Thread: America’s Addiction to Opioids: Heroin and Prescription Drug Abuse

America’s Addiction to Opioids: Heroin and Prescription Drug Abuse

May 14, 2014
presented by Nora D. Volkow, M.D.

Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control

Good Morning, Madam Chair and members of the Caucus. Thank you for inviting the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to participate in this important hearing and contribute what I believe will be useful insights into the growing and intertwined problems of prescription pain relievers and heroin abuse in this country.

Background

The abuse of and addiction to opioids such as heroin, morphine, and prescription pain relievers is a serious global problem that affects the health, social, and economic welfare of all societies. It is estimated that between 26.4 million and 36 million people abuse opioids worldwide,[1] with an estimated 2.1 million people in the United States suffering from substance use disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers in 2012 and an estimated 467,000 addicted to heroin.[2] The consequences of this abuse have been devastating and are on the rise. For example, the number of unintentional overdose deaths from prescription pain relievers has soared in the United States, more than quadrupling since 1999. There is also growing evidence to suggest a relationship between increased non-medical use of opioid analgesics and heroin abuse in the United States.[3]

To address the complex problem of prescription opioid and heroin abuse in this country, we must recognize and consider the special character of this phenomenon, for we are asked not only to confront the negative and growing impact of opioid abuse on health and mortality, but also to preserve the fundamental role played by prescription opioid pain relievers in healing and reducing human suffering. That is, scientific insight must strike the right balance between providing maximum relief from suffering while minimizing associated risks and adverse effects.

Continued in link.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida...ion-drug-abuse

Apparently these numbers are rising dramatically which made the heroin issue one of Trump's major campaign issues because it was mentioned to him all the time during his campaigning in New Hampshire early in the campaign and then was brought up in other states as well. The heroin usage stems from the opoid addiction that starts with medical prescriptions.

I think that it is a serious obstacle to solutions to misunderstand the source of the problem. It is not "abuse" that is the source of the problem, it is the use of these drugs as recreational drugs. These people who become addicted are using the drugs as recreational drugs, just like tobacco, alcohol and marijuana are recreational drugs.

The history of heroin epidemics starts with opium dens. Opium dens were places of business where people could use Opium as a leisurely activity. They was easily identifiable as social hazards because criminal activity, like prostitution, were commonly associated. Opium dens themselves as well opium use has not always been universally criminalized.

The synthetic opioids like Oxycontin are the result of looking for alternatives to morphine as a prescription pain killer. People become addicted to these not because of the pain they are supposed to control, but rather because people suffering from medical conditions are just as like to enjoy recreational use of the same drugs as much as anyone. Similar to the notion that "medical" marijuana just incidentally crosses paths with those suffering from medical conditions. Pot smokers get sick too and are just as happy to have an excuse to get high.

Does it seem like it would be so hard to keep tabs on the amount of oxycontin, and other such drugs?

How do they make it to the streets?

Oxycontin is made by pharmaceutical companies, is it not? Wouldn't you think they have some responsibility?

Of course, I've read that these are being stolen from VA hospitals.

None of it should be "criminalized." It should all be legalized and regulated for quantity and quality with education, taxation and rehabilitation for those who want or need it.

A lot of people use these hard drugs before they realize the side effects and addictive consequences. And it's true that a lot of it starts with medical prescriptions, especially in the hospital where they push "pain management." People are given morphine when all they probably need is a Tylenol or nothing at all. Nurses are the ones pushing these drugs. I've witnessed it. It's a national medical provider problem, but that's how they "move" the drugs for the pharmaceutical companies.

A lot of young people try them to be cool not realizing at all the future consequences. They're doing it for fun to begin with and it turns serious real fast before they know it, but after they're hooked.

It's a tragic situation all the way around. That's why I think it's far better to legalize, regulate, educate, tax under the FairTax and rehabilitate anyone who wants or needs rehab, provide the rehab for free paid for with the taxes only drug users pay and stop worrying about it. We know the present illegal drug stance isn't working, helping or protecting anyone.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Does it seem like it would be so hard to keep tabs on the amount of oxycontin, and other such drugs?

How do they make it to the streets?

Oxycontin is made by pharmaceutical companies, is it not? Wouldn't you think they have some responsibility?

Of course, I've read that these are being stolen from VA hospitals.

It gets stolen everywhere from what I understand. People break into homes looking for the meds. High school students were skipping class, breaking into homes near the school, stealing pain medications from people who were prescribed them.

Originally Posted by Judy

None of it should be "criminalized." It should all be legalized and regulated for quantity and quality with education, taxation and rehabilitation for those who want or need it.

A lot of people use these hard drugs before they realize the side effects and addictive consequences. And it's true that a lot of it starts with medical prescriptions, especially in the hospital where they push "pain management." People are given morphine when all they probably need is a Tylenol or nothing at all. Nurses are the ones pushing these drugs. I've witnessed it. It's a national medical provider problem, but that's how they "move" the drugs for the pharmaceutical companies.

A lot of young people try them to be cool not realizing at all the future consequences. They're doing it for fun to begin with and it turns serious real fast before they know it, but after they're hooked.

It's a tragic situation all the way around. That's why I think it's far better to legalize, regulate, educate, tax under the FairTax and rehabilitate anyone who wants or needs rehab, provide the rehab for free paid for with the taxes only drug users pay and stop worrying about it. We know the present illegal drug stance isn't working, helping or protecting anyone.

Progressives Should Just Say No to Legalizing Drugs

There's a good reason drugs are illegal: They're dangerous.

[COLOR=#999999 !important]By Carrie Wofford, Contributor | Feb. 21, 2014, at 3:30 p.m.


Why would we wish drug's destructive effects on more Americans?
(PABLO PORCIUNCULA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
[/COLOR]

Legalizing drugs has long been a rallying cry on the left, and not without good reason. Progressives remain deeply concerned about the large numbers of low-income males – especially African-American males – who lose their prime years to prison for what seems like the harmless crime of possessing drugs. Legalizing drugs, therefore, seems a sensible way to decriminalize the activities of low-income young African-American men who might feel that the drug economy is the only economy available. Proponents also argue that legalizing drugs would reduce drug-related violence and protect drug users from tainted drugs (on the assumption that the government would sell cleaner, purer drugs).

With Colorado and Washington state leading the momentum toward legalizing marijuana (including news this week of Colorado’s expected large influx of business tax dollars from marijuana sellers), and given the growing number of municipalities embracing medical marijuana (surely, a humane response to chemotherapy patients and others in tremendous pain) the movement to legalize drugs for recreational use is gaining significant steam. In recent days, we’ve even seen calls for legalization from former Rep. Barney Frank and the pages of the Washington Post.

Nevertheless, legalizing drugs is not the answer – even for the left. Here’s why: Drugs kill. They turn talented, intelligent people into impulsive animals. They destroy marriages. They deprive children of emotionally healthy parents. There’s a good reason drugs are illegal: They’re dangerous. Products that kill do not belong on drugstore shelves.

Does the name Lenny Bias ring a bell? Boston sports fans will never forget his name. Professional basketball’s number two draft pick in 1986, and the star son of the Maryland Terrapins, Bias was quickly scooped up by the Boston Celtics, bringing hope and excitement to Celtics fans. Bias was thrilled. So thrilled he celebrated that very night by trying cocaine for the first time ever. And that cocaine killed him.

More recently, America suffered the loss of a tremendously gifted actor, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who died of a heroin overdose. Heroin kills. It’s as simple as that. Medical experts say that heroin changes the brain’s chemistry, making addicts out of people who were curious to try it one time.

Why would we wish addiction, misery and death on more Americans by making it legal and easier to access? Moreover, why would we eliminate the deterrent effect that criminality now imposes on the general public? If drugs were as legal as alcohol, a lot more people would try them. Do we really want to see legions of Americans die because they’re curious to try a new high?

Progressives should oppose drug legalization because the people most likely to be killed, the families most likely to be torn apart, the futures most likely to be destroyed are the very people progressives work hardest to help – the downtrodden, with lower incomes (who, according to government data, are significantly more likely to use drugs). Progressives believe the American dream should be available to everyone, regardless of skin color or nationality. We believe opportunity should not be curtailed because a child has the bad luck to be born on the wrong side of the tracks. But addiction can rob a struggling family of its shot at the American dream faster than a sudden-onset recession; the death and destruction that drugs bring can destroy a kid's future more powerfully than the lack of strong schools.


Even the least damaging drugs – like marijuana – still kill brain cells and even shrink parts of the brain with prolonged use. Proponents argue that marijuana is no worse than tobacco, which is available on drugstore shelves (although no longer on the shelves at CVS, thanks to CVS’ bold decision to put public health above profit and to focus more seriously on its health care delivery). While tobacco is addictive and causes many health problems (draining public health resources), cigarettes don’t shrink parts of the brain. Why would we want a generation of teenagers to have smaller brains with fewer brain cells from smoking marijuana?


America’s next generation must be smarter than ever to compete in the global economy against the kids from Shanghai, Singapore and Tokyo, who consistently outscore Americans on international academic tests. How do we expect American kids born in poor neighborhoods to compete on the global stage if they’re stoned?

Certainly, drugs can destroy families of any wealth level, and addiction does not discriminate, but the people most vulnerable to drugs’ power tend to be those who are the most hopeless, and hopelessness comes in large doses in lower-income communities. While depression can hit any income level, there are a lot more reasons to be depressed if you live in bleak poverty.

Admittedly, opposing legalization will not solve the problem of huge numbers of African-American men who lose their adulthood to prison for drug possession. But legalization isn’t the most direct answer for that problem anyway. Prison terms and mandatory minimums can be addressed by statutory changes. (For example, the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act ended the racially unfair sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.) Without losing the deterrent effect of criminality, there’s no reason laws could not require more drug treatment and assistance rebuilding lives and less traditional jail time for illegal drug use. What progressives should focus on is improving the opportunities of Americans born into the bleakest neighborhoods – not advocating for legalization of drugs, which are a guaranteed opportunity-killer.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...galizing-drugs

Originally Posted by MW

Progressives Should Just Say No to Legalizing Drugs

There's a good reason drugs are illegal: They're dangerous.

[COLOR=#999999 !important]By Carrie Wofford, Contributor | Feb. 21, 2014, at 3:30 p.m.


Why would we wish drug's destructive effects on more Americans?
(PABLO PORCIUNCULA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
[/COLOR]

Legalizing drugs has long been a rallying cry on the left, and not without good reason. Progressives remain deeply concerned about the large numbers of low-income males – especially African-American males – who lose their prime years to prison for what seems like the harmless crime of possessing drugs. Legalizing drugs, therefore, seems a sensible way to decriminalize the activities of low-income young African-American men who might feel that the drug economy is the only economy available. Proponents also argue that legalizing drugs would reduce drug-related violence and protect drug users from tainted drugs (on the assumption that the government would sell cleaner, purer drugs).

With Colorado and Washington state leading the momentum toward legalizing marijuana (including news this week of Colorado’s expected large influx of business tax dollars from marijuana sellers), and given the growing number of municipalities embracing medical marijuana (surely, a humane response to chemotherapy patients and others in tremendous pain) the movement to legalize drugs for recreational use is gaining significant steam. In recent days, we’ve even seen calls for legalization from former Rep. Barney Frank and the pages of the Washington Post.

Nevertheless, legalizing drugs is not the answer – even for the left. Here’s why: Drugs kill. They turn talented, intelligent people into impulsive animals. They destroy marriages. They deprive children of emotionally healthy parents. There’s a good reason drugs are illegal: They’re dangerous. Products that kill do not belong on drugstore shelves.

Does the name Lenny Bias ring a bell? Boston sports fans will never forget his name. Professional basketball’s number two draft pick in 1986, and the star son of the Maryland Terrapins, Bias was quickly scooped up by the Boston Celtics, bringing hope and excitement to Celtics fans. Bias was thrilled. So thrilled he celebrated that very night by trying cocaine for the first time ever. And that cocaine killed him.

More recently, America suffered the loss of a tremendously gifted actor, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who died of a heroin overdose. Heroin kills. It’s as simple as that. Medical experts say that heroin changes the brain’s chemistry, making addicts out of people who were curious to try it one time.

Why would we wish addiction, misery and death on more Americans by making it legal and easier to access? Moreover, why would we eliminate the deterrent effect that criminality now imposes on the general public? If drugs were as legal as alcohol, a lot more people would try them. Do we really want to see legions of Americans die because they’re curious to try a new high?

Progressives should oppose drug legalization because the people most likely to be killed, the families most likely to be torn apart, the futures most likely to be destroyed are the very people progressives work hardest to help – the downtrodden, with lower incomes (who, according to government data, are significantly more likely to use drugs). Progressives believe the American dream should be available to everyone, regardless of skin color or nationality. We believe opportunity should not be curtailed because a child has the bad luck to be born on the wrong side of the tracks. But addiction can rob a struggling family of its shot at the American dream faster than a sudden-onset recession; the death and destruction that drugs bring can destroy a kid's future more powerfully than the lack of strong schools.


Even the least damaging drugs – like marijuana – still kill brain cells and even shrink parts of the brain with prolonged use. Proponents argue that marijuana is no worse than tobacco, which is available on drugstore shelves (although no longer on the shelves at CVS, thanks to CVS’ bold decision to put public health above profit and to focus more seriously on its health care delivery). While tobacco is addictive and causes many health problems (draining public health resources), cigarettes don’t shrink parts of the brain. Why would we want a generation of teenagers to have smaller brains with fewer brain cells from smoking marijuana?


America’s next generation must be smarter than ever to compete in the global economy against the kids from Shanghai, Singapore and Tokyo, who consistently outscore Americans on international academic tests. How do we expect American kids born in poor neighborhoods to compete on the global stage if they’re stoned?

Certainly, drugs can destroy families of any wealth level, and addiction does not discriminate, but the people most vulnerable to drugs’ power tend to be those who are the most hopeless, and hopelessness comes in large doses in lower-income communities. While depression can hit any income level, there are a lot more reasons to be depressed if you live in bleak poverty.

Admittedly, opposing legalization will not solve the problem of huge numbers of African-American men who lose their adulthood to prison for drug possession. But legalization isn’t the most direct answer for that problem anyway. Prison terms and mandatory minimums can be addressed by statutory changes. (For example, the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act ended the racially unfair sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.) Without losing the deterrent effect of criminality, there’s no reason laws could not require more drug treatment and assistance rebuilding lives and less traditional jail time for illegal drug use. What progressives should focus on is improving the opportunities of Americans born into the bleakest neighborhoods – not advocating for legalization of drugs, which are a guaranteed opportunity-killer.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...galizing-drugs

Another example of our Period of Ironies and Opposites.

The author of your article:

Carrie Wofford Contributor

Carrie Wofford is a Democratic strategist who served as a senior counsel in the Senate and a policy aide in the Clinton White House and in the Labor Department under Robert Reich. A veteran of many presidential and Senate campaigns, she also worked as a lawyer at WilmerHale and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

https://www.usnews.com/topics/author/carrie_wofford

The article sounds like this writer cares about people, cares about your brain cells, cares about addicts, cares about families, right? You'd almost think this article was written by a "conservative" get in your life and business type person all for your own good of course, right? HA! No, obviously that isn't true. She's a DEMOCRAT PARTY STRATEGIST writing this article to prohibit legalization to sustain open borders, to perpetuate illegal immigration to support the foreign drug cartels lining everyone's pockets.

Yes, it looks like most everything else has been legalized - if not in fact, in practice. Actually, they have legalized drugs - they just pretend so the prices can be kept up, DEA can have a huge
budge.

Nothing will be done because people in high places, people with clout want them illegal because they are profiting from them.


I think people need to be made responsible for their own lives - period.

Truly, there needs to be some education, but I don't know that I believe many people get into this and don't know the effects.

Oh the young people have no idea at all. They listen to the drug pushers and the friends already on the stuff and join up to be "cool". Education is very important, but it has to be truthful, it has to be honest, it can't be exaggerated like the ads on television, it has to be the "real risks and consequences" of using drugs or they won't believe it and will pay no attention due to lost credibility. It's like when people try to force the belief that marijuana is so dangerous, when it really isn't, they don't believe you when you tell them meth, heroin, speed and crack are dangerous. You lie to young people, they'll never trust you again. So whatever education is done must be honest and down to earth.

Something has to be done to end the War on Drugs. It's proven itself to be complicit and an aider and abetter of the very problems it was funded to solve. Just another tragic example of our:

Period of Ironies and Opposites.