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 find this whole debate to be a bit strange, and my impression is that the advocates for pretty well unrestricted availability of narcotics have not seen the impact of heavy narcotic abuse in their own families or communities. If you're in pain in an affluent community with no visible problems from narcotics abuse and don't abuse the drugs yourself, of course it's easy for you to say they should be available.
I've watched many local families disintegrate over narcotic abuse. One of the classmates I mentioned on a previous page overdosed and died, leaving behind a then toddler. Her twin sister has been in and out of county jail, largely on drug related charges. The grandma is taking care of both twins' kids most of the time - neither were fit to be parents. One of my best friends have problems with narcotic abuse, and ultimately led to suicide. The little CVS pharmacy in my neighborhood hardly had any problems until the last few years - these days, it seems it is being robbed almost monthly. The robbers don't want money, they just want pills. Crime and social disorder followed the heavy pill availability. That's not saying every user will be like this, but the more available they are, the more problems people will have. Comparing strong narcotics to booze or marijuana isn't fair - the narcotics are far more addictive and people will do about anything to get them. You don't see people burglarizing and robbing businesses to get a bottle of liquor, but pharmacies are fighting this all the time.
Folks, it has been too easy over the past fifteen to twenty years to go into a doctor's office, complain of something nebulous like "back pain" or "fibromyalgia," then get a "script" for pain medication. No one wants to deny people medicine who legitimately need it, but there are more variables to this than just an individual's wants/needs. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way, but I'd rather narcotics be heavily restricted than the free for all we've had in some areas with them
Some people act like this is some sort of conspiracy against seniors. It's not - the goal for the restriction of these pain medications is to keep people from abusing them, and preventing the attendant crime that goes along with it. There is also a troubling attitude among some people that they are entitled to these narcotics. If you don't have the medical training to make this decision, then no, you're not entitled to judge for yourself whether or not you can have them.
They are much worse than people realize. People think they are relatively benign, but acetaminophen (Tylenol) is well known for causing liver damage with ling term use or overuse (easy to do, as it is in many OTC formulations and people don't always realize they are taking it 2 and 3 times with cold meds, headache pills, etc. Tylenol is the leading cause of acute liver failure in this country now.
"Acetaminophen overdose is actually the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers across the US—more than 100,000 instances per year—and, each year, is responsible for: More than 56,000 emergency room visits. 2,600 hospitalizations. An estimated 458 deaths due to acute liver failure." Acetaminophen: More Dangerous Than You Ever Suspected
I actually asked for my pain pills to be a version that did not include acetaminophen.
I recently tore a muscle in my back pretty badly. It was evident on the X-ray the ER doctor ordered and I was in a lot of pain--more pain than I can remember experiencing in 20 years. After consulting with the Dr I asked for some prescription pain pills to hold me over for a week or so while I recovered. He refused to give me anything prescription and told me to take NSAIDS. I told him I couldn't take Non-steroids because of an ulcer I'd had a few years ago. Still he was adamant. No pain pills.
What is happening in America when a doctor cannot prescribe even a few pain pills to help with a retiree's pain. I know there's a drug epidemic out there involving young kids abusing prescription pain meds but old people with chronic conditions are being cut off without even being weaned. All they hear from their Dr is "Sorry. I won't write any more prescription painkillers for you. Yes, I know you're in a lot of pain but I have the FDA and my license to worry about."
I cannot fathom what is becoming of America, I cannot begin to imagine the horror if I got cancer. Many terminally ill patients are being refused their pain meds right at the pharmacy by pharmacists who say, "I know it's a legitimate prescription but I just cannot fill it for you. I'm sorry." Anybody else having this kind of problem?
That is not at all true. My husband just passed after a 13 month battle with stage 4 cancer.
He never had an issue getting his pain meds, true a real PITA as can only be filled once every 30 days and can not be renewed over phone, but he never ran out and always had them
That is not at all true. My husband just passed after a 13 month battle with stage 4 cancer.
He never had an issue getting his pain meds, true a real PITA as can only be filled once every 30 days and can not be renewed over phone, but he never ran out and always had them
Your experience may have been different, it doesn't make the post "not at all true", just not true in your case.
Your experience may have been different, it doesn't make the post "not at all true", just not true in your case.
I think it's regional, my son's ex is healthy as a horse, but her doctor prescribes her 100 percocet & 60 xanax every single month. She now has to go pick up the prescription instead of having the pharmacy call, but she still gets them and every month she sells them for a big pile of money, and in case you are curious, both her doctor and the local police have been advised that she sells the pills
Edit: In a rep comment someone said they hoped my son has no contact with her, he doesn't. He has full custody of their chilld and she has one supervised visit a month which she has missed for the past 4 months
One biggie (and I've seen this in records) is the absence of the prescribed controlled substance.
You have to take the pee test BEFORE they prescribe anything. I only had to take another one once in 10 months. So again, what in my pee would indicate that I shouldn't even get it prescribed in the first place? the only thing that would be important IMO is the presence of other opiates, but all that person has to do is stop for a few days and it won't even show up.
I think it's regional, my son's ex is healthy as a horse, but her doctor prescribes her 100 percocet & 60 xanax every single month. She now has to go pick up the prescription instead of having the pharmacy call, but she still gets them and every month she sells them for a big pile of money, and in case you are curious, both her doctor and the local police have been advised that she sells the pills
That is odd in this climate! I would bet it won't last much longer. I do agree different areas are different. My best friend is a pharmacist in Florida, and there it has become crazy hard to get (Relates back to thread title?)
So the answer to the opioid epidemic is to make pain medication hard to get for everyone regardless of need?
Wouldn't prohibiting Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to drug addicts and alcoholics make more sense?
The rules are somewhat complex but the bottom line is Social Security can't refuse payments to someone just because they are abusing drugs or alcohol. Addicts and their lawyers are astute at how to apply so that they meet the definition of 'disabled.' Then they can spend their money anyway they want.
I find this whole debate to be a bit strange, and my impression is that the advocates for pretty well unrestricted availability of narcotics have not seen the impact of heavy narcotic abuse in their own families or communities. If you're in pain in an affluent community with no visible problems from narcotics abuse and don't abuse the drugs yourself, of course it's easy for you to say they should be available.
I've watched many local families disintegrate over narcotic abuse. One of the classmates I mentioned on a previous page overdosed and died, leaving behind a then toddler. Her twin sister has been in and out of county jail, largely on drug related charges. The grandma is taking care of both twins' kids most of the time - neither were fit to be parents. One of my best friends have problems with narcotic abuse, and ultimately led to suicide. The little CVS pharmacy in my neighborhood hardly had any problems until the last few years - these days, it seems it is being robbed almost monthly. The robbers don't want money, they just want pills. Crime and social disorder followed the heavy pill availability. That's not saying every user will be like this, but the more available they are, the more problems people will have. Comparing strong narcotics to booze or marijuana isn't fair - the narcotics are far more addictive and people will do about anything to get them. You don't see people burglarizing and robbing businesses to get a bottle of liquor, but pharmacies are fighting this all the time.
Folks, it has been too easy over the past fifteen to twenty years to go into a doctor's office, complain of something nebulous like "back pain" or "fibromyalgia," then get a "script" for pain medication. No one wants to deny people medicine who legitimately need it, but there are more variables to this than just an individual's wants/needs. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way, but I'd rather narcotics be heavily restricted than the free for all we've had in some areas with them
Some people act like this is some sort of conspiracy against seniors. It's not - the goal for the restriction of these pain medications is to keep people from abusing them, and preventing the attendant crime that goes along with it. There is also a troubling attitude among some people that they are entitled to these narcotics. If you don't have the medical training to make this decision, then no, you're not entitled to judge for yourself whether or not you can have them.
I really disagree with this. Just because something is available to everyone, doesn't mean everyone will abuse it.
Alcohol and now marijuana is available wherever it is legal, with no restrictions on how much can be purchased or consumed. Laws only give consequences to any behavior/actions that may or may not be related to consumption. For instance a DUI. And anyone who ends up with an addiction problem can get help for it. But the alcohol industry, for example, is a thriving business all over the world, with millions of consumers consuming as much as they want, and all of those millions of consumers are not skid row alcoholics living under bridges.
But, to say that simply because something is available means that everyone who gets access to it, and the ability to freely choose how much they want to or need to consume for their own needs - is simply wrong.
Addiction is not caused by the substance. So, something else is going on in society that is creating more addicts.
But, for those who are not addictive types of people, who are able to manage their lives without hurting anyone else or not meeting their responsibilities, etc., should not be punished in some ineffective attempt to stop any and all addictive behavior in the entire population.
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.
