrid places where you languish in pain, because the medical staff didn't give a damn if you were in pain and wouldn't do anything about it. And, yes, people talk and they tell others about their bad experiences. The data consistently shows that if someone has a bad experience with any business including the healthcare business, they will tell seven people, but if they have a good experience, they'll only tell one other person about it.
Since pain can only be managed through the use of pharmaceuticals, the call went out, and drug companies responded, with Oxycontin being introduced in 1996.
Things went downhill from there.
Yes, it was egregious that companies like Perdue Pharmaceuticals claimed Oxycontin was not addictive, but even if they had not hidden that fact, people would still be using Oxycontin, because there are few alternatives.
If hospitals and doctors had known of the addictive properties of Oxycontin -- and all opioid-based drugs are inherently addictive --- would they have managed the situation better?
Maybe, then again, maybe not.
Well, You
didn't say much to help clarify it. You go off on this tangent about hospitals not treating patients properly with pain meds which doesn't address at all the issue I raised.
Once an addict loses the guaranteed potency of a pharmaceutical drug, he will seek the same strength of drug on the street.
Fentanyl is hell for lethal, but it supercharges the high of a weak street drug. And of course, all opioids are lethal themselves.
A guy who is living a life of chronic pain that is so severe he cannot function as a happy, useful human being doesn't care about anything except the pain. Once the pain is diminished enough to function, that's enough for him.
He will certainly prefer to take a pharmaceutical pain reliever, because he soon learns how much it takes to kill the pain. All addicts main objective is to maintain and avoid pain.
If they can't use legal drugs, then they'll use illegal drugs. If that means taking a much greater risk, so be it.
For sure, opioids can get a person stoned. That's part of the pain relief, and psychological pain is just as real and can be just as severe as physical pain. Opioids do pretty good at relieving both at the same time, but they carry the price of addiction.
The question must be asked: For addicts, what are the benefits of sobriety?
If an addict's life isn't any better sober, then why not stick with the opioid? Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
For the bolded above a critical question:
Is the government deliberately depriving pain patients of pharmaceutical opiates--Oxy, Viocodin, morphine, et. al. to force them out onto the streets to buy illegally?????? What other possible reason could the FDA/DEA have for practically making them Schedule 1 (illegal substances)??? I asked once before:
What is the FDA/DEA's gameplan here? Are they trying to make the cartels rich? Are they trying to force pain patients to kill themselves and save SS/Medicare a ton of money? Are they trying to fill the prisons so wealthy people who own stock in the prison/industrial complex will get even richer? Are they working for the Drug Rehabilitation lobby to force more people into rehab at a cost of $30,00/month????
Why is the FDA?DEA doing everything EXCEPT helping pain patients get relief from their pain????????
It's impossible for the amount of drugs in this country...to be coming in taped to some abuelas thigh..
Think about it...all the big cities...all the little cities...even places way out in podunk
..and all the different kinds of drugs
There's just way too much.....tons ever week
It has to be riding around in tractor trailer rigs up and down I-10, I-70...you name it
..and someone has to know
Thats what I talked about before, cartels are keeping the ENTIRE nation supplied in dope!!! Im sorry but this doesnt happen under the radar or by luck alone!
Dr. Oz is wrong. Every single person I know of that is an opiate addict never once had them prescribed to them. 99% of them are heroin users from the beginning and the other 1% who started with pills got them off the street for recreational purposes. Now, ALL of the people I know who had opiates prescribed, not a single one ever became an addict who moved on to heroin. That BS is a myth.
Why were the US military used to guard the largest opium field in the world?
Opium production was cut in half because the Taliban made growing it a death sentence. As soon as we got over there production went right back up.
It's a fact that the CIA was running cocaine into the US through the keys when we had a crack epidemic.
They were running heroin through Air America during Viet Nam.
There's too much damn money to be made off addictions in this country.
If you don't think our government is behind any given drug epidemic, I got oceanfront lots in Kansas to sell you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Thats what I talked about before, cartels are keeping the ENTIRE nation supplied in dope!!! Im sorry but this doesnt happen under the radar or by luck alone!
Exactly! The agencies aren't out there busing these cartels for a reason. Mexico cartels are the new Columbia cartels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
