Heroin anyone?
Fri, 2008-10-31 13:31
#1
Heroin anyone?
Fri, 2008-10-31 13:31
#2
Really - they are handing out heroin in Montreal and Vancouver, and tracking the addicts to see how they fared. It turned out to be a good idea.
Recreatioinal use would drop if the message was clear "HEROIN IS MEDICINE".
HEROIN IS MEDICINE, and if you don't need it then don't start taking it for no reason.
For those who are allready addicted to it, or morphine or other opiate drugs, and for others who are "underserved" by the medical mainstream, having a legal supply of Heroin would, as the results show, really help make Canada a better place.
Most heroin addicts DO have medical problems... they are simply "self-medicating".
Another thing is that heroin and morphine are physically addictive, and the one thing that must not happen is that those drugs are restricted.
Consider this: it is inhumane it is to restrict a substance that people need to take three time a day. Thats pretty simple stuff...
What the Naomi Study found is that by giving heroin addicts heroin, the addicts were no longer a source of trouble in our society. DUH.
Here are some quotes from the Naomi study that was recently concluded, where heroin addicts in large cities were given the heroin they need, for one year, and the Naomi workers recorded the vital stats on the addict's lives:
quote:
all showed an increased ability to get housing and showed improved health.those on heroin or hydromorphone were twice as likely to stay in treatment compared to those on methadone.
Reduction in crime was greater in the group receiving heroin
participants reduced the amount of heroin they used per day and the number of times they used per day
Addicts can hold down jobs.
Addicts are not all messed up, that is just when they are in withdrawals, an effect of prohibition, not the drugs.
And, it could be that the case that Heroin is so valuable, and addictive, that it creates a huge market, so the various agencies of the US government are using heroin as an alternate source of money for projects and activites that cannot be funded through regular government budgets, and THATS the reason heroin is prohibited. But I digress...
So - what do Babblers think? - Give addicts their heroin and quit trying to make them take stuff they do not like [methadone]? Quit with the insane "War on Drugs" because it isn't reducing the amount of drugs or the numbers of users, and in fact it does a huge amount of harm to society?
Would crime rates drop if drugs were legalised, and isn't that a whole lot better for society than this continuous struggle to eradicate drugs and put addicts in jail?
I have a lot more to say, but I better stop here for now... anyone else interested in this issue?
Fri, 2008-10-31 13:36
#3
I'm interested, but I'd like to know more before discussing... Any info / links to the Naomi study?
Fri, 2008-10-31 14:42
#4
was easy to find [url=http://www.naomistudy.ca/] naomistudy.ca[/url].
Fri, 2008-10-31 15:26
#5
I think the experiment in the Naomi study has been done before in Liverpool, England. I do not know what the results of that were.
In my mind, medicinalizing herion seems logical. A friend who has had a life long problem with opiate addiction told me a long time ago that it's not the heroin that kills, it's the stuff you have to do to get it.
But, what appears to be sublime logic in the mind has often proved to have unintended consequences in practice. So studies are important.
Working in a factory for almost 30 years, I've witnessed many kinds of addictions, seen waves of this drug and that sweep through the plant as it swept through society, and seen the damage they do in thier wake-- not just to my co-workers, but to their families. I've seen grown men cry, I've looked into eyes and seen nothing there. But there are victories.
None of this makes me any kind of expert. But, from my experience, I wouldn't assume from a successfull study on heroin that all other drugs should be treated with the same approach.
Each substance seems to have it's own special nuance in addiction and consequences. I think there has to be a tailored approach to each substance.
But for heroin? Yeah, just give it to them.
Fri, 2008-10-31 22:22
#6
No question. Just pass it out. I've been advocating this for over twenty years, long before I actually met any heroin addicts. Meeting and befriending some addicts only reinforced this opinion.
This all comes back to a common problem with the masses who always have a ready opinion for things they not only have no knowledge of, but things that upset them so much they go out of their way not to have any knowledge of it. Drugs, crime, sex, etc. The knee-jerk response to issues that they can feel don't involve their lives is to moralise. Decide who the "bad" people are and who deserves or doesn't deserve what and then support policies accordingly. Policies that are useless because they weren't even formed with the notion of solving the problem. They were formed to pander to moralising.
Politicians are always on hand with such policies because they appeal to our worst instincts and they're handy for winning votes, but they never accomplish a thing. A social sickness or demographic affliction has to be tackled at it's roots, which usually means "coddling" the so-called "criminals". It means helping the people who need help and dispensing with the pointless vanity of whether or not they "deserve" it. Trying to punish the "bad people" only creates more pain, misery, and suffering. It makes the problem worse.
What do junkies need? They need their drugs. It's the only thing that exists in their world and they'll do anything to get it. Once that's taken care of then they can start thinking about their life and how to change it. If they spend all their time hustling just to score then they never get to that point. What they definitely [i]don't[/i] need is to be punished for being a junky, like arresting a guy for committing suicide. Yeah, that'll cheer him up. Give a junky more problems and their addiction will get worse along with all the negative societal effects that result. Help them, and you stand a chance of making things better.
Fri, 2008-10-31 23:02
#7
If they can't patent it, then big pharma won't be peddling it in doctors offices. It's a phony war on every thing every where
Sat, 2008-11-01 06:04
#8
I don't make a distinction between ethical (pharmaceuticals) and unethical (street) drugs and, as Fidel points out, pharmaceutical manufacturers aren't going to be interested in this program. It seems to me that the only difference between giving a junkie heroin and an "ADHD" child Ritalin is that in the latter case all parties involved are lying or being lied to. Some wag wrote somewhere that a junkie who gets his fix is either well-behaved or dead and you can't get better behaved than that.
Sat, 2008-11-01 07:00
#9
This is really interesting! I have read a tiny bit about harm reduction, like having safe injection sites and stuff, but this is a new idea to me. Thanks for posting it! I'll be following this thread with interest.
Sat, 2008-11-01 11:03
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Noah_Scape:
[b]Most heroin addicts DO have medical problems... they are simply "self-medicating".
[/b]
Well, it's great to see that so many Rabblers are pro-harm reduction [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Drug use is not a moral issue, it shouldn't be a legal issue. It's a HEALTH issue.
To bring another viewpoint into the discussion as many of you have already covered some of the aspects I thought I'd throw some more provoking ideas into the mix.
Let's look at *legal* pharmaceuticals.
More people in North America die per year from clinical reactions to over-the-counter arthritis medications than overdose from [i]every single illicit drug COMBINED[/i]
Most psychopharmatropics for depression, bi-polar, schizophrenia etc. take 4-6 weeks to work effectively. There is no guarantee that any drug/combination will work and months to years may pass before an effective combination is found.
Then, if something changes such as the person developing diabetes, becoming immune to one or more drugs, gaining/losing weight, or other factors the whole chemical soup can become unbalanced rapidly.
The side effects or many pain, antidepressants, anti-psychotics can become so pronounced that the person is unwilling to continue the drug treatment. What rarely gets openly discussed at all is that a great proportion of them [b]cause impotence[/b]
Most doctors are *not* open to intense discussions with their patients who are suffering, it's a case of "Daddy knows best" with far too many of them.
To add to the general insanity of the above--the drug card benefits of ODSP and Ontario Works are so limited that the new "targeting" drugs are not covered. This leaves the doctor in the position of having to hand out drugs s/he knows are far less effective, more addicting and have more side effects.
The patient has little to no control over what the drugs will do, or the reactions s/he will have. When someone is suffering mental or physical pain it is natural to want it to STOP.
Who wants to wait MONTHS to feel as if life is worth living again, if it ever happens at all?
The patient is not allowed to *decide* "Today is a bad day. I need a bit more" or "Today is a good day, I don't need it." because these drugs depend consistency.
If someone struggling mentally *remembering * to be consistent can be difficult. If they are homeless, or working shifts, it can be downright impossible.
Now let's look at the illegal drugs.
[LIST]Injected heroin stops pain in 10 minutes.
Marijuana can alleviate depression, decrease physical pain or lessen psychosis in minutes.
Crack/cocaine/methamphetamine can increase a sense of well-being, increase concentration and reduce physical pain in SECONDS. In some cases it can increase psychosis, in other people, it lessens it.
Amphetamines can increase concentration and alleviate depression immediately after processing through the liver, the effects begin within 30 minutes and last for a minimum of 4 hours.[/LIST]
[i]Now, I fail to understand WHY, Big Pharma with [b]BILLIONS of dollars in research money[/b] cannot seem to come up with pharmaceuticals that act that quickly or effectively with so few side effects.[/i]
In their *natural* forms, every one of the above drugs, is effective, inexpensive and less harmful in its' own way.
As for mental health and emotional struggles, as well as chronic pain, the bottom line is;
SOME PROBLEMS ARE ***NOT*** FIXABLE...
Yet society penalizes those who are simply trying to increase their quality of life.
We take away every modicum of control or self-respect they might have and throw them into jails, medical health facilities, we demonize their attempts to make sense of their pain and we pathologize their will to survive.
Because as a society, we know that if life ever gets painful enough...
...We'll be THEM.
[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: TVParkdale ]
Sat, 2008-11-01 11:30
#11
quote:
Injected heroin stops pain in 10 minutes.
If it takes 10 minutes my friend, get a new supplier. More like less than 15 seconds.
I pretty much agree with TVP about psycopharmacy, and will elaborate with my own observations when I have a few minutes. I'll just say though, that even if you were a big fan of the use of these drugs as indicated in the CPS, so many Dr.'s don't even prescribe them properly. They do NOT do the required assessments for signs of developing tardif diskenidia, and I have known at least one psychiatrist to ignore the signs when they were right in fron of him.
Sat, 2008-11-01 11:42
#12
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]If it takes 10 minutes my friend, get a new supplier. More like less than 15 seconds.
I pretty much agree with TVP about psycopharmacy, and will elaborate with my own observations when I have a few minutes. I'll just say though, that even if you were a big fan of the use of these drugs as indicated in the CPS, so many Dr.'s don't even prescribe them properly. They do NOT do the required assessments for signs of developing tardif diskenidia, and I have known at least one psychiatrist to ignore the signs when they were right in fron of him.[/b]
Well as an HR, we requested that clients "go low" until the effects were apparent due to potency differentials on the street [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] Also, chasing the dragon [smoking] is safer.
As you say, there very few psychiatrists who are really drug savvy as well as the reality that they may only see a patient once a month or so due to time constraints--meanwhile the patient is decompensating or suffering severe side effects.
I come from a simple perspective about ANY drug use.
Life is fraught with difficulties, if there's a pharmaceutical legal, or illegal that can increase someone's quality of life, give them ALL the information and let them decide...
Sat, 2008-11-01 13:16
#13
I've known one person who took 1000 mg of morphine a day. He was quite lucid & functional. Did a lot of painting on canvas, helped manage an apartment building, was prescribed the drug by a doctor for pain related to being paralyzed.
BUT - in America, doctors like being the gatekeeper for pain. If every time you need a medication for pain or anxiety, you have to go to a doctor, it's great for business - the medical business.
Sat, 2008-11-01 13:35
#14
quote:
Originally posted by SwimmingLee:
[b]I've known one person who took 1000 mg of morphine a day. He was quite lucid & functional. Did a lot of painting on canvas, helped manage an apartment building, was prescribed the drug by a doctor for pain related to being paralyzed.BUT - in America, doctors like being the gatekeeper for pain. If every time you need a medication for pain or anxiety, you have to go to a doctor, it's great for business - the medical business.[/b]
It's even better for the pharmaceutical companies. They benefit greatly from keeping the game going of illegal vs. legal drugs while being the gatekeepers of what substances can and will be prescribed in what amounts, for certain conditions.
Sat, 2008-11-01 13:41
#15
Oldgoat, I'm sure you know tardive dyskinesia is just one of myriad problems with psych meds. Brain damage and diabetes are two biggies that affect far more people than TD ever does.
Sat, 2008-11-01 14:04
#16
Yeah, I just had a couple of specific instances in mind when I posted.
Diabetes has been a problem and is getting worse. A number of the more popular meds, Zyprexa (Olanzepine) being the worst offender, have weight gain as a major side effect. A lot of psychiatrists will just say "oh exercise more, watch your diet", and let it go. While that in itself of course may be good advice for all of us, it is both dismissive, and fails to take into account the lifestyle limitations of a person with a mental health diagnosis surviving on ODSP.
Also, the old tri-cyclic anti-depressants had weight gain as a big side effect, but no one prescribes them any more. No one warned me about them at the time though, and I must have put on 30 pounds when I was taking those things.
Sat, 2008-11-01 14:08
#17
If one manages to get by decades of propaganda telling people that the way to deal with heroin is through law enforcement only, one will then have the next hurdle-- defeating the legal opiate trade.
I am sure Perdue industries will not want anyone working their side of the street.
Oxycontin blues.
Oxycontin swept through London a few years ago, and, predictably that and percocets/percodans did too. Some doctors and dentists were handing them out like candy.
The London Free Press, who I don't usually have too many good things to say about, did do a good investigative report on the issue. Parmacists that had moved to London from elsewhere in the country were quoted as saying they'd never seen anything like the rate of oxycontin prescriptions in London.
And Doctors here deffended themselves by saying that they had received little to no formal training in chronic pain treatment. To which the doctor at the methodone clinic responded that they did indeed get training in chronic pain management-- from the pharamacuetical companies.
Gangsters in Lab Coats and Three Piece Suits. I think even the Bikers are afraid of these guys.
Sat, 2008-11-01 15:10
#18
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]Yeah, I just had a couple of specific instances in mind when I posted.Diabetes has been a problem and is getting worse. A number of the more popular meds, Zyprexa (Olanzepine) being the worst offender, have weight gain as a major side effect. A lot of psychiatrists will just say "oh exercise more, watch your diet", and let it go. While that in itself of course may be good advice for all of us, it is both dismissive, and fails to take into account the lifestyle limitations of a person with a mental health diagnosis surviving on ODSP.
Also, the old tri-cyclic anti-depressants had weight gain as a big side effect, but no one prescribes them any more. No one warned me about them at the time though, and I must have put on 30 pounds when I was taking those things.[/b]
Absolutely, my friend.
Many years ago I took a tricyclic and went from 130lbs [underweight] to 168 lbs in three months. My budget was limited so obviously, I did not increase my food intake.
Within six weeks of stopping--I dropped to my normal weight of 148 lbs. Dieting, that wouldn't even be a possibility.
Feeding oneself on ODSP or medical OW is impossible under the amount of food money given to diabetics. Then they are told they are "non-compliant" around diet.
The same with the working poor and people that don't have employment paid drug plans for insulin. I've seen people quit their jobs when the choice was work--buy insulin, starve the kids, go on ODSP, get insulin, feed the kids.
Another talking point that never gets discussed is stopping drug use. The only two drugs that will kill you during withdrawal are *alcohol* and *benzodiazapams* [valium]. Both can cause seizures and death.
Quitting street drugs is sometimes nasty and uncomfortable. However, many people can go on and off them with little ill effect.
The same cannot be said for pharmaceuticals. For those receiving depo shots, they don't even get the option of tailoring off the drugs to see if less works effectively, or tailoring off to quit.
They are thrown into massive withdrawal within days and cannot access medical care because they will be told to "get back on the drugs".
Getting off ANY legal or illegal substance should not be made more difficult than getting ON it.
Another point is that some people do not respond well to certain classes of medications. Then they're told, "you're not trying" or when they report no success, or massive side effects they're treated as if they are making it up.
If there is an illicit substance that will do a better job with less negative effects, then they're blamed for "being addicts" and not given any schedule 2 drugs no matter whether it might benefit them, or not.
Quite frankly, if someone is suffering, give them the best possible substance that will help--"addiction" [questionable term at the best of times] is the LAST problem we need to consider.
Sun, 2008-11-02 16:33
#19
Canada now joins Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain in hosting heroin prescription trials.
[url=http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/041905canadasativex.cfm]Drug news[/url]
"Heroin as Medicine" should not be a big leap - it WAS seen as medicine, and used as medicine, for many years until the [pharmaceutical corporation led] prohibition of the 1920s in the USA.
One thing that is important [that some replies here seem to know] is that heroin addicts don't walk around as zombies or curl up in the corner and sleep all day. You might have a coworker addicted to heroin and not ever know it. It is when they are in withdrawals that they look sick and messed up.
As an addictive drug, it is just wrong to keep it from people who are addicted to it, or to have an expensive supply only... of course there will be crime.
Some good points about the dangerous pharmaceutical drugs here too... but I might just add that SOME people can, and do, die when from withdrawals from opiates [heroin, morphine] because the blood pressure drops so low.
There is no "toxic level" of opiates, interestingly. You can get an overdose by taking too much at once, but as tolerance grows the user can take as big a dose as they need - there is no upper limit. Pharma drugs are often deadly at a certain level [as you were saying].
Trivia! the same guy who invented ASPIRIN invented HEROIN [two of the most popular drugs ever].
Sun, 2008-11-02 16:50
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Noah_Scape:
[b]Canada now joins Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain in hosting heroin prescription trials.
[url=http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/041905canadasativex.cfm]Drug news[/url]"Heroin as Medicine" should not be a big leap - it WAS seen as medicine, and used as medicine, for many years until the [pharmaceutical corporation led] prohibition of the 1920s in the USA.
As an addictive drug, it is just wrong to keep it from people who are addicted to it, or to have an expensive supply only... of course there will be crime.
Some good points about the dangerous pharmaceutical drugs here too... but I might just add that SOME people can, and do, die when from withdrawals from opiates [heroin, morphine] because the blood pressure drops so low.
There is no "toxic level" of opiates, interestingly. You can get an overdose by taking too much at once, but as tolerance grows the user can take as big a dose as they need - there is no upper limit. Pharma drugs are often deadly at a certain level [as you were saying].[/b]
The problem with opiates is when they're taken with benzodiazapams [valium]...that's when overdoses tend to occur.
Tolerances increase over time and most doctors don't know enough about pain management to know that opiates for pain relief need to be rotated every 6 months to keep tolerance levels stable.
The sad part is, opiates are often prescribed for pain and benzos for sedation effects, thus setting the stage for problems.
Enough opiate of course, you stop breathing.
I've never heard of a death from withdrawal of opiates although one should be careful of dehydrating or electrolyte imbalances from vomiting.
Sun, 2008-11-02 18:58
#21
remind
Any discussion of heroin needs a Billie Holiday
video[img]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZyuULy9zs[/img]
Mon, 2008-11-03 21:55
#22
Here is a typical mainstream media report on the Naomi Study:
[url=http://tinyurl.com/6xzv48]Naomi releases study results [/url]
Jakob, in the interests of exploding the myths of heroin users, perhaps calling them "junkies" is not quite right. "Junky" usually means "do any and all drugs"... but I suppose that it could be a referance to "junk", a nicname for heroin.
Many Heroin or morphine addicts take that particular drug and no other, especially not other hard drugs because the money they have is needed for the heroin or morphine, and no other drug will take it's place or beat the withdrawal pains.
I think the superior effectiveness, and the lack of toxicity, of the opiate drugs and cannabis as compared to pharmaceuticals has something to do with evolution. Humans evolved alongside opiates and cannabis plants, and both the plants and the humans found benefits in helping each other.
I think it is very interesting that we have the "MU OPIOD receptor" in our brains and spinal cord, which uses the specific chemicals in opiate plants. Perhaps without that MU Opiod receptor those drugs would be toxic? [We do not have a "Vioxx receptor" and so it IS toxic to us, where the liver has to do the work of metabolising its chemicals. Anyone know more about this?]
Trivia: All vertebrates have the MU OPIOD receptor, but none of the invertebrates have it.
Dang, it is such a cool natural world!! Why did we ever think we had to abandon it??
Wed, 2008-11-05 09:20
#23
Krystalline Kraus
In regards to affects on daily life, I don't think you should be driving while high on any impairment-causing drug (physical, biological, cognitive) legal or illegal. Sorry, I draw the line there.
That's a legal charge far different than simply getting arrested for posession or what-have-you; far more serious.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: statica ]
Wed, 2008-11-05 09:51
#24
quote:
Originally posted by statica:
[b]In regards to affects on daily life, I don't think you should be driving while high on any impairment-causing drug (physical, biological, cognitive) legal or illegal. Sorry, I draw the line there.That's a legal charge far different than simply getting arrested for posession or what-have-you; far more serious.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: statica ][/b]
There are countless people on morphine-derivative pain medications and psychotropics for mental health impairments that drive and operate machinery safely every day.
It is a matter of the correct dosage and physical tolerance.
Shall we remove all their driver's licenses and plunge the country into economic chaos?
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: TVParkdale ]
Wed, 2008-11-05 10:05
#25
Krystalline Kraus
quote:
There are countless people on morphine-derivative pain medications and psychotropics for mental health impairments that drive and operate machinery safely every day.It is a matter of the correct dosage and physical tolerance.
Exactly my point. If people are on certain medications and they pass a cognitive test (similar to screening out dementia) and show no signs of IMPAIRMENT, then fine! But if, for anything from incorrect dosages to physical tolerance or matabolism, they cannot pass the impairment test, then they should not be allowed to drive. That's unsafe.
Sorry if my point was unclear in my first post, that's why I was focusing on the health-impairment angle and not the legal/moral issue.
Wed, 2008-11-05 11:17
#26
quote:
Originally posted by statica:
[b]Exactly my point. If people are on certain medications and they pass a cognitive test (similar to screening out dementia) and show no signs of IMPAIRMENT, then fine! But if, for anything from incorrect dosages to physical tolerance or matabolism, they cannot pass the impairment test, then they should not be allowed to drive. That's unsafe.
Sorry if my point was unclear in my first post, that's why I was focusing on the health-impairment angle and not the legal/moral issue.[/b]
Ah, thank you for clarifying.
The structural problems of such testing would be enormously time-consuming and costly since health is in constant flux.
Perhaps what is needed is some form of self-testing for dexterous acuity then the police having similar [random] testing available in site checks.
Some computer games have the ability to measure dexterity. Perhaps it would be similar in structure with random tests, which some game programmers could then devise both home-testing and police testing programs.
Fri, 2008-11-07 03:16
#27
Concerning use of opioid drugs for pain relief, a big part of the problem I see is that doctors don't -- often, can't -- go anywhere near far enough in identifying and treating the underlying physical causes of pain. There is a lack of non-pharmacological alternatives. And there is inadequate recognition of the varying different kinds of pain, so that oxycodone frequently ends up getting prescribed in cases where it's not medically supportable (ie taking into account the likelihood of habituation, as well as other side effects, eg the notorious digestive problems) -- contributing to the perception of medical opioid users as drug 'abusers', in a prohibitionist society.
Likewise, concerning so-called recreational or psychostimulant use, from what I've read, the majority of use is NOT to stave off withdrawal symptoms. Junkies say they could go off the drug if they wanted to. The reason long-term users keep taking it is because they are miserable without it. They are treating a psychological disability that the medical establishment has not, or cannot help them with. Many times poverty is one of the main causes of that impairment.
Needless to say there is also a big overlap there, with chronic pain users benefitting from psychotropic effects.
Fri, 2008-11-07 09:36
#28
First off -
quote:
I don't think you should be driving while high on any impairment-causing drug
I think the bottom line is that IF someone is ACTUALLY impaired, then they should not be driving. A test to measure ability to drive is a good way to determine that, and not simply "if they are on a drug".
As for opiate addicts - they are VERY MUCH IMPAIRED when they do NOT have their drug and are in withdrawals, and so perhaps they should not be allowed to drive UNLESS they have an adequate supply, and hopefully they are only taking their normal dosage, which is what most of them do.[flipping the world upside down is my job]
A much better point to discuss is by triciamarie - thx for the reply -
quote:
doctors don't -- often, can't -- go anywhere near far enough in identifying and treating the underlying physical causes of pain. There is a lack of non-pharmacological alternatives. And there is inadequate recognition of the varying different kinds of pain,
Getting a definitive diagnosis is one of the major "sore points" for chronic pain people. Sometimes, or often, the doctors deny that a chronic-pain patient is in pain, and judge the patient to be simply "drug-seeking". Having a solid diagnosis, with MRIs or lab evidence, would end this horrible situation. Patients in pain who are declared to be lying, and drug-seeking, become despondant and enraged, and their pains become worse.
Also, yes, more of the "hand-on" therapies, and the alterrnative therapies like accupuncture, would help a lot, but all that is covered is drugs. All the doctors do is prescribe drugs. Sometimes I think that is all they know how to do.That has to change.
It is an even worse thing - this happened to someone I know well - when one doctor prescribed morphine for actual pain, and then the patient moves to another area and all the doctors there claim that he is not really in pain, and so they refuse to prescribe the morphine, BUT HE IS ALLREADY ADDICTED. Now he is dealing with his pain, and withdrawals, and maybe finding out about "street drugs" and getting ripped off. Terrible thing, eh??
Finally, triciamarie's other points:
quote:
The reason long-term users keep taking it is because they are miserable without it. They are treating a psychological disability that the medical establishment has not, or cannot help them with. Many times poverty is one of the main causes of that impairment.
Right on, very true on all points. I can only add that if someone "only feels good when on drugs", and if they can support themselves and go to work when they feel okay that way, is it hurting anyone else? Maybe there is not much wrong with it.
Fri, 2008-11-07 16:17
#29
quote:
The only two drugs that will kill you during withdrawal are *alcohol* and *benzodiazapams* [valium]. Both can cause seizures and death.
I disagree about the benzodiazepines. Alcohol is the only WD that kills. Rarely, benzo addicts will have seizures, but alcohol withdrawal causes a poorly-understood phenomenon by which the WD reaction gets worse each time. (And there's only one medically-supervised detox in the province of Ontario. Huh.)
quote:
I think it is very interesting that we have the "MU OPIOD receptor" in our brains and spinal cord, which uses the specific chemicals in opiate plants. Perhaps without that MU Opiod receptor those drugs would be toxic?...Anyone know more about this?]
These receptors are a part of our natural (endogenous) opioid system, reacting to the opioids our bodies produce. If we didn't have those receptors, opium would do about as much for us as smoking oregano, I'd wager.
Trouble is, psychiatric and addictions treatment isn't properly organized and available to everybody who needs it. Some of you, from the sounds of it, have been the victims of poor medical care. Many people have been hurt by doctors who told them benzos aren't addictive.
After 22 years as a pharmacist, and eleven working in harm reduction, I'm not all that positive about the "more is better" attitude towards drugs; that ending prohibition will help everybody. Don't get me wrong; I would end prohibition against cannabis tomorrow, if I had the power (hey, President-elect Obama! Want to do something consequential??)
But consider this: the US, with 5% of the world's population, uses more than 80% of the world's opium supply, and 99% of the world's hydrocodone (the two evil twins of pharmacological addiction in N. America are hydrocodone and oxycodone, the ingredient in Oxycontin).
Oxycontin has replaced heroin as the opioid of choice in every city in Canada except Vancouver and Montreal.
So instead of insisting we need even more drugs on this already drug-addled continent, maybe we need to consider cultural/psychological/spiritual reasons for why so many of us feel motivated to medicate in the first place.
Ta for now,
Fri, 2008-11-07 16:55
#30
Sineed, long time no viddy, droog. I seem to remember most always agreeing with you, but I have to take exception here.
quote:
So instead of insisting we need even more drugs on this already drug-addled continent, maybe we need to consider cultural/psychological/spiritual reasons for why so many of us feel motivated to medicate in the first place.
I doubt Oxycontin was developed because of some huge consumer outcry for better drugs. The pretext for the development and use for Oxycontin was for pain management of terminally ill.
...but somewhere along the line, it started to replace tylenol 3's for wisdom teeth extraction.
I don't think it's fair to blame the users, some of whom I know were [i]told by their doctor[/i] that oxycontin and percodans were not addictive, so here's a scrip for a hundred.
It's not a cultural/psychological/spiritual problem, unless we are discussing the cultural/psychological/spiritual nuances of psychopathic greed.
Fri, 2008-11-07 19:39
#31
quote:
I don't think it's fair to blame the users, some of whom I know were [i]told by their doctor[/i] that oxycontin and percodans were not addictive, so here's a scrip for a hundred.
Unfortunately, too true, though most drs are better than that (and the ones that aren't get nailed by the college, leaving a trail of stranded addicts in their wake).
quote:
It's not a cultural/psychological/spiritual problem, unless we are discussing the cultural/psychological/spiritual nuances of psychopathic greed.[/QB]
I'm not about blaming the users, but this greed you speak of takes advantage of a tendency we have, as N. americans, to look for pharmaceutical solutions to problems.
Sat, 2008-11-08 08:02
#32
But where did this tendancy come from? Gotta run-- commercial break on CNN. Love those commercials.....
Sat, 2008-11-08 09:54
#33
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]But where did this tendancy come from? Gotta run-- commercial break on CNN. Love those commercials.....[/b]
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
However...drug-seeking behaviour precedes the advertisement of drugs, which is a relatively new phenomenon. I doubt a few ads are responsible for Americans consuming more than 80% of the world's opium supply.
What I have trouble reconciling are the demands from advocacy groups for access to more drugs when N. Americans are already over-drugged.
Money might be part of it. Would be interesting to see, as the American economy declines, if other countries will start to use more drugs as their wealth increases.
Sun, 2008-11-09 05:40
#34
Our culture is unhealthy -- agreed. We should all work to improve it -- agreed. But in our society as it is now, some sick people feel they derive benefit from long-term use of opioid analgesics. However they ended up taking the drug initially, they are making the decision to continue taking it because it's the best alternative they can come up with to deal with their unrelenting low back pain or chronic poverty and self-hate. If a better option presents itself, they will probably choose it; but often it doesn't. I don't want to blame them for their afflictions.
Sun, 2008-11-09 12:03
#35
Agreed. But I don't think it's blaming the victim to help people find non-pharmaceutical alternatives for what ails them.
A real-life example: two people, both with back pain from degenerating discs in the spine (pretty much universal, if you're over 30). One person decides she doesn't like to take drugs. She finds out about physiotherapy and exercises you can do to strengthen the back, and is now doing fine without drugs, golfing, walking, and going on trips. She still has pain sometimes.
The other person: he goes to his dr, who prescribes high doses of Dilaudid. He is now almost completely debilitated, walking with a cane, and will probably be in a scooter within five years.
BTW, person #2 is younger than person #1. She got better care not because of her doctor, but because as a retired nurse, she doesn't trust the health care system implicitly. She took matters into her own hands to make sure her condition was treated properly.
The way our health care system is set up, it's much, much easier to get a script for Oxycontin than get physiotherapy for your back pain that will actually help resolve the problem rather than making you dependent on opioids to get through your day.
I know a woman who weighs +300 pounds. She was off work for many months due to severe debilitating back pain, as being obese puts an enormous strain on your back. Instead of working with her to see how she can take the weight off (she might be a good candidate for bariatric surgery, for instance), her doctor gives her Oxycontin 80 mg 3 times a day. She is a pretty young woman in her 30s who is heading straight for early retirement due to disability before she is 50.
It's not about blaming the victim. It's about using the resources of our health care system appropriately, actually treating people for their medical problems rather than just tranquillizing them.
If people are in severe pain and nothing can be done, by all means, give them whatever drugs they need. But in my experience, people are not given all the treatment options that could help them because giving them pills is easier and cheaper.
Tue, 2008-11-11 21:10
#36
Agreed. But I don't think it's blaming the victim to
help people find non-pharmaceutical alternatives for what ails them.....
It's
not about blaming the victim. It's about using the resources of our
health care system appropriately, actually treating people for their
medical problems rather than just tranquillizing them.If people
are in severe pain and nothing can be done, by all means, give them
whatever drugs they need. But in my experience, people are not given
all the treatment options that could help them because giving them
pills is easier and cheaper.
So, ok,
so you see both sides, but the ones we ARE talking about here are the
ones who have "unmet medical needs", and so lets just suppose they HAVE
tried all avenues and their pain persists. Also, there are a lot of
conditions that heroin can be used for besides pain, that bit of
knowledge has been drummed right out of modern consciousness, thanks to
the War on Drugs and the pharmaceutical corporation's efforts.
And for them, and for the cases where doctors have ALLREADY been
prescribing morphine for a long time and the patient is "physically
dependant" ["addicted" too, perhaps, or not], there is really no good
reason to make life so utterly horrible in the context of
prohibition.
We see the opiate addict doing
well when they have their supply, and only being messed up without it.
We see the cost of aquiring the drug is so high that crime is almost a
rational decision... and "if society is going to insist on prohibition,
then to heck with them" sentiments arise!!
So
lets talk about these ones. I understand, there is a lot of physical
therapies that are not fully utilised, and some people do take the
"easy way" too readily - but that is best addressed in a situation
where prohibition does not make it impossible to even discuss openly!!
It is not comfortable to be saying "hey doc, I would like to try the
physio, but I have started taking heroin recreationally before my
accident, and so I need to know that I can get the help with my pains
if I quit the dope"'.
Ok, not a great example, but the thing is
that if we started seeing HEROIN AS MEDICINE, and got it out from under
the War on Drugs, and prohibition, scenario, there would be a lot more
room for getting that message out.
Also,
who is to say that the Doctors get to be the one and only deciders as
to what I can put into my body? Especially when those doctors are being
led around by the pharma-Giants!! Of COURSE they don't want us using
heroin, there is not much profit in that for the shareholders of
Pharma-Giant stocks. [heroin cannot be patented, and it can be grown,
so there is no monopoly, etc., possible - same with all "plant based
medicines"]
Remember - we have the MU Opiod
receptor built right into our nervous system. I could postulate that
it's presence makes opiates the obvious choice over something like
Vioxx. It is my inalienable right to make us of it, it is a human right
because the MU Opiod receptor is part of my human makeup. What do
you say to THAT idea? [am I stretching a bit now? lol]/
Wed, 2008-11-12 18:01
#37
So let's talk about these ones. I understand, there is a lot of physicaltherapies that are not fully utilised, and some people do take the"easy way" too readily - but that is best addressed in a situationwhere prohibition does not make it impossible to even discuss openly!!It is not comfortable to be saying "hey doc, I would like to try thephysio, but I have started taking heroin recreationally before myaccident, and so I need to know that I can get the help with my painsif I quit the dope"'.
Ok, not a great example, but the thing isthat if we started seeing HEROIN AS MEDICINE, and got it out from underthe War on Drugs, and prohibition, scenario, there would be a lot moreroom for getting that message out.
I thought that was a great example, actually 
You bring up a good point; withdrawal can cause pain, and folks need to be helped with that in a non-judgemental way.
Remember - we have the MU Opiodreceptor built right into our nervous system. I could postulate thatits presence makes opiates the obvious choice over something likeVioxx. It is my inalienable right to make us of it, it is a human rightbecause the MU Opiod receptor is part of my human makeup. What doyou say to THAT idea? [am I stretching a bit now? lol
Wellll...pharmacologically speaking, the reason any drug works is because it interacts with our bodies in some way, be it receptors, or interfering with a process. And that's how poisons work, too. There really isn't any divide between natural and chemical; it's all chemical, really. Your body doesn't know if something came from a plant or a factory.
That said, I agree with empowering patients, telling them the truth about what's going on with them and not getting all paternalistic.
Thu, 2008-11-13 21:11
#38
Well we certainly agree that having an authority telling us what is
allowed in our bodies is not right... and it has not worked very well as far as addressing the drug problem in our society.
Perhaps it is time to bring up the question: Why do we have PROHIBITION?
When we look at why prohibition was started, we see that there was some
"side issues" and coniving going on, and that tells us it was not all
about "whats best for society".
More interesting - what forces
are behind having prohibition continue? It gets a bit weird at
this point, but the truth might be that illegal drugs createss the
opportunity for "an alternate revenue stream" that is so wealthy that
it cannot be ignored. More wealth than in LEGAL drugs perhaps, and
ranking about THIRD in the world's richest "industries", behind only
oil and weapons. See? - it cannot be ignored.
So,
who gets to play with this money? What nefarious activites does it
fund? Now it gets interesting... There is no small amount of evidence
to show that the CIA is actively involved in the trafficing of heroin
and other illegal drugs. They do this in order to help fund certain
groups and activities. This "political tactic" was well establised by
the French under deGaulle and Pompideau [I read a lot about it this
summer]. The French Resistance, during and after the WW2, was funded
with heroin trafficing, and the government of France's role was to
secure both the routes and the refining labs. They were "paid back" by
doing the dirty work such as assassinations and guerilla warfare [which
was done by organised crime groups].
Now that you
know this bit of history, it is not such a stretch to consider that the
CIA is using heroin trafficing to get some "unsavoury jobs" done too.
Vietnam was one such case, holding back the communist Chinese... heroin
did a huge part of that job. South America is of great interest to the
CIA now. Socialism or Communism is generally the target of these
"heroin funded operations".
Anyhow, the CIA
and USA foreign policy has become dependant on this revenue stream. No
matter how much the War on Drugs is hurting America and Americans, they
continue with it - prohibition is a key part of the fight against
socialism.
It appears I may have painted myself
into a corner - we agree that authority figures should not be telling
us what we can or cannot put into our bodies, but prohibition is
here to stay, so there is little that can be done. Well, perhaps
getting the real story out will help!!
; "Sealed"){kind=small}
Sun, 2008-11-16 18:01
#39
Sineed, you said above...
but alcohol withdrawal causes a poorly-understood phenomenon by which the WD reaction gets worse each time. (And there's only one medically-supervised detox in the province of Ontario. Huh.)
I'm not sure that that's the case , that there is only one such facility in the province. What place did you have in mind?
Sun, 2008-11-16 21:41
#40
Sineed, you said above...
but alcohol withdrawal causes a poorly-understood phenomenon by which the WD reaction gets worse each time. (And there's only one medically-supervised detox in the province of Ontario. Huh.)
I'm not sure that that's the case , that there is only one such facility in the province. What place did you have in mind?
Hope you can provide research data [not some herbal claptrap] for that statement that alcohol withdrawal gets worse each time because bluntly, it's not even close to a medical fact.
Whoever thinks there's only ONE detox in all of Ontario-- you joking me? Where ARE you getting your information?
Here's the list JUST for Toronto:
Medical & Non-Medical Withdrawal Management Facilities
It's not even called "detox". Hasn't been called that for 20 years so if you used a search engine, try again.
I also don't get your idea that withdrawal for alcohol gets worse every time. It's not in any research I ever studied, working in the field or in college. It isn't even in my experience which is fairly extensive in the field.
What can occur from long term alcohol use is that tolerance levels can lower. Then again, most people's levels of tolerance for psychotropics tend to lessen as they age.
Withdrawal from ANY substance that has withdrawal symptoms [and there aren't that many] is based in length of use, amount of use, whether or not that use is intermittent or constant, physical capabilities at the time of withdrawal, actual physical dependence which varies from person to person, and whether or not medical intervention is available or suitable. Some very heavy users will not have *any* withdrawal at all. It's about personal tolerance.
Sineed: Your pharmacological understanding of substance use seems to be based in old fish tales, mishmashed misconstruction of medical data and anecdotal stories, not medical science.
Sun, 2008-11-16 21:54
#41
Sineed, you said above...
but alcohol withdrawal causes a poorly-understood phenomenon by which the WD reaction gets worse each time. (And there's only one medically-supervised detox in the province of Ontario. Huh.)
I'm not sure that that's the case , that there is only one such facility in the province. What place did you have in mind?
Hi, oldgoat! There are plenty of rehabs in Ontario, but only one that is medically supervised, and it's part of CAMH. If you go into rehab elsewhere, and you experience a seizure, they'll rush you to the hospital, but they don't give you appropriate medical treatment at the rehab. Certain people need medically-supervised rehab, like people with heart problems and people with a history of serious withdrawal reactions. And they do withdraw people in hospitals sometimes, though often they don't bother, which is why they keep booze in the hospital pharmacies.
And it's unconscionable. Like I said, the reaction gets worse every time.
Sun, 2008-11-16 22:48
#42
I can't seem to make the link function work anymore; anyhow, here's the article:
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040315/1443.html
An important concept in both alcohol craving and alcohol withdrawal is the "kindling" phenomenon; the term refers to long-term changes that occur in neurons after repeated detoxifications. Recurrent detoxifications are postulated to increase obsessive thoughts or alcohol craving.5 Kindling explains the observation that subsequent episodes of alcohol withdrawal tend to progressively worsen.
Granted, the whole "kindling" theory is controversial, but the observation that subsequent episodes of
alcohol WD worsen is documented. From the Journal of Neurological and Neurosurgical Psychiatry:
Clinical experience is that in repeated withdrawal episodes, symptoms tend to progress in severity, culminating in seizures or serious psychiatric sequelae.
I suggest PubMed for medlit searches if you don't have access to university net
resources.
With regard to rehab, see my reply to oldgoat. I know it's hard to believe. Basically, alcohol WD is the
most dangerous WD and in some cases, it needs to be medically managed.
Treating the alcohol addiction is an entirely separate matter, and I think that's where the confusion is coming from.
What's up, TV Parkdale? Still p/oed at me because I corrected you about OPSEU?
Edited to add: what the heck is up with this sidescroll?
Mon, 2008-11-17 14:05
#43
I can't seem to make the link function work anymore; anyhow, here's the article:
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040315/1443.html
An important concept in both alcohol craving and alcohol withdrawal is the "kindling" phenomenon; the term refers to long-term changes that occur in neurons after repeated detoxifications. Recurrent detoxifications are postulated to increase obsessive thoughts or alcohol craving.5 Kindling explains the observation that subsequent episodes of alcohol withdrawal tend to progressively worsen.Granted, the whole "kindling" theory is controversial, but the observation that subsequent episodes of
alcohol WD worsen is documented. From the Journal of Neurological and Neurosurgical Psychiatry:
Clinical experience is that in repeated withdrawal episodes, symptoms tend to progress in severity, culminating in seizures or serious psychiatric sequelae.I suggest PubMed for medlit searches if you don't have access to university net
resources.
With regard to rehab, see my reply to oldgoat. I know it's hard to believe. Basically, alcohol WD is the
most dangerous WD and in some cases, it needs to be medically managed.
Treating the alcohol addiction is an entirely separate matter, and I think that's where the confusion is coming from.
What's up, TV Parkdale? Still p/oed at me because I corrected you about OPSEU?
Edited to add: what the heck is up with this sidescroll?
First off I have no idea what you're on about with OPSEU. This debate is one, that is another.
I agree that hardcore alcohol use withdrawal needs some medical intervention because valium and alcohol are the two drugs that will cause seizure and death in withdrawal. Medical supervision does not necessarily mean having a doctor checking up every hour.
However, ia valium load is a simple enough proceedure. It can be done at a hospital emerg and the person can be sent to a non-medical facility. It's done every day because once valium loaded, the half life covers the period of time when the seizure can occur.
And as you said, that idea withdrawal gets worse is controversial. There's not enough evidence to prove it and in fact, the evidence in most research at CAMH does not support the theory.
The reason, I suspect that it is also controversial is because to do such a study the researcher cannot give the subject a valium load which is not only cruel, it is physically dangerous and deadly in some cases.
Sounds like a case of using the poor as lab rats, to me.
PS: I think the sidescroll crap is caused when a link is too long. Try just putting the words "MED STUDY" or whatever, then putting the link via the link button and see if it goes cyberpoof.
Mon, 2008-11-17 14:08
#44
Sineed, you said above...
but alcohol withdrawal causes a poorly-understood phenomenon by which the WD reaction gets worse each time. (And there's only one medically-supervised detox in the province of Ontario. Huh.)
I'm not sure that that's the case , that there is only one such facility in the province. What place did you have in mind?
Hi, oldgoat! There are plenty of rehabs in Ontario, but only one that is medically supervised, and it's part of CAMH. If you go into rehab elsewhere, and you experience a seizure, they'll rush you to the hospital, but they don't give you appropriate medical treatment at the rehab. Certain people need medically-supervised rehab, like people with heart problems and people with a history of serious withdrawal reactions. And they do withdraw people in hospitals sometimes, though often they don't bother, which is why they keep booze in the hospital pharmacies.
And it's unconscionable. Like I said, the reaction gets worse every time.
I just gave you a list of detoxes and you are still stuck on this fallacy. Ossington and St. Mikes are IN hospitals.
If someone is having a seizure from alcohol withdrawal in a medical facility they are given lorazepam [aka "Valium loaded"] not booze so wherever you are getting your information it is completely erroneous.
Do we need more detoxes? I'd say "yes" unequivocally.
But please don't use a fallacious argument to prove it.
And in fact, if someone is given a Valium load to withdraw from alcohol--the usually have NO symptoms of withdrawal at all.
Mon, 2008-11-17 19:39
#45
And as you said, that idea withdrawal gets worse is controversial. There's not enough evidence to prove it and in fact, the evidence in most research at CAMH does not support the theory.
I didn't say the idea that alcohol WD gets worse is controversial; I say the "kindling" theory for why it gets worse is.
If CAMH doesn't support the idea of alcohol WD getting worse with subsequent WDs, why does it say it does in their publication, Management of Alcohol, Tobacco, and other drug problems: a physician's manual? (I have a copy in my office.)
I found out about the single medically-supervised rehab by calling DART, the Drug and Alcohol Registry Service, on behalf of a family member who is not in Toronto. And I was gobsmacked; I figured all the big cities had 'em.
BTW, I had a look at your links, and the ones you specifically mention, St Joe's and St. Mike's, aren't medically supervised. The St. Joe's one even specifically says so, and the St. Mike's one is affiliated with the hospital, but it's on Sherbourne St, not in St. Mike's.
I used to work in a medically supervised withdrawal unit, over at ARF on Russell St, before it got absorbed by CAMH and closed its inpatient unit. CAMH now offers its medical withdrawal service at the Queen St. site, with 24 hr nursing care.
I maintain the confusion here is over the "medical" part. Sure, there's all sorts of rehab (although we agree not enough), but what I'm talking about is the sort of thing I used to see: a genuine case of delirium tremens, where the patient got 260 mg of diazepam and was still shaky, or a guy who developed a heart arrhythmia from WD and the doctors ordered an intravenous heart drug. They didn't have to send him out to deal with this because he was already in a hospital, and that's what I'm talking about.
But most people don't need this level of care.
My knowledge of pharmacology is actually fairly extensive.
Mon, 2008-11-17 21:46
#46
And as you said, that idea withdrawal gets worse is controversial. There's not enough evidence to prove it and in fact, the evidence in most research at CAMH does not support the theory.I didn't say the idea that alcohol WD gets worse is controversial; I say the "kindling" theory for why it gets worse is.
If CAMH doesn't support the idea of alcohol WD getting worse with subsequent WDs, why does it say it does in their publication, Management of Alcohol, Tobacco, and other drug problems: a physician's manual? (I have a copy in my office.)
Can't get your link open for some reason. However, I will take your word for it, that it exists. I must get out more or something.
I found out about the single medically-supervised rehab by calling DART, the Drug and Alcohol Registry Service, on behalf of a family member who is not in Toronto. And I was gobsmacked; I figured all the big cities had 'em.
DART is a good idea actually. I used to use them for referrals sometimes. But the province/city/feds keep shutting down the programs.
BTW, I had a look at your links, and the ones you specifically mention, St Joe's and St. Mike's, aren't medically supervised. The St. Joe's one even specifically says so, and the St. Mike's one is affiliated with the hospital, but it's on Sherbourne St, not in St. Mike's.
Well then you would also know that these detoxes demand that prior to bedding, they use the attached hospital facilites to do a work up and administer a load, vitamins, whatever the doctor feels is necessary before the detox beds them. At least they did, up to 2/3 years ago so I assume that part hasn't changed.
Even Women's Own [best of the lot imo] is pretty careful. They require a valium load when necessary and for valium withdrawal, a proper tapering plan by a doctor who is qualified in tapering methodology.
Don't underestimate how astute detox workers about medical problems either. They may not be doctors but they see MORE people per week suffering withdrawal symptoms and substance use related illness than most doctors may see in a lifetime.
I used to work in a medically supervised withdrawal unit, over at ARF on Russell St, before it got absorbed by CAMH and closed its inpatient unit. CAMH now offers its medical withdrawal service at the Queen St. site, with 24 hr nursing care.
I honestly wish it still WAS ARF and the Clark because I really think they can't make up their minds what the h*ll they are doing, anymore. Half the time you can only send clients for "trials" and such instead of proper long-term psych support.
I maintain the confusion here is over the "medical" part. Sure, there's all sorts of rehab (although we agree not enough), but what I'm talking about is the sort of thing I used to see: a genuine case of delirium tremens, where the patient got 260 mg of diazepam and was still shaky, or a guy who developed a heart arrhythmia from WD and the doctors ordered an intravenous heart drug. They didn't have to send him out to deal with this because he was already in a hospital, and that's what I'm talking about.
So you are essentially saying there's only one "hospital setting" detox?
260mg? You know what? I'd have a doctor check the guy's medical history to see how he responds to meds in general and sedatives, specifically. I'd also check for a history of hyperactivity or mania symptoms because he may not react to benzos "normally".
I'd also want to know if he'd been checked for diabetes.
In his case, you might want to go with a tapering program if he can handle it.
Too bad most docs don't consider injectable alcohol, either.
But most people don't need this level of care.
Exactly. I can't remember the last time I heard of someone dying in any of the detoxes.
You'd be surprised what a cagey frontliner can catch. I don't
know how many clients I had that were being treated for depression, I
had them checked for hep c--and sure enough, that was causing the
depression.People who work with substance users every
day [if they really care, I mean] often see things a doctor might miss
if s/he isn't looking for it.It's really helpful for the client/patient if the doc is on board with the frontline staff.
My knowledge of pharmacology is actually fairly extensive.
Sounds as if it might be. Don't know where my CPS is at the moment *chuckle*. Buried under my treatment books or harm reduction treatises, maybe?
Thu, 2010-09-16 14:05
#47
Wow, what a fascinating discussion... thanks. I just posted on RabbleTV about this topic.
http://www.rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2010/09/not-rex/not-rex-spen...