Maintenance treatments with long-acting opioids like methadone tend to come with a withdrawal that lasts for months.
Meanwhile, short-acting opiates like heroin have a withdrawal period that lasts about a week. Is it any wonder methadone patients switch back to heroin when they try to quit for good?
Mark my words, this isn't going away or getting any better. You can prosecute doctors, regulate all you want, burn fields of poppies. None of it will affect the demand nor the supply. You can't price or regulate someone out of an addiction.
If people get cut off wholesale from their prescriptions because doctors are being prosecuted for prescribing pain medication, they'll turn to heroin. Which will be available, regardless of all the opium seized, regardless of cartels dismantled.
Just like when Oxycontin went under a formulation change making it resistant to abuse, which also caused the price to spike to a dollar per milligram.
People turned to heroin because it was cheaper, more potent, and much more widely available than pharmaceuticals could ever be.
If you think pill junkies are bad, wait until you look down an alley to see a heroin junkie injecting another junkie in the jugular because all her veins are blown out. Watch your step, though, lest you get a syringe in your foot.
I've gone ahead and edited my comment, not because of your comment, but just because I felt like I wasn't making a clear point. Kratom is not even mentioned anymore, sorry.
While kratom is habit forming and can "fuck you up" if you have no tolerance, the true value is for the person already addicted to opiates looking to get clean.
If you want to keep drugs out of the hands of kids, make them all legal and watch the usage numbers fall. Banning a powdered leaf, that is quite self-regulating, albeit habit-forming, is a step backwards in the quest to put out the structure fire that the opiate crises has become.
Amphetamine will be abused by college students. Alcohol will be abused by highschool kids. It's a given. The allure of stuff like cocaine, with the "what else was I lied to about, what am I missing out on" mindset goes out the window when you stop lying and start letting people make their own choices.
You can't stop all the drug abuse but the extent of use is not a given. Amphetamine use of UK students appears to be extremely rare compared to the US, its never really been a cultural thing here.
I suspect it is due to very few amphetamine drugs being prescribed, especially to children. It seems to common to hear about people selling their legitimate ADHD/ADD prescriptions to friends in the US. "Speed Paste" is the only amphetamine properly in circulation and its use is mostly restricted to the hardcore "junkie" groups, very much frowned upon from the casual drug community.
None of the above is a solution, just to note the degree to which groups will gravitate towards and use a drug is not a given. Culture and availability probably affect use massively.
I completely agree. My example wasn't exactly the best, but relatively applicable to the US nevertheless.
You raise many good points about drug use being different geographically and culturally. It's very much about availability, local drug culture, etc.
For example, the speed paste. As you said, in the UK and in other European countries amphetamine is usually amphetamine in paste form, not crystal methylamphetamine like we usually see here in the states.
Culture and availability absolutely affects use massively, a point I didn't mean to gloss over, and one I'm glad you raised.
I think identifying these differences between countries will bring governments a step closer to finding some sort of solution. Not exactly an easy one though when it comes to culture though. How do you break strong cultural associations?
There seems to be a number of (bad)role models that glorify different drugs in sub-cultures. Opiate use is glamorised from what I can tell in southern HipHop, Cannabis promoted all over the shop, Xanax frequently referred to in Hollywood.
>Alcohol will be abused by highschool kids. It's a given
But in the UK it's not even regarded as "abuse". It's perfectly normal for 15 year olds to drink alcohol with their friends. (And not against the law, if they are doing it in private.)
There may be benefits to legalizing drugs, but the idea that it will reduce usage of them is a fantasy.
It's in that strange area between normal and looked down on that depends on the class background of the observer. It is a problem, but a slowly declining one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31452735
Cannabis is effectively legal in the UK now, but there's no evidence of a decline in use as far as I know. Certainly not a precipitous one.
I'm not sure what you mean about class background. There must be very few 15 year olds in the UK, from any class background, who haven't used alcohol. I wasn't really referring to binge drinking. My point was that the fact that it's easier for young people to legally drink alcohol in the UK than it is in the US seems to have an effect.
Ah right, I was referring to distinction between "problematic" and "non-problematic" use. People generally accept that you can have a "non-problematic" use of alcohol but not everyone accepts that for the other drugs. Although you'll still find newspaper editorials concerned about teenage drinking. And in the really regressive papers, concern about women drinking.
While cannabis simple possession is very rarely prosecuted the police are still going after grow houses. I think it would have to be legitimised (properly legal) to see a decline due to losing the "rebel" factor.
Well, maybe. I don't think smoking cannabis is really seen as rebellious these days, though.
I don't see any reason to believe that legalizing a drug will stop people using it, or cause them to use it more responsibly than they do currently. We have a case study in the form of prohibition in the US. There's certainly no evidence that alcohol use declined following the repeal of prohibition.
Yeah, it's all over. Prescription stimulants get diverted, resold at a markup, etc.
The demand is high and the supply is there. Low doses of oral methamphetamine arent entirely uncommon either. Meth is cheaper, more potent and more widely available.
The extent to which this can be said to be driven by changes in the licensing regime versus changes in the population structure can't really be determined from this data.
It sounds like someone profits from shipping opiates to the U.S.. Someone who also controls the juristriction.
Sounds ridiculous, i know.
Mhmmm. Who could it be?
Meanwhile, short-acting opiates like heroin have a withdrawal period that lasts about a week. Is it any wonder methadone patients switch back to heroin when they try to quit for good?
Mark my words, this isn't going away or getting any better. You can prosecute doctors, regulate all you want, burn fields of poppies. None of it will affect the demand nor the supply. You can't price or regulate someone out of an addiction.
If people get cut off wholesale from their prescriptions because doctors are being prosecuted for prescribing pain medication, they'll turn to heroin. Which will be available, regardless of all the opium seized, regardless of cartels dismantled.
Just like when Oxycontin went under a formulation change making it resistant to abuse, which also caused the price to spike to a dollar per milligram.
People turned to heroin because it was cheaper, more potent, and much more widely available than pharmaceuticals could ever be.
If you think pill junkies are bad, wait until you look down an alley to see a heroin junkie injecting another junkie in the jugular because all her veins are blown out. Watch your step, though, lest you get a syringe in your foot.