It is currently Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:03 pm



All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Our Sponsors





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:23 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:48 pm
Posts: 415
Location: Ohio
Med News Today

Please post your thoughts.

_________________
"It is never too late to be what you might have been!" - George Eliot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:47 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:47 am
Posts: 1496
I can't get the link to work.

_________________
You can't stop the waves, but you can learn to surf.

-Jack Kornfield


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:22 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 516
I fixed the link.. Interesting

_________________
Image
mmmm donuts!


Top
 Profile  
 
Our Sponsors
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:34 am 
Offline
Average Poster
Average Poster

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:08 am
Posts: 4
Thanks for sharing!!!

Drug Rehab


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:45 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:43 am
Posts: 893
Location: AZ
I realize this is from 2009 but I just came across it. To me this makes little to no sense as a treatment for addiction. You are not treating their heroin addiction, you are still giving them heroin. Now if they wanted to state that it causes harm reduction then that's a different thing. If this is an acceptable treatment for heroin addicts then why not give cocaine addicts legal cocaine or meth addicts legal meth? In my opinion this is one of the craziest things I have heard, especially when there are meds like sub and methadone available. This is just taking away the worry to find their next fix and essentially making heroin use easier.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:25 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:43 am
Posts: 1019
Location: Buffalo New York
I don’t even have to read the news story after reading Breezys post. I think I posted not too long ago about this or something similar or maybe it was in group. About how giving heroin addicts a clean place to use, clean supplies and ultimately clean drugs with no more dangerous cuts. Will reduce the crime rate but more so diseases from spreading from IV users or something along these lines right?

I have one word for this enabling 100%

_________________
Yes these drugs saved our life's. But does that mean we have to give the rest of our life to these drugs?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:30 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:08 am
Posts: 1503
If it's an option, it should be reserved only for the sickest of addicts. And it'd be more to protect society and our property. I agree clinical heroin doesn't cure opioid addiction. That's ridiculous! Neither is methadone. Or Suboxone.

These people are going to a clinic, taking a medication as prescribed that allows them to go through their day without resorting to addictive behaviours, manipulation, theft. As long as they had their 2-3 clinical injections a day, they could function quite well, hold a job. Just like us folk who are dependent on Suboxone, they're not addicted anymore. They're dependent.

From what I've heard, doctors in the UK realised that there are certain people who don't respond well to pharmacotherapy / drug replacement. For some, buprenorphine just didn't hold them. These people were referred to methadone, and many found it much better, and stabilised. BUT again, a portion of the people didn't adhere to methadone, and didn't find it "enough" to hold their addiction. These people were clearly the "sicker" addicts. Those with more severe mental health / housing / criminal issues. The kinds of people that see "free give-away" neon signs over all our front doors. So the doctors got creative, and trialled injectable methadone. And interestingly enough, a wider portion of these people begun to adhere to treatment. They no longer did crime, got treatment for their mental health issues, faced their legal issues. But again... some people didn't adhere.

I guess you see what I'm getting at.

Clinical heroin doesn't make the drug any more accessible. The only people allowed on those programs are already heavily addicted, and have failed at Suboxone / methadone many times. They'd already have long histories with the local clinics & services.

IMO heroin is a crap drug for maintenance. It's half life is just too short. People would have to go to the clinic 2-3 times a day. If they want to get the real sick addicts onto pharmacotherapy, why not study IV buprenorphine?

These "clinical heroin" studies smell a bit political at times. There are better options. That being said, the data has proven it works.

When I lived in Sydney, they had a safe injecting facility in Kings Cross. It was an anonymous little grey building and most people in the street didn't know what it was as they walked past it. Since they set up that place, Kings Cross had gone from a seedy run down unsafe place full of hookers and criminals. Now it's full of tourists and clubbers, because there's no longer people shooting up in the gutter. I have my qualms with the place though, cos I know they fudge their reports. "We've had zero overdoses, ever!" they tell the papers. They don't tell the papers they deny the real high risk group from entry - those who've had alcohol & benzos beforehand. Someone I knew died because they got turned away from the "safe injecting room" because they were drunk.

http://www.sydneymsic.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:37 am 
I don't know how anyone could be against this.

Legal diamorphine programs in Switzerland have been very successful. You know what the addicts do when they don't have to worry all day long about getting their fixes? They go out and get jobs and places to live.

The War on Drugs is a disgrace. Harm reduction is more important than "treating addiction," IMO. Clean needles and dope that isn't cut with meat tenderizer saves more lives than the 12 Steps.

@Bboy: you think giving addicts safe injection sites is ENABLING?? yeah..it's enabling PEOPLE to stay disease-free. I am 100% pro this type of enabling. What do you care if someone else is enabled, anyway? Isn't that taking someone else's inventory? Why do you care if other people have access to the drugs they want? Considering it actually decreases crime, disease, and overdose among junkies, I don't see how this could possibly affect your program.

For once, I agree with tearjerker. Except I think dope could work for maintenance, 2x per day is satisfactory to stave off withdrawals. Honestly, I have a fast metabolism, and I would only be slightly sick around the 24 hour mark, if I recall..wouldn't wanna dose it only 1x per day though.

P.S. What makes bupe any different from dope besides it's legal status? Oh yeah, bupe withdrawals last longer.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:57 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:43 am
Posts: 893
Location: AZ
Differences between bup and heroin besides there legal status?

1. Bup will not get you high once stabilized
2. No more shooting up (yes there are a small # of idiots that abuse it)
3. Bup is not your doc
4. It is almost impossible to od on bup (yes, there have been very few cases when mixed with benzos)

I still view this as nothing more than enabling, if this was a mother doing this for her addict son I don't think many would hesitate to call her an enabler. Also what is stopping them from still using on the street? They just now have 3 fixes free a day. What employer would allow their employee to leave work 3 times a day to go shoot heroin and come back to work?

Clean needles, even a place hygenic to shoot up I get but giving them heroin as well to me just goes to far. What's the consequences to being a junkie now?


Top
 Profile  
 
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:09 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:43 am
Posts: 1019
Location: Buffalo New York
Ironic in response to your post,breezy pretty much hit all the main points i was going to say. But to add we need to be getting drug addicts clean not keeping them addicted to drugs for a lower crine rate and the spread of diseases. I mean im sorry but it makes me sick to my stomache to think anyone who has suffered from a real bad opiate addiction would support this and want people to continue living life like that. And no Dr or Clinic in their right mind, would supply the amount of drugs a dope addict wants in a day so they will still be using drugs on the street you all know you cant catch the dragon in this story and there are no happy endings. And im going to say it i dont think there is any addict out there that should be given up on like this its like treating humans as lab rats. toss them there drugs so the norm society doesnt have to deal with it nor think about.

_________________
Yes these drugs saved our life's. But does that mean we have to give the rest of our life to these drugs?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:12 pm 
You guys are forgetting one thing

People have the right to get high if they want to!!! Not everyone wants to stop using dope!!

So what is the problem with people being safer while they do it? Why does heroin need to equal dangerous drug dealers and dirty needles and robberies and shit? Why not let the government tax the shit and let people put in their bodies what they please?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:26 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:43 am
Posts: 893
Location: AZ
I agree that the government shouldn't be able to tell us what we can and can not put in our bodies. That is not what's being discussed here, if it were then I would say go for it.

This is the government supplying addicts with their heroin with tax payer money. A government has no business supplying addicts their drugs and in my opinion this only allows an addict to remain one without worry. Supplying and deregulating are two entirely different things.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:10 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:08 am
Posts: 1503
I agree it's been hijacked a lot by political interests & pinkos who latch onto the injustice of the drug war.

And you're right breezy about them still scoring off the street. But that applies to us as well. If I wanted to, I wouldn't find it hard at all to do that and still use my Suboxone.

Heroin is no different to methadone & Suboxone in that... once stabilised / tolerant, it doesn't get a person high. All opioids are the same, whether agonists or partial agonists. That's why a heroin addict's dose always goes up to keep getting that feeling. Similar things happen with methadone... and some people do it with Suboxone too, with people taking more to get high.

If you could meet some of the people I met in my using. These are people who live by the needle, in and out of jail for decades. With zero intention of ever getting clean. The suggestion just doesn't compute. The day they get out of jail they're back at it. Mostly they'd do burglaries / armed robberies or deal smack and use until they'd get locked up again, some violent crime. The amount of stolen property that gets funneled through these people is huge. Nearly every burglary / armed robbery in my city is heroin related. Methadone & Suboxone just aren't enough for them.

And imagine if all that could go away?

It's WAY more expensive to incarcerate these people than it is to give them heroin. Heroin is really quite cheap to produce.

Even better... imagine if the majority of assholes, non-addicts who peddle & profit off this stuff indiscriminately were put out of business overnight. That thought puts a big smile on my face, personally.

I dunno. I don't understand why such a thing couldn't just be trialled to see if it actually works, and takes some strain off the legal / corrections systems.


Top
 Profile  
 
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:27 am 
*snaps* TJ great post.

Honestly, I always wonder if I could get my opiates scripted, would I have decided to quit? My main reasons for quitting had more to do with funds and a fear that the life I was living could get me stuck in a body bag. I was copping alone at bizarre hours in the nastiest parts of Miami. My head spins when I think about some of the things that happened..

To me; it's similar to prostitution. It isn't ideal, but at least if it's legalized, we know the pimp (which would become the govt) isn't beating on the girl and she's being paid fairly and even at a reduced risk of violence and STDs compared to on the street. Using dope isn't ideal, but this eliminates the violence, illegality, OD risk (if treatment is adhered to. Also because the user knows the quality every time), crazy things in the dope, bloodbourne diseases.

Should it be taxpayer $$? Not more or less than methadone and Sun should be paid for by Medicaid or something. It's inconsequential to everyone but the patient whether or not the tax dollars go to buprenorphine or diamorphine. I'm not sure I agree with tax dollars going toward ORT, but I am pro socialized medicine..I just mean I think there are a lot of health cases that taxpayer $ should cover before ORT..but we should all be fortunate enough as taxpayers to receive health care, IMO. I'd rather pay higher taxes and have the hospital more worried about treating me than my insurance info.

In summary..this is no different than govt funded sub/done clinics or something. Except it has been shown to work better


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:05 pm 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:22 pm
Posts: 101
I agree 100% with Ironic. I defy anyone to show me where in the US Constitution it gives the government the right to control what we put in our bodies. All drugs were legal until 1913, when financial motives and prejudice initiated the first drug prohibition laws. Sears Robuck sold injection kits in their catalogs.

This used to be a free country. Not so much anymore.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:36 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:43 am
Posts: 893
Location: AZ
As I posted above I completely agree about the legality issue, as "free" American's we should be able to do anything we choose with our own bodies. I just don't agree that the government should be supplying it's drug addicted citizens with their doc. As Tear said above, there are people that have no interest in stopping and supplying them with 3 free shots a day isn't going to change that. They will likely continue to use on top of it and now just have a guarantee of no withdrawl. I have yet to meet an addict that can control their intake of their doc, if they could they wouldn't be addicts.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Our Sponsors
Suboxone Forum latest topics RSS feed Subscribe to the entire forum
 

 

 
Fond Du Lac Psychiatry
Dr. Jeffrey Junig, M.D., Ph.D.

  • Board Certified Psychiatrist
  • Asst Clinical Professor, Medical College of Wisconsin

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group