Slashdot Mirror
Most Teens Who Abuse Opioids First Got Them From a Doctor (livescience.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Live Science: Most American teenagers who abuse opioid drugs first received the drugs from a doctor, a new study finds. Researchers looked at trends in the use of prescription opioids among U.S. adolescents from 1976 to 2015. They found a strong correlation between teens' taking the drugs for medical reasons and then later taking them for "non-medical" reasons, or in other words, abusing them, according to the study published today (March 20) in the journal Pediatrics. In 2015, the the most recent year of the study, 8 percent of adolescents reported abusing prescription opioids, and the majority of them had been prescribed opioids previously, the researchers found. The U.S. consumes about 80 percent of the world's prescription opioid supply. There has been consistent growth in the number of prescriptions written for opioids in the U.S., rising from 76 million prescriptions in 1991 to 207 million in 2013, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. However, the new study revealed that among teens, both medical and non-medical use of opioid medications has declined in recent years, starting in 2013. The decline may be due to careful prescribing practices, Sean McCabe, a research professor at the University of Michigan, said. There are several medical procedures that teens may undergo for which opioids are recommended for pain management. But doctors can be careful about the amount of these drugs they prescribe, and limit refills. Parents can make sure that any leftover pills are discarded. Another report was published today in the journal Pediatrics that analyzed data from the National Poison Data System. It found that of all 188,468 prescription opioid exposures reported for youth under 20 years old between 2000 and 2015, nearly all the exposures occurred at a home and were most common among children under 5, accounting for six of every 10 cases. According to NPR, those children were able to get their hands on the medication because it was improperly stored or was in a purse.
Our Attorney-General has told us that it was all because of pot!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
No, it's actually a medical condition. Opiate withdrawal is not just a lack of feeling good. Addiction can happen even when the drugs are taken exactly as prescribed. Sometimes even that significant drawback is justified by the amount of pain the person would otherwise be in.
If the DEA would quit practicing medicine without a license it would be a solvable medical problem rather than a legal issue.
In high school and college, every now and then someone would have surgery or have a bad injury, and they'd come back from the doctor bragging about the drugs they got. It was like a free pass to get high, and no one was ever concerned that it might lead to addiction because the drugs were prescribed by a doctor, so of course they aren't dangerous. It seems due to a failure to educate young people properly and a success on the drug companies' part to make their product seem like magic.
No, it's actually a medical condition. Opiate withdrawal is not just a lack of feeling good. Addiction can happen even when the drugs are taken exactly as prescribed. Sometimes even that significant drawback is justified by the amount of pain the person would otherwise be in.
I was prescribed opiates for pain after I had spinal surgery on c4-c6 in my neck. I was on them for months. The haze they produced meant I didn't really care about anything at all. This was not normal. It began to dawn on me that I was dependent on these drugs. I posted about the the withdrawal symptoms of opiates while I was going through the withdrawals.
I discussed this again with the doctor who confirmed I had been on them long enough to develop an opiate dependence. I can tell you what it feels like to be a junkie despite the fact that I have a completely different set of behaviors to draw on and nothing to reinforce an addictive behavior like that.
You feel confident, nothing really bothers you, but it's a false result of being detached from your pain and all of your emotions, which mean you come off as a stable balanced person. However you have very little empathy and you are truly apathetic. I found it to be an ugly sensation. Disconnected, I didn't care about anything.
When you think about it to be disconnected from pain also means to be disconnected from joy, from people. Next time you are in pain ask yourself how real it is. No sane person has that discussion with someone in pain. Opiates just make the pain and everything else, not real. So I would argue now that pain and joy are more real than materialistic concerns. That the connections in life, pain and joy are perhaps the only real things we have. My experiences with opiates were the more you take the less real you are.
If the DEA would quit practicing medicine without a license it would be a solvable medical problem rather than a legal issue.
True that.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
No, it's actually a medical condition. Opiate withdrawal is not just a lack of feeling good. Addiction can happen even when the drugs are taken exactly as prescribed. Sometimes even that significant drawback is justified by the amount of pain the person would otherwise be in.
My brother passed away a couple years ago. He used a lot of pain medicine. I think it contributed. If nothing else it masked the pancreatitis for at least some time. He was on just far too much stuff. It was insane and all of it was legally prescribed. I flushed it all after he passed. It took several flushes.
From everything I've read, he might have lived a far longer life had he smoked pot instead for the pain. Again, not a perfect solution, and you really want to get off them if you possibly can, but the opiods seem a lousy long term solution.
If marijuana really is a better choice and less hazardous than many opiods and such, then we really should get rid of the ridiculous classification. Again, I'm certainly not espousing smoking it recreationally, but if it is the choice between one that will kill you and pot, then pot seems less bad.
This happened to my buddy. He got in a car accident or something. This was shortly after he graduated from high school, and his father had just died. He ended up on pain meds, ended up getting addicted after a couple of months. When his prescription ran out, he called up our mutual friend who was in to drugs and got more. This went on for about 18 months before he decided he wanted to become a veterinarian, somehow his friends and family weaned him off pills, and after two years was accepted in to vet school. Through no small miracle he made it through grad school and graduated, he's now pretty successful.
I grew up in a pretty rich suburb, we had time to help him and his family through the addiction, and he had a strong goal to strive for. Many people don't have the opportunities or strong safety net that he did.
moox. for a new generation.
Addiction isn't a disease. It is a choice.
Stop being an idiot. Break your back in two places, go on tramadol for 5+ years along with a muscle relaxant and then come back and tell me how you live your life. Sometimes, addiction isn't just to "feel good" it's also due to circumstances beyond your control. I couldn't live the life I do without pain killers, I'm physically addicted to it. My choices are: No pain killers and live a life of incredible pain, if I didn't decide just to end it all. Or pain killers and being addicted to them until I drop dead.
If you're popping pills to "feel good" you've got a problem. The only difference between a junkie looking for the next hit and me grabbing my next pill is the life we lead.
Om, nomnomnom...
It sounds like your understanding of brain function is woefully inadequate. Regardless of what you think you think, drugs that mimic brain chemicals (they fit the same molecular key and trigger cerebral physiological functions) will alter your behaviour, completely and totally, from simply dying on the spot as a result of the wrong combination or an excess to altered social interaction to fight or flight to sleeping to waking to everything that goes on in your head. Things that cause susceptibility an addiction of what ever chemical type are considered a disease just like any other genetic condition that is considered a disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Feels good should not even be considered a proper psychological term because it is far more accurate as feels betters or feels worse because it is a relative brain chemical state and some people are simply incapable of certain socially accepted feelings because they can not achieve the brain chemical states naturally ie psychopaths have no real concept of happiness due to genetic disability and are at risk from oxycodone addiction because they lack the ability to produce those chemicals at appropriate levels at appropriate times.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
It's good that you added that to our water supply instead of taking it back to a pharmacy or a police station for proper disposal.
Physical hunger pain stops, but psychological desire to eat doesn't. I once fasted for 5 days to see if I could, and after the 2nd day or so hunger pain stopped, but I dreamed about eating. By the fourth day, I was literally drawing out pictures of the food I wanted to eat.
Both of course.
How can you defend yourself if you don't know what is attacking you?
Proper defense necessitates "pointing the finger of blame"...aka identifying the cause of the problem.
Fortunately we already know: Pharmaceutical companies make drugs abusable on purpose and incentivize doctors to prescribe them.
Democrats have been pushing for more pharma regulations for years, Repubicans opposing them.
Republicans have fought over and over to make it easy for these abusable drugs to get FDA approval.
Oxyconin is a perfect example, read up:
"In 2006, Giuliani acted as the lead counsel and lead spokesmen for Bracewell & Giuliani client Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin, during their negotiations with federal prosecutors over charges that the pharmaceutical company misled the public about OxyContin's addictive properties. The agreement reached resulted in Purdue Pharma and some of its executives paying $634.5 million in fines"
source
Thank you Dave Raggett
Alcoholic here going AC for this topic.
The only context the word "disease" appears in any of the articles is "Centers for Disease Control".
Personally I don't care if you call it a disease or not. I consider it a disorder but the AMA has considered it a disease since the 1950s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The modern disease theory of alcoholism states that problem drinking is sometimes caused by a disease of the brain, characterized by altered brain structure and function.
The American Medical Association (AMA) declared that alcoholism was an illness in 1956. In 1991, the AMA further endorsed the dual classification of alcoholism by the International Classification of Diseases under both psychiatric and medical sections.
(emphasis mine)
And although you can find sources which argue that addiction is not a disease, you might want to consider this link too:
Why Is Alcoholism Classified As A Mental Illness?
I don't think it's a choice to be an addict, however I do make a choice whether or not to drink every day and on days that I choose not to drink I'm making the choice to be sober multiple times throughout the day.
I'm on my first drink of the day. I'm not doing it to "feel good". I'm doing it to stop shaking. I'm doing it just to feel "normal".
I can't speak for other addicts, but I'm sure I would feel a lot better overall if I did manage to quit completely. I might start feeling "good" after at least 5 drinks - Incidentally 5 drinks is considered binge drinking by many (if not most) medical professionals and is generally taken as a sign of possibly having a problem. Most drinkers I know scoff at the idea that having 5 drinks in one sitting is a problem. I know I won't feel good when I wake up whenever I wake up tomorrow.
And I'm generally depressed, but sometimes I get really depressed and being drunk and really depressed at the same time is definitely not feeling "good". In fact just knowing I get that way sometimes is a big reason I do not own a gun.
I've quit many times and withdrawal really sucks the first few days. That is quite the opposite of "feeling good".
Some recovery groups reject the disease model of addiction because like the First Step in 12 step programs it means we are "powerless" although having a disease doesn't necessarily mean you're powerless, but some people seem to use it as an excuse.
I consider myself fortunate to never have become addicted to opiates. I've never needed them long term, but I really like them. (benzos too). The benzos can really help alcohol withdrawal, but it's my understanding that a full-blown benzo addiction is no picnic either. I've never asked for them, but I've been prescribed them twice for alcohol withdrawals - both times just a week-long supply.
Usually I just go it alone at home. That is not actually recommended as alcohol withdrawal can kill you and there is something called "Kindling". (Don't try this at home.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Kindling due to substance withdrawal refers to the neurological condition which results from repeated withdrawal episodes from sedative–hypnotic drugs such as alcohol or benzodiazepines. Each withdrawal leads to more severe withdrawal symptoms than the previous withdrawal syndrome. Individuals who have had more withdrawal episodes are at an increased risk of very severe withdrawal symptoms, up to and including seizures, and death.
So why do I keep drinking if it's so bad? I can't fully explain it but I have some ideas that I'm not even going to delve into here.
I really don't think I'm "narcissistic" either. I generally have a low self-esteem
I had spinal surgery as well to repair a slipped disc in my lower back (lumbar area? Not sure on the proper English terminology) and was put on Tramadol for the pain after the surgery.
Tramadol was great. It really was. Not only did it take the pain whenever it flared up, it also helped me to think more clearly. Not just my own opinion of it, mind you, but what my family told me. I was easier to be around, pure and simple. And it didn't cloud my mind - in fact I went and took my driver's license while 'high' on painkillers.
The thing is, the pain in my back never went away, so I kept taking Tramadol. Until one Easter I miscalculated how many pills I had left, and with the doctor's office closed I ran out.
It was horrible. Just HORRIBLE. My entire lower back felt like someone was holding a branding iron against it, I was wet with sweat and could barely move for four days. But then it just ... stopped. It went from burning to throbbing to sore to 'acting up' over approximately 24 hours. I could get up from my bed again, could walk around. It was only then, after it was all over, that I realized I'd gone through withdrawal symptoms and the back pain had, for who knows how long, been the body begging for the next fix of painkillers.
Opioid addiction is not something you just notice and realize you have, because the original symptoms STAY. You take the pills because of the pain, so as long as the pain keeps coming back you keep taking the pills. It's not about choice as the GP would like to claim.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Are you absolutely certain you need the pills still, or are you like me addicted with your body 'faking' pain to get you to take more pills?
Absolutely, I broke my C2 and C3. If people have a well of luck, I probably used up all mine since 95% of people don't walk out of those without more severe problems(partial/complete paralysis, lack of the ability to breath, and so on), not counting the multiple years of physio. One of the guys in the physio class I was in, was in a similar spot and broke his C1 and C2 in a car accident. He'd been there 3 years, last I heard he'd gotten to the point where he could run(not well) again but he also takes pain medication. A 100mg/hydromorphone long acting, and then oxycontin for breakthrough pain. Which is pretty good for a guy they considered paralyzed for life with under a 4% of ever walking again.
I've stopped taking them before on multiple occasions at the recommendation of my neurologist. I've got two options with that, keep taking pain pills or they can do a spinal fusion and with luck? It won't paralyze me. Two neurologists and 3 neurologists specialized in spine surgery gave a 60-80% chance of partial mobility or full loss because of the splintering. Techniques get better, but as it stands? Won't risk it right now.
Tramadol isn't fun stuff, though it's nowhere near as bad as some others like hydromorphone(dilaudid). My mom is on that now because of severe nerve damage in her feet and legs, my grandmother and grandfather before for cancer.
Om, nomnomnom...
The approach people take on addiction has a surprising connection to their political stance. For decades, the right has been approaching addiction as a mental/moral weakness: that those succumbing to addiction are not sick or diseased but mentally weak and need to be punished so that they will correct their behavior. This is the driving force behind the 'war on drugs':
Those on the left have taken more of a medical approach and insisted that addiction is a neurochemical issue which needs to be treated by doctors.
When we actually look at research and data it turns out the truth is slightly more complex than either of these models. Turns out, it's not just about character or chemicals, but the combination of addictive chemicals and the environment the individual is in. Around 20 % of US troops in Vietnam were addicted to heroin. However, upon returning to the States, only about 5 % of them continued using. This by itself has given researchers some insight into key components of addiction and the affect environment has on it. Quoting the link above:
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
What? If you had actually read my post rthrough you'd have noticed I did no such thing but specifically pointed out that both the left and the right have been by and large wrong in their approach.
The right is wrong in saying it's all about the individual. But the left is also wrong in saying it's nothing but chemicals and can be handled with medicine alone. That was the whole point of my post, and instead of bothering to read it you stopped after 4 sentences just to rave at me for essentially agreeing with you,
Ironically enough, this is just what you yourself did by not reading through the argument that was presented.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
As a civil engineer (albeit not a wastewater one), I was thinking about this issue too. On one hand, flushing unused medicine does add to the downstream contamination. But on the other hand, even if it were used it (or its metabolites, which might be equally bad) would still end up being flushed anyway. And even then, medicines aren't the only (or even the largest) problem: there's also pesticides, detergents, etc. to deal with. this study (which, it should be noted, measured streams as opposed to treatment plant outflow, which means some pollution sources were untreated runoff) has this to say:
IMO, the only complete solution would be to change the treatment criteria on its head: currently, we only even consider treating for substances that are proven to be harmful (i.e. default-allow with a blacklist, to use a computer firewall analogy). Instead, we should switch to a default-deny policy and use better wastewater treatment techniques to remove all non-H2O chemicals from the water. The trouble is, it would be a lot more expensive.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz