Scare tactics aren’t the answer for overdose crisis,

[Ka-El]

2 of the 5 or 6 people ive known who got mercy dope out of doctors. Say 90 pills a month or so.
Are dead

And from that little bit of anecdotal evidence you’re going to dispute the science on the issue?

You must be a Republican.

[Ka-El]

Please understand. Im not talking about studies.

Yes. I figured that.

(sorry about your friends)

[Jflem1983]

www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/1 ... st-cancer/

[Queen K]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions created a new “senior position” at the Department of Justice Wednesday, director of opioid enforcement and prevention efforts, to help combat what is now far and away the deadliest drug epidemic in American history.
“With one American dying of a drug overdose every nine minutes, we need all hands on deck,” Attorney General Sessions said of the decision. He continued:

That’s why President Trump has made ending the drug epidemic a top priority. This Department of Justice embraces that goal, and we have taken a number of steps this year to do our part. We have indicted hundreds of defendants for drug related healthcare fraud, sent more prosecutors to where they’re needed most, and we’ve taken on the gangs and cartels. Today we take the next step: creating a senior level official position at the Department to focus entirely on this issue. This Department will continue to follow the President’s lead, and I am confident that we can and will turn the tide of the drug crisis.

The decision was announced the same day Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released new numbers putting total estimated drug overdose deaths at 63,600 for 2016. This figure is more than triple that of 1999 and up sharply even from the beginning of this record-setting decade. The number outpaces earlier 2016 estimates of 59,000 and outstrips deaths from influenza and pneumonia.

The biggest driver of this tragedy is the rising of opioids, both traditional semi-synthetic or natural opioids like heroin and oxycodone and the newer fully-synthetic and extraordinarily potent opioids like fentanyl and carfentanyl that drug dealers have rapidly pushed into the supply stream. The latter category of deaths has increased especially rapidly, doubling just from 2015 to 2016, according to the CDC.

[hobbyguy]

No, supplying known addicted persons will NOT create more addiction. Sure will put a dent in the #%##$& dealer's pocket though

No it wont. Read my above post. You cant put out a fire by throwing wood on it. 2 pills a day is not gonna get anyone anything but more addicted. Then they will be back at the dealer.

Actually, it is two pills 3 times a day.

I do agree that there is no "one size fits all" approach. However, this initiative will give a window into the efficacy of such tactics. When the pilot program is completed, we will have real data to work from. Right now it is partly conjecture but appears to be a logical step in accomplishing the goals of reducing deaths, strains on the medical services etc., and reducing crime.

It is possible that some of the legal doses will indeed find their way onto the black market. However, if that happens (we don't know) it will possibly save further lives. An unintended consequence, if some of the legal doses get into the black market (assuming the program is successful and scaled up) could be to reduce the price of contraband fentanyl containing doses - and spin offs from that - but we just don't know at this time.

It is also possible that some addicts will find the legal doses "just not strong enough", and the reduction in deaths winds up being lower than hoped. We just don't know yet.

That said, decisions can only be made based on the information we have at hand. We have less information than would be ideal, but the urgency dictates that we should try such programs even though we don't have complete information - and then re-evaluate.

I understand the emotions involved, but perhaps not quite as deeply.

I had a very good worker get addicted to meth. Company/union policy was that the company would pay for a single rehab attempt. It failed. I just couldn't cast the young fellow "on the trash heap" when I discovered that he wanted another chance, and at the cost of some contention and "political capital", I got him a second rehab paid for by the company. Unfortunately it also failed. What a tragic waste. Would I repeat that exercise? You bet. Trying is far better than not trying, even if the odds of success are low.

I must admit that that experience changed some of my perceptions about addicts and choice. To see a bright and hardworking young fellow fall into that trap, and then fail to get out, even though he wanted to, was an eye opener. We tend to forget that many addicted folks were once upstanding members of our society who through a convergence of factors get into a hole.

Casting them aside as "trash" just doesn't seem right, I feel we have to try all available tactics to try to help them out of that hole. Some, perhaps many, won't make it. But none will if we don't try.

[Jflem1983]

I dont suggest casting anyone aside. Just need to reduce the drug supply not increase it . I feel that is the only answer. Ppl seem to really enjoy drugs

[the truth]

[qute="Jflem1983"]

No, supplying known addicted persons will NOT create more addiction. Sure will put a dent in the #%##$& dealer's pocket though

No it wont. Read my above post. You cant put out a fire by throwing wood on it. 2 pills a day is not gonna get anyone anything but more addicted. Then they will be back at the dealer.

Actually, it is two pills 3 times a day.

I do agree that there is no "one size fits all" approach. However, this initiative will give a window into the efficacy of such tactics. When the pilot program is completed, we will have real data to work from. Right now it is partly conjecture but appears to be a logical step in accomplishing the goals of reducing deaths, strains on the medical services etc., and reducing crime.

It is possible that some of the legal doses will indeed find their way onto the black market. However, if that happens (we don't know) it will possibly save further lives. An unintended consequence, if some of the legal doses get into the black market (assuming the program is successful and scaled up) could be to reduce the price of contraband fentanyl containing doses - and spin offs from that - but we just don't know at this time.

It is also possible that some addicts will find the legal doses "just not strong enough", and the reduction in deaths winds up being lower than hoped. We just don't know yet.

That said, decisions can only be made based on the information we have at hand. We have less information than would be ideal, but the urgency dictates that we should try such programs even though we don't have complete information - and then re-evaluate.

I understand the emotions involved, but perhaps not quite as deeply.

I had a very good worker get addicted to meth. Company/union policy was that the company would pay for a single rehab attempt. It failed. I just couldn't cast the young fellow "on the trash heap" when I discovered that he wanted another chance, and at the cost of some contention and "political capital", I got him a second rehab paid for by the company. Unfortunately it also failed. What a tragic waste. Would I repeat that exercise? You bet. Trying is far better than not trying, even if the odds of success are low.

I must admit that that experience changed some of my perceptions about addicts and choice. To see a bright and hardworking young fellow fall into that trap, and then fail to get out, even though he wanted to, was an eye opener. We tend to forget that many addicted folks were once upstanding members of our society who through a convergence of factors get into a hole.

Casting them aside as "trash" just doesn't seem right, I feel we have to try all available tactics to try to help them out of that hole. Some, perhaps many, won't make it. But none will if we don't try.[/quote]

any chance you can share why this young bright hardworking guy started drugs to being with ?

[Queen K]

Truthy, you really wrote the above ^^^? That's the longest, best post I've ever read from you.

[hobbyguy]

The case I mentioned is fraught with a convergence of factors. As a manager I was not privy to them all. What I do know is that there was no history of substance in the 5 years of employment prior to the young fellow "going off the rails".

My understanding through "scuttlebutt" was that his drug use started after his marriage fell apart, and his wife left with their young child. Apparently he started frequenting drinking establishments after that break up, and fell in with a bad crowd.

That's pretty sketchy, but that's all I had about the history of the situation. As a manager, you have to be careful not to pry and infringe on the employee's right to privacy.

One of the possible, pure conjecture, convergences is this one: https://www.verywell.com/how-quickly-can-i-become-addicted-to-a-drug-63030

"Varying factors can include the biological make-up of your body, how sensitive you may be to a certain drug and the chemical make-up of the drug itself.

Some people might be able to use a drug many times without suffering any ill effects, while another person might take the same drug and have a bad reaction or even overdose the first time they use it.

Likewise, you can become addicted to a drug the first time you try it, while another person might never form an addiction at all."

I just don't know, but I was aware at the time that for some people a first time use can be a powerful hook into a world of hurt. The circumstances, given the fellow's excellent work history and sudden decline certainly made me wonder.

[Jflem1983]

The case I mentioned is fraught with a convergence of factors. As a manager I was not privy to them all. What I do know is that there was no history of substance in the 5 years of employment prior to the young fellow "going off the rails".

My understanding through "scuttlebutt" was that his drug use started after his marriage fell apart, and his wife left with their young child. Apparently he started frequenting drinking establishments after that break up, and fell in with a bad crowd.

That's pretty sketchy, but that's all I had about the history of the situation. As a manager, you have to be careful not to pry and infringe on the employee's right to privacy.

One of the possible, pure conjecture, convergences is this one: https://www.verywell.com/how-quickly-can-i-become-addicted-to-a-drug-63030

"Varying factors can include the biological make-up of your body, how sensitive you may be to a certain drug and the chemical make-up of the drug itself.

Some people might be able to use a drug many times without suffering any ill effects, while another person might take the same drug and have a bad reaction or even overdose the first time they use it.

Likewise, you can become addicted to a drug the first time you try it, while another person might never form an addiction at all."

I just don't know, but I was aware at the time that for some people a first time use can be a powerful hook into a world of hurt. The circumstances, given the fellow's excellent work history and sudden decline certainly made me wonder.

Meth ought to make a good employee. They feed it to school kids. They just call it addorral.

[Jflem1983]

There is the chemical make up of both meth and adoral .

[maryjane48]

Robot to help in opiod crisis

http://cbsloc.al/2BWFyZC

[alanjh595]

We have that here now. It has been in my local pharmacy for over a year already.

[LordEd]

There is the chemical make up of both meth and adoral .

And table salt is made from sodium and chlorine. Taking either of those substances would kill you.

Different is different.

[Jflem1983]

There is the chemical make up of both meth and adoral .

And table salt is made from sodium and chlorine. Taking either of those substances would kill you.

Different is different.

Salt kills.