Most Dangerous Drugs are the Most Ignored?
0
People hate weed. People hate alcohol. People hate cigarettes. People hate crack. People hate heroin. People hate meth. Self-evident, right? Whenever I hear people talking about "drugs," those are usually the main contenders, with a few more waiting in the wings. "Drugs are bad" means "Weed is bad" or "Cocaine is bad" or "Meth is bad." And yeah, they suck, but what about all the other dangerous drugs? The ones that aren't done by homeless people or the poor (perceived to be done by them, that is)? What about prescription drugs like oxycontin? Yes, there are news stories about them, but those stories are often horror stories meant to scare parents. ("Watch out! Billy may be getting into your medicine cabinet!") It seems like few people on the street (so to speak) actually think such drugs are a problem. There seems to be a lot of hatred towards alcohol and weed and nicotine, as well as an inbred hated towards cocaine and heroin and the like, but I rarely hear people speak out against prescription meds. I rarely hear people talk about how horrible they are and how often they are used. Why is that?
I've heard that in the US, more people abuse prescription medicine than cocaine and heroin combined. That, to me, sends a big, red flag that says that if we are really fighting a war on drugs, then we should be focusing on what is being abused the most. Yet I never hear people arguing about why we should or should not make certain prescription drugs illegal. So many times, alcohol and marijuana are discussed, with people saying that alcohol is more dangerous and should be illegal, that marijuana is still dangerous and should be illegal (not complaining about the current thread about the subject, it merely inspired me to make this thread), but I never hear anyone say that oxycontin is worse than alcohol and marijuana combined and should be banned. And while I understand that the alcohol/weed debate can be important to people that may use those drugs, I find it odd that people can preach about how bad one or the other is yet say nothing about drugs that are just as rampant but quite possibly more dangerous.
Prescription pills must be very easy to get. If they aren't, then the majority of people I've met in my life have been master thieves. Vicodin, oxycontin, percocet, all are easily available. If I wanted to, I could talk to one person, only one person, and get a ton of all three. If I wanted crack or heroin, I wouldn't have any idea who to talk to. I'd probably have to go through a couple of people to find someone who might have some of one of them. That strikes me as very disturbing. The harder drugs should be difficult to find for a simple person like me, who isn't initiated into the drug culture at all, but why are the incredibly powerful pain pills so easy to get? Really, if I wanted to get some "legal" painkillers, I wouldn't even need to know anyone that sells drugs. I could just ask around and probably get some. "Hey, you know anybody that had surgery or some ache and has some leftover pain pills?"
To put it simply, should we argue about drugs while ignoring a big drug problem, that of misused prescription drugs? Does anyone else think that it's a bit of a waste for people to spend hours debating the good points and bad points of weed and nicotine and alcohol but spend no time at all discussing the many deaths caused by prescription drug abuse and the rampant addiction that afflicts many abusers?
I've heard that in the US, more people abuse prescription medicine than cocaine and heroin combined. That, to me, sends a big, red flag that says that if we are really fighting a war on drugs, then we should be focusing on what is being abused the most. Yet I never hear people arguing about why we should or should not make certain prescription drugs illegal. So many times, alcohol and marijuana are discussed, with people saying that alcohol is more dangerous and should be illegal, that marijuana is still dangerous and should be illegal (not complaining about the current thread about the subject, it merely inspired me to make this thread), but I never hear anyone say that oxycontin is worse than alcohol and marijuana combined and should be banned. And while I understand that the alcohol/weed debate can be important to people that may use those drugs, I find it odd that people can preach about how bad one or the other is yet say nothing about drugs that are just as rampant but quite possibly more dangerous.
Prescription pills must be very easy to get. If they aren't, then the majority of people I've met in my life have been master thieves. Vicodin, oxycontin, percocet, all are easily available. If I wanted to, I could talk to one person, only one person, and get a ton of all three. If I wanted crack or heroin, I wouldn't have any idea who to talk to. I'd probably have to go through a couple of people to find someone who might have some of one of them. That strikes me as very disturbing. The harder drugs should be difficult to find for a simple person like me, who isn't initiated into the drug culture at all, but why are the incredibly powerful pain pills so easy to get? Really, if I wanted to get some "legal" painkillers, I wouldn't even need to know anyone that sells drugs. I could just ask around and probably get some. "Hey, you know anybody that had surgery or some ache and has some leftover pain pills?"
To put it simply, should we argue about drugs while ignoring a big drug problem, that of misused prescription drugs? Does anyone else think that it's a bit of a waste for people to spend hours debating the good points and bad points of weed and nicotine and alcohol but spend no time at all discussing the many deaths caused by prescription drug abuse and the rampant addiction that afflicts many abusers?
0
Its 'In' to discuss alcohol, tobacco, and the like, probably because of the whole social aspect of it. But you cant go around with a box of pills, so people just dismiss it as a subject.
But I agree with you. The most important things are always forgotten...
But I agree with you. The most important things are always forgotten...
0
Xil
Norse God of Sawdust
Pharmaceutical companies are good at keeping their products nice and happy to the eye of the public. A good reason not as many people know about how big the problems with certain over the counter medications are.
Also, how many people do you know actually question what a Doctor prescribes them? It's not of our society to question an authoritative figure... and why should you? A doctor should know more about that subject than you, and in most cases they do.
It's a combination of things that keep the 'legal drugs' legal and unquestioned...
While I don't agree with them, and the dangers/problems should be more known amongst people, it just seems like something people don't want to know... and there's simply no motivation to stop something that has the possibility to ease the pain from one's recent surgery and the like...
Ignorance is bliss- and it can kill you.
Also, how many people do you know actually question what a Doctor prescribes them? It's not of our society to question an authoritative figure... and why should you? A doctor should know more about that subject than you, and in most cases they do.
It's a combination of things that keep the 'legal drugs' legal and unquestioned...
While I don't agree with them, and the dangers/problems should be more known amongst people, it just seems like something people don't want to know... and there's simply no motivation to stop something that has the possibility to ease the pain from one's recent surgery and the like...
Ignorance is bliss- and it can kill you.
0
I agree that prescription narcotics are some of the most misused things around. However, if you think about it, there are logical (though not necessarily smart) reasons why people either don’t realize it or choose to ignore it. There are also reasons as to why regulations aren’t more strict on narcotics, as to cut down on misuse.
***Before starting, I would like to point out that I am speaking as one who lives in the US, and only really knows the US laws and regulations.***
One reason I would come up with would be that prescriptions come from licensed physicians. Because of the rigorous process that’s associated with becoming an MD, it is automatically assumed in society that (most) doctors know what they are doing and are responsible people that would not prescribe something that isn’t needed by the patient and in the patient’s best interest in terms of health. This assumption isn’t something one can really blame people for—they grew up listening to their MDs from birth (assuming everyone went to their pediatrician to get those pesky yearly physicals). If one were rather sick as a child, the logical response would be for his or her mother to call the pediatrician and ask what the course of treatment should be. The MD in term might either just say the usual bed rest/cough syrup nonsense, have the child come in for an appt, or just off-handedly prescribe an antibiotic. The mother goes to the pharmacy and picks the antibiotic up—the one thing a pharmacy nearly always advises with that would be to follow the MD’s directions on the bottle exactly. Don’t question it unless there’s some negative reaction from the child. Repeat this process with various other instances—blood pressure medication, getting sick with the flu, even getting wisdom teeth extracted. It eventually gets ingrained into one’s head, and so why would someone question narcotics? They come from the same place that any other prescription does.
Another reason as to why people don’t realize it is because if one looks at the system for attaining Schedule II narcotics like Percocet and OxyContin, it is a more difficult process than less controlled medications. In the US, Schedule II’s are only allowed to be dispensed in pharmacies with a written prescription—faxes and call ins are generally void. (I say generally because in emergencies, call ins are allowed if there’s verification that the MD will send in a script in the next couple of days.) They are only allowed to be written for a 30 days supply, and can only be filled once with no refills. By that, I mean that if a prescription is written for a total of #120 tablets and a person gets it filled for #80, the last #40 are lost. The MD’s signature must be penned, and there should be a legible name below it along with a DEA or NPI number specific to that physician. There must also be a phone number and address for the MD written somewhere on the script. The full strength of the medication must be written out, and the quantity should be written in both numeric and alphabetic forms. The Schedule II must also be hand-counted by the pharmacist and have the quantity circled and initialed. With Connecticut Medicaid, any controlled substance needs to be written on thrice tamper-resistant paper before it’ll be covered and paid for. I’m sure there are a couple of things I’m forgetting, but... the point was made, I think. On top of that, both MDs and pharmacies get randomly audited and if not up to par, can get licenses for prescribing/dispensing revoked.
A third, lesser known reason/regulation on narcotics would be the pharmacists themselves. At any time and for any reason, a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription without having to give the patient a reason why. It could theoretically be as simple as “I don’t like your face,” though that’s far too petty a reason. Usually if the pharmacist has to reject a prescription and explain it, the bottom line is “I don’t feel comfortable filling this prescription [and jeopardizing my license] because of [this], [this], and [this].” This is all of course, assuming it isn’t over a legitimate reason—like the patient trying to scam multiple pharmacies for extra pills.
Conversely, if you check that perspective, there’s an effect for that cause—unless the MD himself has cancelled the prescription, the patient is free to go to any other pharmacy and try his luck there. In the town I work in alone, there are eleven different pharmacies, and it’s insane to think of just how many are in a substantially sized city. Because there are so many, retail pharmacies are forced to compete with each other and pharmacists can be required to explain their refusals to their district supervisors. (“Yes, I just turned away a potentially loyal customer because...., instead of trying to appease them.”) Rather than deal with that, most pharmacists just dispense what they can under the law—regardless to whether or not it’s clear a patient is abusing the medication.
....I actually had a lot more to say.... and then realized just how ridiculously long and possibly off-topic this got (and how much time I spent on it). So.... yeah. Oops. Enjoy my incomplete post?
***Before starting, I would like to point out that I am speaking as one who lives in the US, and only really knows the US laws and regulations.***
One reason I would come up with would be that prescriptions come from licensed physicians. Because of the rigorous process that’s associated with becoming an MD, it is automatically assumed in society that (most) doctors know what they are doing and are responsible people that would not prescribe something that isn’t needed by the patient and in the patient’s best interest in terms of health. This assumption isn’t something one can really blame people for—they grew up listening to their MDs from birth (assuming everyone went to their pediatrician to get those pesky yearly physicals). If one were rather sick as a child, the logical response would be for his or her mother to call the pediatrician and ask what the course of treatment should be. The MD in term might either just say the usual bed rest/cough syrup nonsense, have the child come in for an appt, or just off-handedly prescribe an antibiotic. The mother goes to the pharmacy and picks the antibiotic up—the one thing a pharmacy nearly always advises with that would be to follow the MD’s directions on the bottle exactly. Don’t question it unless there’s some negative reaction from the child. Repeat this process with various other instances—blood pressure medication, getting sick with the flu, even getting wisdom teeth extracted. It eventually gets ingrained into one’s head, and so why would someone question narcotics? They come from the same place that any other prescription does.
Another reason as to why people don’t realize it is because if one looks at the system for attaining Schedule II narcotics like Percocet and OxyContin, it is a more difficult process than less controlled medications. In the US, Schedule II’s are only allowed to be dispensed in pharmacies with a written prescription—faxes and call ins are generally void. (I say generally because in emergencies, call ins are allowed if there’s verification that the MD will send in a script in the next couple of days.) They are only allowed to be written for a 30 days supply, and can only be filled once with no refills. By that, I mean that if a prescription is written for a total of #120 tablets and a person gets it filled for #80, the last #40 are lost. The MD’s signature must be penned, and there should be a legible name below it along with a DEA or NPI number specific to that physician. There must also be a phone number and address for the MD written somewhere on the script. The full strength of the medication must be written out, and the quantity should be written in both numeric and alphabetic forms. The Schedule II must also be hand-counted by the pharmacist and have the quantity circled and initialed. With Connecticut Medicaid, any controlled substance needs to be written on thrice tamper-resistant paper before it’ll be covered and paid for. I’m sure there are a couple of things I’m forgetting, but... the point was made, I think. On top of that, both MDs and pharmacies get randomly audited and if not up to par, can get licenses for prescribing/dispensing revoked.
A third, lesser known reason/regulation on narcotics would be the pharmacists themselves. At any time and for any reason, a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription without having to give the patient a reason why. It could theoretically be as simple as “I don’t like your face,” though that’s far too petty a reason. Usually if the pharmacist has to reject a prescription and explain it, the bottom line is “I don’t feel comfortable filling this prescription [and jeopardizing my license] because of [this], [this], and [this].” This is all of course, assuming it isn’t over a legitimate reason—like the patient trying to scam multiple pharmacies for extra pills.
Conversely, if you check that perspective, there’s an effect for that cause—unless the MD himself has cancelled the prescription, the patient is free to go to any other pharmacy and try his luck there. In the town I work in alone, there are eleven different pharmacies, and it’s insane to think of just how many are in a substantially sized city. Because there are so many, retail pharmacies are forced to compete with each other and pharmacists can be required to explain their refusals to their district supervisors. (“Yes, I just turned away a potentially loyal customer because...., instead of trying to appease them.”) Rather than deal with that, most pharmacists just dispense what they can under the law—regardless to whether or not it’s clear a patient is abusing the medication.
....I actually had a lot more to say.... and then realized just how ridiculously long and possibly off-topic this got (and how much time I spent on it). So.... yeah. Oops. Enjoy my incomplete post?
0
The reason that prescription drugs are talked about less is probably because they have gotten less coverage and discussion time in the media. Media propoganda is what sparks most drug debates and drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, weed, and cocaine have gotten far more air time than the prescription drugs being abused.
As you said, prescription drugs cause fatalities as well and are easier to obtain. However, the fact is that they have yet to cause high enough numbers of fatalities or a large "tragedy" due to their abuse to get the coverage that would put them up as hot topic drugs.
Wait until there's a massive accident due to someone taking too many vicadin pills and driving and then maybe we'll see more discussion on them.
As you said, prescription drugs cause fatalities as well and are easier to obtain. However, the fact is that they have yet to cause high enough numbers of fatalities or a large "tragedy" due to their abuse to get the coverage that would put them up as hot topic drugs.
Wait until there's a massive accident due to someone taking too many vicadin pills and driving and then maybe we'll see more discussion on them.