Finally! All the benefits of the opioids, with none of the dangers.
For clarity: I'm referring to all the previous attempts to "fix" the synthetic opioids, each of which ended up making a stronger, more dangerous opioid.
Not just OxyContin. Also Heroin, Meperidine and Tramadol.
We get another "morphine, but safe this time" in pretty reliable 40 year intervals. I guess someone decided OxyContin doesn't count and we are due for another one
To be honest I would prefer addicts could get heroin prescribed. The primary danger of street drugs is the inconsistent purity and chemicals it’s cut with. If it was pharmaceutical grade and everyone prescribed was on a list, we would have fewer overdoses and a better understanding of who to put in treatment
The US did this dance with the devil in the pale moonlight before anyone, way back in the 19th century. Tens of thousands (millions) of wounded soldiers came back from the civil war in chronic pain and addicted to morphine. They put them on "lists" and prescribed them dope and it spiraled out of control. It got so bad that they engineered Heroin to be a safer alternative. And people forget, but the temperance movement wasn't just focused on alcohol. They were the primary forces behind the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. And these people weren't bible thumping crusaders, many were like early feminists that lost children\husbands to drugs and alcohol. I think Europe eventually comes around to this same conclusion when enough damage has been done. Metering out hard drugs has always been a road to ruin.
Nowadays they're just given methadone or Buprenorphine (other opioids). Having known family members that worked in the clinic, there is no plan to get most of them off of it. It is like other opiate addicts, ~most of them take it until they are dead unless they are just dead set on getting off and willing to live with the fact they might never quite feel 'right' again, although at least it is safer.
Most heroin overdoses happen either from a sudden increase in supply purity, or from an abstinent addict relapsing and taking their regular dose without realizing they have lost their tolerance.
Any kind of rational change in policy is not happening as long as entire lucrative industries of policing, health care and religion-as-a-social-service are dependent on the dependent.
It's such things that reveal the cruelty in our sociaties. The evidence is very clear; it reduces deaths and improves health, while also reducing crime. But its still not the default the world over because its apparently a hard sell to give addicts anything for free. The other comments here show the sentiments nicely.
There is no need to give it for free. It costs very little to produce, most of the cost is just risk and irregular logistics. Just sell it over the counter at walmart for $5 just like they do rat poison, bottles of vodka, and ammunition.
You might say they won't be able to sell enough foodstamps or welfare even then to come up with the money legally, but it'd still be way less crime.
0) Zero tolerance! We still remember how it ended last time!
1) But ... pain medication helps against anything. From headaches to hernia to bone cancer (of course in some cases it's in a "die somewhat dignified" sense). And in quite a few cases it's the only thing that helps ... In the medical sense of "helping", after all medicine can't make people live forever so that can't be the goal. The goal is better quality of life, ie. mostly longer life, including the ability to live (think "sing, dance and play tennis") ... and not life at any cost.
The problem here is that this is an entirely correct argument. Some diseases are either incredibly painful or long-term painful. Bone cancer or hernia can serve as examples. We cannot really help such people (by that I mean: not in a way that the pain stops). So can we at least make their life livable?
2) This pain medication sure helps these very seriously ill people well. But X suffering is at least as bad as bone cancer! X then is everything from still serious diseases, psychological suffering, and of course this then goes down and down until someone points out pain medication also helps existential dread and lackluster parties.
Again, all of that ... is true. That's not the problem.
3) The medication becomes the problem. Mostly because of what people do to get money for their fix (and the crime, prostitution, ... that it leads to). But this is not the only problem. It makes people who broke a bone last week go skiing again. And ... I'm almost afraid to say it but you can increase the effect of morphine ... by damaging yourself. You can guess how that ends.
The problem is that pain medication, irrespective of whether it's physically ("biologically") addictive is addictive. Anybody who's had a serious pain for a week, say kidney stones, knows that they would have sacrificed their favorite cat for it to stop. The problem is not just that morphine is addictive. The problem is the pain, and the fact that pain medication is a temporary non-fix.
4) The medication becomes the problem, but doesn't just affect patients. It goes from "you know this funny thing happened to my niece ... and she did it to herself ..." to it destroys families, neighborhoods, childhoods ...
On the one hand, I'm sure that the post you're responding to is referencing many previous failed attempts at making non-addictive opioid painkillers.
But on the other, non-sarcastic side... if addiction is the only remaining problem with them, should we care that much?
I.E. if both the chronic and acute health risks are gone (which I don't think they are for a second, but follow me along on this little thought experiment)... does it matter quite so much? Clearly addiction, in the abstract, is not exactly a good thing. But if it's not coupled to risk of death it seems to me it would be a great thing to transition addicted people to, and take away some of the urgency of the situation.
I agree. I would say that I am addicted to caffeine. I definitely get withdrawal symptoms if I don't have a coffee. But since it is so accessible and there are no health risks, it does not affect me negatively to "feed" the addiction.
Not a great analogy. Caffeine is not as addictive as opioids. Opioids strongly stimulate the mesolimbic dopamine pathway, leading to intense euphoria, compulsive use, and severe health and social harm.
A professor of economics has opinions on the health effects of an extremely common substance?
And I have opinions on nuclear energy - but neither of us are worth listening to outside our areas of expertise. Unless you can supply a reason I would bother listening to him as compared to an actual expert on the subject?
I admit that I don't know who Tyler Cowen is, but millions (billions?) of people have drunk coffee daily for centuries and if there were ill effects in the same ballpark as opioids or tobacco by now we would certainly know?
There is even a decent chance that the Industrial Revolution and the phenomenal wealth and progress it's brought was caused by the introduction of coffee to Europe.
I mean I guess it depends on the level of use? Do you need to be nodding off, drooling on the verge of respiratory collapse to cope with the dread of your situation? (I feel like people are mostly only considering the physical reasons for starting opiates in this post btw). Or is it a more reasonable dose that allows you to participate in society unencumbered by your pains? (Which in any case is a slippery slope with long term use)
and the fun fact, the other new drug targeting the mid-receptor of acetyl-choline that functions like mu-opioid receptor also has the same exact addiction problems.
Adjacent medicines have seen major improvements: eg Ketamine was a significant improvement from PCP (notably, less psychosis and safe enough to use off the battlefield / with children)
“Removing the worst and most fatal danger” is a laudable goal with Fentanyl given the absurd rate of ODs
Is fentanyl even that big of an issue in a clinical setting? It's not like it's the go to opiate of choice for general pain anyway.
The problem with fentanyl is that it is easy to make and smuggle and we managed to leave a giant black market hole to be filled when we went ape shit about oxy, which was an objectively better situation than we are currently in with street opiates.
We really could use better treatments for chronic pain.
I've found low dose naltrexone to be somewhat effective for severe chronic pain. Not as good as opiods.
THC can also help somewhat, but its action seems so dissociative. At an effective level for chronic pain, I'm sleepwalking though the day.
Opioids or their analogues cause or complicate bowel issues. Four years of 200mg/day Tramadol really helped me, but it shredded my gut. Getting off Tramadol wasn't hard for me. I'd stay on it were it not for the gut issues.
As an aside, lacing hydrocodone with acetaminophen is truly a horrific practice. Doctors prescribe this to patients on hepotoxic drugs and are shocked when they get liver damage.
I have 2 family members for whom Tramadol opened the door for severe addiction. One is now on regular morphine, the other had psychosis. I know it obvisouly depends on the individual, just to dilute your very rosy comment
Right. Opioids are an absolute terror to one's digestive system. When I had chronic pain I would rather have just accepted the pain than deal with the gut consequences.
LDN is an interesting one since it just stimulates your body to generate its own endorphins.
As a recurring kidney stone sufferer I am very thankful for fentanyl for my lithotripsy procedures. I hope we continue to make progress on effective pain medications and don't knee-jerk take them away.
I mean that is great. But the overuse of opioids in Us is crazy. I am from europe, had broken arm, sprained ankles, broken fingers, root canals done, appendix operation and never got anything stronger than ibuprofen. Hopefully, the prescription craziness is getting better.
It's been cut back pretty hard in the last 5 or so years? Even after major surgeries you get very short prescriptions, or only get them in the hospital under monitoring. I think we got a little too cautious personally but it's definitely trying to swing the curve away.
Except even as the press release states right off the bat, Fentanyl is efficacious, cost-efficient, and can be made widely available in areas like the global south without extensive pharmaceutical production infrastructure in place. The overdose crisis is in fact not really something that came out of the drug itself, just as the prevalence of Oxycodone before the enforced policy change shifted the usage patterns into a far more dangerous direction in heroin and tar and then, adulterated versions with fentanyl. People who are prescribed fentanyl for pain are not dying in droves. If you've had surgery, you may have been given fentanyl. If you're reading this, you, like most people, survived it just fine.
The crisis is one created by policy and cannot be eliminated on the pharmaceutical end. This isn't a case of methanol being sold as ethanol or SSRIs having less than ideal efficacy rates while causing widespread sexual dysfunction at a rate much higher than originally thought, or Zolpidem leading to over a hundred observational notes published in medical journals describing dangerous activity performed even on small doses followed by anterograde amnesia that certainly is a real thing that is also potentially dangerous, but incredibly difficult to study. Those effects are happening when the medication is taken as prescribed Do people take those without prescriptions? Of course, but one assumes the risk, and also, anyone ever seen a Zoloft pill mill?
Fentanyl had been diverted in small quantities onto black market supply chains for as long as it has been available. You can absolutely get an Actiq Pop in 2006 if you really wanted it, and the thing is a lollipop for crying out loud. It didn't cause widespread overdoses, it didn't even cause any significant black market demand. It was at best a curiosity. It's hard to quantify a subjective experience, but generally it was regarded as "not fun" anecdotally. Heroin is fun. Hydromorphone is even more fun but the best ROA leaves you with a 5-10 minute high at best and takes about that much time to prep. Oxycodone was fun but since the DEA made sure that it was as difficult to obtain as possible all of a sudden and what was available was spiked with enough APAP so that your liver might give out before you overdosed, well, what does cutting off the supply but leaving the demand in place do? The crisis as we know it today was inevitable in some form. It's created by policy, which is not set by scientists, and in fact when hydrocodone/APAP was rescheduled for Schedule II a specific reply to patient access concerns was "we don't take that into account", according to the DEA. Thanks for the candor, sadly we've gotten very little of it in the years since.
But of course, even on the black market, people overdose in a manner that is to a degree predictable. Long term users with steady supplies - say, everyone who's on a benzodiazepine long term - aren't overdosing regularly (yes, the LD50 of benzodiazepines generally makes overdosing on it alone very difficult if not impossible, but kicking it cold turkey does actually cause deaths from seizures and when mixed with another depressant like alcohol it becomes almost trivial to overdose on it, arguably making it at least in theory a more dangerous drug if one takes the view of the DEA). They are mostly able to obtain legitimate, low cost, and frequently entirely legal versions of, well, name the variety. From Triazolam (3 hour half life) to Midazolam (water soluble) to Etizolam (scheduled into schedule I based on 4 cases in Norway where when mixed with another depressant patients ended up in the ER. All survived and were discharged almost immediately. The reason why the DEA laundered cases in Norway through the FDA to justify at first an emergency scheduling and then turned it into a permanent one? Because they couldn't find any cases that demonstrated the purported danger in the US or Canada.) Overdoses happen when someone takes too much of a substance, but "too much" is difficult to determine when you don't have a reliable supplier in terms of quality and adulteration, but also, because tolerance gets built up so that long term users can use prodigious amounts and be just fine. But how do we make sure that nobody knows where their tolerance is at? Non-medically assisted, pseudoscientific "sobriety help" like AA or its variants that are ordered by the court, and of course, probation, testing, in-patient medicaid fraud mills, you name it. Since none of these actually do anything except use homebrewed aversion therapy or even less efficient, shame, to achieve what is basically not even a real goal but is tied to the criminal justice system, congrats, you have the perfect storm of demand not knowing how much to actually demand for. Fentanyl being the adulterant made this last inevitable easier, but it only hastened what had been happening for quite some time. When heroin supply on streets increased, fentanyl related deaths began decreasing. Wonder why? It's correlative, but observational studies take a lot more data and a lot longer time periods, although it would certainly follow previously observed patterns.
This may be interesting as a scientific venture, but treating it as anything but that is foolhardy and misguided. We know how to control pain. We know how to reduce the harmful externalities that form part of the definition of substance use disorder since we, as in society and lawmakers elected by us, are responsible for those harmful externalities in the first place. Fentanyl is not the problem. Making sure that there's no safe way to reduce potential harm associated with, ultimately, a personal choice favored by some but certainly not all as recreation, killed the hundreds of thousands since Lou Reed sang Heroin and put it onto the Velvet Underground and Nico. Why are we still acting brand new?
For clarity: I'm referring to all the previous attempts to "fix" the synthetic opioids, each of which ended up making a stronger, more dangerous opioid.
Unless you’re being sarcastic and referencing the lies the Sackler family used to get OxyContin popular..
That being said it is indeed quite cool that they modified the drug to decrease the respiratory depression.
We get another "morphine, but safe this time" in pretty reliable 40 year intervals. I guess someone decided OxyContin doesn't count and we are due for another one
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#/media/Datei:Bayer_Hero...
I'm curious about this sentence -- to what are you referring, and where specifically in Europe?
Any kind of rational change in policy is not happening as long as entire lucrative industries of policing, health care and religion-as-a-social-service are dependent on the dependent.
You might say they won't be able to sell enough foodstamps or welfare even then to come up with the money legally, but it'd still be way less crime.
0) Zero tolerance! We still remember how it ended last time!
1) But ... pain medication helps against anything. From headaches to hernia to bone cancer (of course in some cases it's in a "die somewhat dignified" sense). And in quite a few cases it's the only thing that helps ... In the medical sense of "helping", after all medicine can't make people live forever so that can't be the goal. The goal is better quality of life, ie. mostly longer life, including the ability to live (think "sing, dance and play tennis") ... and not life at any cost.
The problem here is that this is an entirely correct argument. Some diseases are either incredibly painful or long-term painful. Bone cancer or hernia can serve as examples. We cannot really help such people (by that I mean: not in a way that the pain stops). So can we at least make their life livable?
2) This pain medication sure helps these very seriously ill people well. But X suffering is at least as bad as bone cancer! X then is everything from still serious diseases, psychological suffering, and of course this then goes down and down until someone points out pain medication also helps existential dread and lackluster parties.
Again, all of that ... is true. That's not the problem.
3) The medication becomes the problem. Mostly because of what people do to get money for their fix (and the crime, prostitution, ... that it leads to). But this is not the only problem. It makes people who broke a bone last week go skiing again. And ... I'm almost afraid to say it but you can increase the effect of morphine ... by damaging yourself. You can guess how that ends.
The problem is that pain medication, irrespective of whether it's physically ("biologically") addictive is addictive. Anybody who's had a serious pain for a week, say kidney stones, knows that they would have sacrificed their favorite cat for it to stop. The problem is not just that morphine is addictive. The problem is the pain, and the fact that pain medication is a temporary non-fix.
4) The medication becomes the problem, but doesn't just affect patients. It goes from "you know this funny thing happened to my niece ... and she did it to herself ..." to it destroys families, neighborhoods, childhoods ...
Result: ONLY ONE SOLUTION! ZERO TOLERANCE!
GOTO 1.
But on the other, non-sarcastic side... if addiction is the only remaining problem with them, should we care that much?
I.E. if both the chronic and acute health risks are gone (which I don't think they are for a second, but follow me along on this little thought experiment)... does it matter quite so much? Clearly addiction, in the abstract, is not exactly a good thing. But if it's not coupled to risk of death it seems to me it would be a great thing to transition addicted people to, and take away some of the urgency of the situation.
And I have opinions on nuclear energy - but neither of us are worth listening to outside our areas of expertise. Unless you can supply a reason I would bother listening to him as compared to an actual expert on the subject?
Have you _seen_ what the streets of major cities look like these days? Ever heard of "fent zombies"?
“Removing the worst and most fatal danger” is a laudable goal with Fentanyl given the absurd rate of ODs
It's like that xkcd comic about unifying standards, now we have n+1 addictive opioids.
The problem with fentanyl is that it is easy to make and smuggle and we managed to leave a giant black market hole to be filled when we went ape shit about oxy, which was an objectively better situation than we are currently in with street opiates.
I've found low dose naltrexone to be somewhat effective for severe chronic pain. Not as good as opiods.
THC can also help somewhat, but its action seems so dissociative. At an effective level for chronic pain, I'm sleepwalking though the day.
Opioids or their analogues cause or complicate bowel issues. Four years of 200mg/day Tramadol really helped me, but it shredded my gut. Getting off Tramadol wasn't hard for me. I'd stay on it were it not for the gut issues.
As an aside, lacing hydrocodone with acetaminophen is truly a horrific practice. Doctors prescribe this to patients on hepotoxic drugs and are shocked when they get liver damage.
LDN is an interesting one since it just stimulates your body to generate its own endorphins.
If we got some safer painkillers that weren't insanely addictive, that would be Nobel Prize-worthy, in my layman's opinion.
The crisis is one created by policy and cannot be eliminated on the pharmaceutical end. This isn't a case of methanol being sold as ethanol or SSRIs having less than ideal efficacy rates while causing widespread sexual dysfunction at a rate much higher than originally thought, or Zolpidem leading to over a hundred observational notes published in medical journals describing dangerous activity performed even on small doses followed by anterograde amnesia that certainly is a real thing that is also potentially dangerous, but incredibly difficult to study. Those effects are happening when the medication is taken as prescribed Do people take those without prescriptions? Of course, but one assumes the risk, and also, anyone ever seen a Zoloft pill mill?
Fentanyl had been diverted in small quantities onto black market supply chains for as long as it has been available. You can absolutely get an Actiq Pop in 2006 if you really wanted it, and the thing is a lollipop for crying out loud. It didn't cause widespread overdoses, it didn't even cause any significant black market demand. It was at best a curiosity. It's hard to quantify a subjective experience, but generally it was regarded as "not fun" anecdotally. Heroin is fun. Hydromorphone is even more fun but the best ROA leaves you with a 5-10 minute high at best and takes about that much time to prep. Oxycodone was fun but since the DEA made sure that it was as difficult to obtain as possible all of a sudden and what was available was spiked with enough APAP so that your liver might give out before you overdosed, well, what does cutting off the supply but leaving the demand in place do? The crisis as we know it today was inevitable in some form. It's created by policy, which is not set by scientists, and in fact when hydrocodone/APAP was rescheduled for Schedule II a specific reply to patient access concerns was "we don't take that into account", according to the DEA. Thanks for the candor, sadly we've gotten very little of it in the years since.
But of course, even on the black market, people overdose in a manner that is to a degree predictable. Long term users with steady supplies - say, everyone who's on a benzodiazepine long term - aren't overdosing regularly (yes, the LD50 of benzodiazepines generally makes overdosing on it alone very difficult if not impossible, but kicking it cold turkey does actually cause deaths from seizures and when mixed with another depressant like alcohol it becomes almost trivial to overdose on it, arguably making it at least in theory a more dangerous drug if one takes the view of the DEA). They are mostly able to obtain legitimate, low cost, and frequently entirely legal versions of, well, name the variety. From Triazolam (3 hour half life) to Midazolam (water soluble) to Etizolam (scheduled into schedule I based on 4 cases in Norway where when mixed with another depressant patients ended up in the ER. All survived and were discharged almost immediately. The reason why the DEA laundered cases in Norway through the FDA to justify at first an emergency scheduling and then turned it into a permanent one? Because they couldn't find any cases that demonstrated the purported danger in the US or Canada.) Overdoses happen when someone takes too much of a substance, but "too much" is difficult to determine when you don't have a reliable supplier in terms of quality and adulteration, but also, because tolerance gets built up so that long term users can use prodigious amounts and be just fine. But how do we make sure that nobody knows where their tolerance is at? Non-medically assisted, pseudoscientific "sobriety help" like AA or its variants that are ordered by the court, and of course, probation, testing, in-patient medicaid fraud mills, you name it. Since none of these actually do anything except use homebrewed aversion therapy or even less efficient, shame, to achieve what is basically not even a real goal but is tied to the criminal justice system, congrats, you have the perfect storm of demand not knowing how much to actually demand for. Fentanyl being the adulterant made this last inevitable easier, but it only hastened what had been happening for quite some time. When heroin supply on streets increased, fentanyl related deaths began decreasing. Wonder why? It's correlative, but observational studies take a lot more data and a lot longer time periods, although it would certainly follow previously observed patterns.
This may be interesting as a scientific venture, but treating it as anything but that is foolhardy and misguided. We know how to control pain. We know how to reduce the harmful externalities that form part of the definition of substance use disorder since we, as in society and lawmakers elected by us, are responsible for those harmful externalities in the first place. Fentanyl is not the problem. Making sure that there's no safe way to reduce potential harm associated with, ultimately, a personal choice favored by some but certainly not all as recreation, killed the hundreds of thousands since Lou Reed sang Heroin and put it onto the Velvet Underground and Nico. Why are we still acting brand new?