I actually agree with Chuck Shumer...

[deerslayer]

Chuck says that a new, stronger version of hydrocodone pain killer should not be released and he is right on the money (for once). Although usually not expensive as a prescription, hydrocodone sells for up to $40 on the street. A cop recently told me that the street value is higher than heroine.

Senator Warns Of New Batch Of 'Super Painkillers' That Could Fuel More Deadly Robberies | Fox News

[k9wh91984]

I am in the medical field and everything has its place, but stopping a drug that can help people will not stop drug dealers and unethical people/situations. These dealers will always find ways to get drugs onto the streets so this new painkiller can help many and limiting it may just hurt the people who need it by reducing the amount of pills taken and the frequency.

[StPatrick]

Chuck says that a new, stronger version of hydrocodone pain killer should not be released and he is right on the money (for once). Although usually not expensive as a prescription, hydrocodone sells for up to $40 on the street. A cop recently told me that the street value is higher than heroine.

Senator Warns Of New Batch Of 'Super Painkillers' That Could Fuel More Deadly Robberies | Fox News

Deal with the thieves, not the pills. I don't think we need to be telling cancer patients to suck it up because criminals might steal the strong stuff. The criminals are already stealing what's available, so what would a ban actually accomplish?

I see this issue as being no different than the argument over high capacity magazines.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

More nanny nonsense from Schumer, a prince among nannies.

I can't stand narcotics. Have a bottle of 5 mg hydrocodone in the gun safe from a few-years-ago toothache I keep for shtf emergencies, but it isn't pleasant to take. Then got a bottle of 10 mx oxycodone from a kidney stone last summer and I took 2 pills out of that bottle. That 10 mg oxycodone was vastly more effective than the 5 mg hydrocodone on the kidney stone, but makes me sick as a dog. The pain was more tolerable than the nausea. Hope I never get any chronic problem that requires narcotics.

It is difficult to understand people who can take the stuff for fun, though there are plenty of em.

But I know a few folks with chronic back troubles that wouldn't do very good without it. Old ancient dad has got so old that his spine has practically dissolved and he has been taking stiff doses for several years. Not to mention terminal cancer patients.

It is inhumane to deprive the folks who need it and the laws are already a super-hassle for folks who need it. The patients get treated like criminals and doctors are afraid to have too many pain patients. The doctors are fearful to prescribe what patients need for fear of the DEA.

[deerslayer]

Current hydro and oxy prescriptions are already STRONG. I personally know two people whose lives were ruined as a result of painkiller addiction. I'll never touch the stuff. I'm not saying ban them, but I do agree with Shumer that there needs to be some serious review and more strict controls before the new version, which is supposedly 10X more powerful, is released. IMO, it's more similar to issuing heroine to patients and then wondering why people get robbed for it or shipments get stolen than it is to a high-cap mag ban.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm very ignorant of everything, but recall long ago when working as an alcohol/drug counselor, being taught that heroin was once a medically useful drug, banned because of abuse.

[greenego]

Where did Chuck get his medical degree from? He is just another elitis politician that thinks he knows best. I can't stand Chuck Shumer.

[StPatrick]

I can't stand narcotics. Have a bottle of 5 mg hydrocodone in the gun safe from a few-years-ago toothache I keep for shtf emergencies, but it isn't pleasant to take. Then got a bottle of 10 mx oxycodone from a kidney stone last summer and I took 2 pills out of that bottle. That 10 mg oxycodone was vastly more effective than the 5 mg hydrocodone on the kidney stone, but makes me sick as a dog. The pain was more tolerable than the nausea. Hope I never get any chronic problem that requires narcotics.

I'm with you on that one...I've only had them prescribed twice, the first after an operation to correct a busted nose / deviated septum (note: It is never advisable to get hit in the schnozz with a hockey puck), and the 2nd after a wrist operation. They helped with the pain, but I got off them as quickly as possible, as I was twitchy, itchy, and couldn't sleep. Unfortunately, most people end up getting pleasurably high, which leads to the potential for abuse.

That said, I don't think we should be tying the hands of our doctors because a group of bad actors might do bad things with a new drug, in exactly the same manner as they do with current medications. Strong painkillers have legitimate medical uses, and I believe that providing aid to the suffering should be seen as morally preferable to preventing potential crime. Criminals are the problem, not the items they choose to steal or abuse.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Current hydro and oxy prescriptions are already STRONG. I personally know two people whose lives were ruined as a result of painkiller addiction. I'll never touch the stuff. I'm not saying ban them, but I do agree with Shumer that there needs to be some serious review and more strict controls before the new version, which is supposedly 10X more powerful, is released. IMO, it's more similar to issuing heroine to patients and then wondering why people get robbed for it or shipments get stolen than it is to a high-cap mag ban.

Limiting a drug's strength just because of the street value of it in the near future

is hogwash and you know it. That's like the crap I endure everytime I get some

Liquid Fire drain opener, because they evidently use it to make meth.

Shumer is an ass.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Current hydro and oxy prescriptions are already STRONG. I personally know two people whose lives were ruined as a result of painkiller addiction. I'll never touch the stuff. I'm not saying ban them, but I do agree with Shumer that there needs to be some serious review and more strict controls before the new version, which is supposedly 10X more powerful, is released. IMO, it's more similar to issuing heroine to patients and then wondering why people get robbed for it or shipments get stolen than it is to a high-cap mag ban.

Their lives were ruined, not for the drug, but for some choice they made in life,

or possibly a medical condition that was not adequately controlled. Blaming the

drug is exactly like blaming the gun.

[Defender]

If Shumer said it was high noon at high noon, I would suspect he'd be lying, lol.

[mav]

I don't agree with Schumer. AR is spot on, Schumer is an ass. Frankly, I get tired of the government regulating anything and everything and use the nation's best interest as their reason. I can't even go to the drug store and purchase cold medicine without having to show ID and having my name put into a database. Why don't we try for a change letting the people decide what is in their best interest?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm probably going to have to get a knee replacement. Aleve and Motrin do

just fine for me right now, but if I need to take a painkiller, I'll leave that between

my doctor and myself, if you don't mind.

Maxwell can take his silver hammer and come down on Shumer's head.

[Guest dubaholic2]

Their lives were ruined, not for the drug, but for some choice they made in life,

or possibly a medical condition that was not adequately controlled. Blaming the

drug is exactly like blaming the gun.

+1. the drug doesnt force you to become addicted to it. it takes you making bad choices over and over, and giving up on yourself. i have no sympathy for drug addicts.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Why don't we try for a change letting the people decide what is in their best interest?

This is yet another issue where the left-wing nannies and the right-wing nannies in the gov are in perfect agreement. Given their large areas of mutual agreement, such politicians as Schumer and Santorum should join together to form the Nanny Party, and then negotiate out their minor remaining disputes such as whether to ban high-cap mags before they execute homosexuals, or whether to ban high-cap mags after they execute homosexuals.

[deerslayer]

I'm all for personal responsibility, and anyone who has read any of my posts on all the "let's give guns to felons" threads should know that I don't feel sorry for addicts. However, pain killers are a huge problem, the currect procedures don't work, and now we're about to get one 10 times stronger than the ones causing all the problems now. Heroine and cocaine would probably make patients forget their pain--should doctors prescribe them too?

Edited January 9, 2012 by deerslayer

[mav]

I'm all for personal responsibility, and anyone who has read any of my posts on all the "let's give guns to felons" threads should know that I don't feel sorry for addicts. However, pain killers are a huge problem, the currect procedures don't work, and now we're about to get one 10 times stronger than the ones causing all the problems now. Heroine and cocaine would probably make patients forget their pain--should doctors prescribe them too?

You are absolutely correct, pain killer addiction is a huge problem and the current procedures do not work as well as they should. It is my contention that no procedure implemented will work as well as it should. As long as there is a desire for the drug, people are going to find a way to get it. The question now becomes do you want to government to outlaw certain prescription pain killers for everybody because of the actions of a minority of individuals? The answer has to be no. If it was yes, then I could make the argument against alcohol. There are thousands who die every year due to alcohol and alcohol-related accidents. That is a big problem and the current procedures aren't working as well as they should.

Ultimately, this is a slippery slope argument. When I run into these type of scenarios, I am always going to side on personal freedom and responsibility instead of allowing the government to create additional laws to further regulate our lives.

[hornett22]

More nanny nonsense from Schumer, a prince among nannies.

I can't stand narcotics. Have a bottle of 5 mg hydrocodone in the gun safe from a few-years-ago toothache I keep for shtf emergencies, but it isn't pleasant to take. Then got a bottle of 10 mx oxycodone from a kidney stone last summer and I took 2 pills out of that bottle. That 10 mg oxycodone was vastly more effective than the 5 mg hydrocodone on the kidney stone, but makes me sick as a dog. The pain was more tolerable than the nausea. Hope I never get any chronic problem that requires narcotics.

It is difficult to understand people who can take the stuff for fun, though there are plenty of em.

But I know a few folks with chronic back troubles that wouldn't do very good without it. Old ancient dad has got so old that his spine has practically dissolved and he has been taking stiff doses for several years. Not to mention terminal cancer patients.

It is inhumane to deprive the folks who need it and the laws are already a super-hassle for folks who need it. The patients get treated like criminals and doctors are afraid to have too many pain patients. The doctors are fearful to prescribe what patients need for fear of the DEA.

I agree. I can't take and wont take that stuff. I took advil when I had my wisdom teeth pulled.

[deerslayer]

current procedures do not work as well as they should

a bit of an understatement

Ultimately, this is a slippery slope argument.

Indeed it is--Why not just prescribe patients meth?

[Parrothead]

Based on the story, he wants to ban this substance to prevent murders, assaults and robberies. I'm pretty sure all of these "criminal acts" have been banned for a long damn time. We're treating a hypothetical gunshot wound with a band-aid.......

[DWARREN123]

All you have to do is know a terminal patient who needs it to survive the day then it becomes a simple thing. Get the thieves not the sick.

[Guest lostpass]

I'm very ignorant of everything, but recall long ago when working as an alcohol/drug counselor, being taught that heroin was once a medically useful drug, banned because of abuse.

They still use heroin, they call it diamorphine. It is an effective drug for pain and, I think, chronic diarrhea. It might not be legal in the US. Side note, heroin was first marketed as a opiate that was non addicting.

Everyone hates what drug addiction does to people, what with the stealing and lying and so forth, but few bother to think "Hey, is it the drug or is it because it is ridiculously expensive and illegal that is making this addict a horrible person?"

With the way things are you should have to have a carry permit before you get a prescription for an opiate. Cause once people know you have oxy's at your house their is a decent chance they will stop by to get them.

[Oh Shoot]

... Side note, heroin was first marketed as a opiate that was non addicting. ...

Yep, was touted as a cure for morphine addiction. Worked a treat for that.

Did a paper on patent medicine in college. By the 1890's a huge numbers of folks were opiate dependent due to over the counter and mail order "medicine".

One of the first efforts to reduce this were products to wean folks off the opium, codeine, and morphine, one was called "Dr. (Somebody's) Gradual Treatment for Opium Addiction. Laced with heroin hydrochloride. Said in big letters on bottle, "ORDER NEXT WEEK'S TREATMENT NOW".

Even Bayer made it:

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Indeed it is--Why not just prescribe patients meth?

Think I recall reading that medical meth has been unavailable in the USA for the last couple of years, but other than the last couple of years, I believe it was available since at least the 1960's and possibly earlier. Dunno if it was withdrawn because of a recent new law or maybe the pharmaceutical company finally decided that it was too much trouble to sell in the USA. If I recall, the most common pharmaceutical Methamphetamine HCL pill is/was called desoxyn.

Early-on it was used as a diet pill and as a short-term anti-depressant for anyone who might feel "down in the dumps". The primary legit uses included narcolepsy and for soldiers and pilots who were more likely to stay alive if they could stay awake. Desoxyn got strongly diverted into the black market in the 1960's and 70's and then mostly dried up on the street, though on the other hand it wasn't difficult to get in the 1960's if people weighed a few extra pounds and asked the doctor for a diet pill. It was nearly as cheap as aspirin (with a prescription).

Truckdrivers drove many miles back then, housewives vacuumed many houses, and students stayed up all night and passed many tests on legal desoxyn. I used it a couple of times in college for all-night study sessions about 1967. It was smoother, as I recall, than dexedrine, ritalin or mixed amphetamines (back then they were Black Mollys, nowadays a similar concoction is called Adderall). It was better for attention span and in small doses did not cause sweating, nervousness, or fast heart rate. Haven't tried it since, so maybe am remembering it wrong. A half pill was plenty to get the job done.

Am not saying it was all good. Meth is a nasty drug if taken habitually in large doses, and a certain percentage of the population has the kind of personality that can easily get in the habit.

But the desoxyn hung on over the years occasionally prescribed for severest cases of ADHD or Narcolopsy. When I was reading about it a few years ago on narcolepsy forums, for some people it seemed the only thing that worked, and apparently for those folks it seemed to work for many years. Which is surprising because Meth is very apt for street addicts to quickly develop tolerance and require increased doses. The other thing I noticed was the outlandish price patients reported paying for desoxyn in drug stores. Highway robbery for an inexpensive chemical. Desoxyn requires a new prescription every 30 days, so a narcoleptic who may need to take it for many years, would have to get a new RX from his sleep doctor every month! Crazy hassle.

In addition, the doctors who work with ADHD or Sleep patients seem scared to death of the DEA.

I don't have narcolepsy. I have idiopathic hypersomnia which has been getting worse every year. It is about the same end-result but has different symptoms and doctors have to follow different prescribing rules to keep the DEA off their backs.

For over 10 years took a "lightly controlled" non-amphetamine Rx which had minimal side-effects and worked good but costed a fortune. Then after many years that medicine just quit working. Because the price of the stuff is highway robbery, I quit taking it and slept a lot. So later on the sleep doctor wanted me to try ritalin, but he was scared to death to try it because he might get in trouble with the DEA because it didn't exactly match my diagnosis. So I took the ritalin a couple of months, and it didn't work, had unpleasant side-effects, and I had to get a new scrip every month. So I quit taking it. Too much hassle. Hell with it.

So anyway, there are a few meds out there that might work for a few more years, but the sleep doctor is too scared to prescribe them and its too much hassle getting a prescription every month because they are all on the DEA's watchlist. Maybe desoxyn wouldn't do the trick, but it seems unlikely I'll ever find out. Even if I wasn't afraid of getting caught, ain't gonna try meth manufactured in a trailer by some toothless redneck.

They still use heroin, they call it diamorphine. It is an effective drug for pain and, I think, chronic diarrhea. It might not be legal in the US. Side note, heroin was first marketed as a opiate that was non addicting.

Yes they advertised many things as non addicting, such as valium, methaqualone, xanex, etc. Everybody makes a mistake every once in awhile!

[1gewehr]

Typical liberal thought process. Instead of treating those who need help, let's just punish everyone by banning a potentially-useful drug. Same as the logic that says "instead of locking up and punishing violent criminals, let's just ban guns for everyone else."