[mindslight]

> "The damage that opioid distribution has done to our community and to the United States as a whole has been devastating" said U.S. Attorney Schneider

I guess scapegoat big pharma is successfully finding their own scapegoats!

The feds could straightforwardly address the fentanyl problem by deillegalizing opiods, allowing reputable distribution to take over. And then society could maturely deal with addiction as a personal medical problem. But I guess it's easier to keep hanging it all on personal responsibility and let that DEA/CIA gravy train continue rolling.

[dumbfoundded]

It's crazy that cannabis is a schedule 1 drug. It's by far the safe way to manage chronic pain but federally illegal. I'm glad the states have the chutzpah to make it legal. The older I get the more I see how this country is run on money above everything else.

[pstuart]

Crazier still is that kratom is getting lined up to be scheduled as well, when it is a proven safe tool for weaning people off of opiates.

[markdown]

Kratom is great as medicine to wean people off opiates.

However, it absolutely shouldn't be used in a recreational setting as it currently is, served in kratom bars (though they like to use the name "Kava" in an attempt to fly under the radar).

See /r/quittingkratom

[crshstsh]

Why would they sell it as Kava when Kratom is more expensive? I am on day 5 of getting off of Kratom. This smy second time around, and the first was horrendous. A couple of months ago a doctor prescribed Gabapentin and I've literally experience only 5% of the side effects of withdrawal. All the intense symptoms disappeared and I glided through this week. I wonder why doctors prescribe Suboxone and Methadone, both highly addictive.

[markdown]

Kava actually costs more than kratom.

But I never said people sell kava as kratom. Selling Kratom in bars is against the law. Instead they set up “kava” bars in which they sell kratom and kava.

[pstuart]

Any arguments like this that don't also call for banning alcohol and tobacco are specious at best.

Society has "agreed" that while those substances are dangerous, it is up to the individual to determine how they are consumed.

So this then becomes an argument of "I don't like your vice and I'm going to decide whether or not you can partake".

[DanBC]

> Society has "agreed" that while those substances are dangerous, it is up to the individual to determine how they are consumed.

Unless you're under a certan age, or driving a car, or piloting a plane the next day, or etc etc.

And there is strong societal pressure against pregnant women drinking any alcohol at all despite there being no evidence that small amounts of alcohol are harmful during pregnancy.

[pstuart]

Ok. I'm over 21, not pregnant and not operating a vehicle under the influence.

What's your point?

[markdown]

True that I didn’t call for alcohol to be banned. Are you arguing that opioids should be served recreationally in bars?

At some point we need to draw a line.

[pstuart]

I'm arguing against making drugs illegal to "protect" people.

I use kratom both for pain management and at times to take the edge off. That would be "recreational" at that point. I don't want you to be my nanny.

> Are you arguing that opioids should be served recreationally in bars

Maybe, actually. When my brother died of a heroin overdose it was ultimately his mistake but the "market" failed him because there were no standards for purity or strength.

Bear this in mind: heroin is illegal. My brother is dead. What protection was offered there? The cops laughed at another dead junkie.

Do you drink alcohol? Are you fat? Do you ride a bike without a helmet? Smoke cigars? Do rock climbing? Ride motorcycles? Skydive? etc. etc. etc. If so, you must now stop. I'll let you know what you can there going forward, thank you very much.

Are you aware of the history of drug prohibition in the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with preventing self harm but was an excuse for using the laws for oppressing the underclass.

I know you are arguing in good faith with good intentions but you are horribly, dangerously wrong.

[refurb]

It will be interesting to see if they finally make kratom schedule 1. When they tried it last time, the public outcry was enough to stop it.

And I agree it would be awful if they did. Kratom is certainly not without addiction risk, but if you believe in harm reduction, it’s far better to have people taking it versus prescription opioids or heroin.

[pstuart]

Apparently the current FDA head has financial interests in doing the wrong thing: https://www.reddit.com/r/kratom/comments/7et2l8/fda_loyalty_...

disclaimer: yes, it's a reddit post but it seems to capture the essence of the situation and I'm too lazy for other citations at the moment.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> The feds could straightforwardly address the fentanyl problem by deillegalizing opiods, allowing reputable distribution to take over. And then society could maturely deal with addiction as a personal medical problem.

I don't understand this at all. Most opioids are legal prescription drugs. The problem is that they are highly addictive, so despite trying deal with addition as a "personal medical problem", which is how many opioid addicts are treated in the US, it still results in a huge increase in dead people.

[thaumasiotes]

>> The feds could straightforwardly address the fentanyl problem by deillegalizing opiods, allowing reputable distribution to take over.

> I don't understand this at all. Most opioids are legal prescription drugs.

It's pretty straightforward. "Legal prescription drugs" are drugs you're not allowed to have without permission, and doctors face prosecution for giving you permission. This doesn't really promote safe availability -- it's specifically intended to do the opposite.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Yeah, surely the solution to the opioid epidemic is making fentanyl available at CVS.

[mindslight]

The current approach doesn't seem to have constrained availability much, so that is baseless hyperbole.

The point is that opiates from a reputable distribution channel wouldn't be laced with fentanyl. Have the state run the stores, appropriate security on duty, set the price just below market level, and use the profits to fund treatment programs. Tie the treatment programs into the retail stores, for immediate feedback for when people deviate. The treatment programs could even do things like accept returns for full refund, so people who are trying to quit aren't tempted to keep a stash laying around.

I doubt most people addicted to opiates actually want to be addicted - an aspect that gets left out of the righteous narrative.

[JoshuaDavid]

It comes down to the question of whether you think the opioid epidemic is mostly bad because even perfectly safe addiction stops people from living fulfilling / valuable / productive lives, or if it is mostly bad because people are dying from their addiction.

Making fentanyl available at CVS would probably increase the number of people addicted to opioids, but would also vastly reduce the risk of death in those people (due to better quality control and consistent dosage).

[trhway]

Personal medical problem would be treated by a doctor - ie. methadone, etc. Instead it is treated as a personal vice problem - ie. dealers/LEO instead of doctors.

[jekdoce]

They regularly give Fentanyl to pregnant women during labor. We know some of it crosses the placenta and enters the baby. Does anyone know why this is OK?

[christinamltn]

The problem with Fentanyl is dosage. It's really concentrated so if the manufacturing or separation into portions isn't well controlled then it's easy to end up with a much higher dose than expected. In a hospital with a known reliable source, you can get the right dose. When it's been cut into fake pain pills, it's easy to overdose.