Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Sunday September 20 2015, @01:40AM   Printer-friendly
from the little-call-flood-for-big-pharma dept.

Addiction to heroin and other opiates is a growing problem in the USA, as Presidential hopefuls have learned from Q&A sessions with voters on the campaign trail (previous SN story here).

Tired of encountering dead bodies, the police department of Gloucester, MA (an old city with a large commercial fishing industry) decided to appeal for the public's help in a rather interesting way, via a department Facebook post:

Gotta go make some calls.....

Top 5 Pharmaceutical CEO Salaries:

5. Eli Lilly - John Lechleiter $14.48 million
jlechleiter@lilly.com 317-276-2000

4. Abbott Labs - Miles D. White $17.7 million
miles.d.white@abbott.com 847-937-6100

3. Merck - Kenneth C. Frazier
$25 million + cool private jet.
ken.frazier@merck.com 908-423-1000

2. Johnson & Johnson - Alex Gorsky $20.38 million
ceo@jnj.com 732-524-0400

1. Pfizer - Ian Read $23.3 million
ian.read@pfizer.com 212-573-2323

They're all on Forbes Top 100 CEO salaries as well.

In 2013 The Huffington Post reported that the 11 largest pharmaceutical companies made $711 BILLION in profits in the last decade while their CEO's made a combined $1.57 BILLION in the same period.

Now...don't get mad. Just politely ask them what they are doing to address the opioid epidemic in the United States and if they realize that the latest data shows almost 80% of addicted persons start with a legally prescribed drug that they make. They can definitely be part of the solution here and I believe they will be....might need a little push.

takyon: A newer Facebook post says that Pfizer is in contact with the Gloucester Police Department.


Original Submission

Related Stories

White House Announces Heroin Response Strategy for the US Northeast 92 comments

The White House announced a new Heroin Response Strategy on Monday to combat a "heroin/opioid epidemic" across 15 states in the northeast:

The Office of National Drug Control Policy said it would spend $2.5 million to hire public safety and public health coordinators in five areas in an attempt to focus on the treatment, rather than the punishment, of addicts. The funding — a sliver of the $25.1 billion that the government spends every year to combat drug use — will help create a new "heroin response strategy" aimed at confronting the increase in use of the drug. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that heroin-related deaths had nearly quadrupled between 2002 and 2013.

[...] Once thought of as a drug used only by hard-core addicts, heroin has infiltrated many communities, largely because of its easy availability and its low price, officials said. The problem has become especially severe in New England, where officials have called for a renewed effort to confront it. Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont devoted his entire State of the State Message in January to what he called "a full-blown heroin crisis" in his state. Like the new White House effort, the governor called for a new, treatment-based approach to the drug.

[More after the break...]

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:30AM (#238647)

    It should all be legalized anyway.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by SubiculumHammer on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:34AM

      by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:34AM (#238648)

      To be clear, AC poster probably meant 'remove laws that make drugs illegal' since all things not prohibited by law are automatically , by default, 'legal'

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:45AM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:45AM (#238656) Homepage

        Junkie fagbastard cuck Krauts.

        AhhahahHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHHA.

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by SubiculumHammer on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:59AM

          by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:59AM (#238661)

          The fuck?

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:05AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:05AM (#238705) Homepage Journal

            You're kinda new here, so I'll fill you in. Ethanol Fueled has his lucid moments. As often as two or three times a week, he makes a post that people can understand. Well - that's on a good week. The rest of the time, well, he is ethanol fueled. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/197/3/200 [rcpsych.org]

            Be kind to him - he doesn't have much of a life expectancy.

            --
            Don’t confuse the news with the truth.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Sunday September 20 2015, @10:59AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Sunday September 20 2015, @10:59AM (#238779) Journal
      Legalising it is step one. The important step is providing assistance to people who have become addicted and want to quit. If admitting that they're addicted means that they get a prison sentence, then that's a pretty good incentive not to ask for help. Remove that and you can start to make progress, but you it won't help by itself.
      --
      sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday September 20 2015, @07:58PM

      by HiThere (866) on Sunday September 20 2015, @07:58PM (#239004) Journal

      Perhaps it should be legalized, but it's quite important that it not be allowed to be advertized. For this reason I'm generally in favor of keeping it illegal, but making the penalty for possession $0.25, and possession for sale a penalty of $5.00.

      There may be a better way to accomplish the same end, but I don't know what they are. Certainly tobacco and alcohol are too advertized to fit what I deem reasonable.

      OTOH, there should be a STRONG penalty, say 10 years without parole, for selling adulterated addictive drugs. (E.g., tobacco mixed with any ingredients that are not clearly revealed to the purchaser, probably on a label.)

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 22 2015, @02:00PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday September 22 2015, @02:00PM (#239938) Journal

        Perhaps it should be legalized, but it's quite important that it not be allowed to be advertized. For this reason I'm generally in favor of keeping it illegal, but making the penalty for possession $0.25, and possession for sale a penalty of $5.00.

        There may be a better way to accomplish the same end, but I don't know what they are. Certainly tobacco and alcohol are too advertized to fit what I deem reasonable.

        I think the way they do cigarettes here in the US is a pretty good option. Can't advertise on TV, can't advertise on radio, can't sponsor events, can't give away samples, can't sell from vending machines, have to put warnings on every ad and every package, can't market or sell to children....About the only place they *can* still advertise is in the window of the shop that sells 'em. And maybe magazines?

        OTOH, there should be a STRONG penalty, say 10 years without parole, for selling adulterated addictive drugs. (E.g., tobacco mixed with any ingredients that are not clearly revealed to the purchaser, probably on a label.)

        Some exec just got 28 years for selling adulterated peanut butter. I don't think we need new laws here, just make sure the existing ones are enforced.

  • (Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:48AM

    by Fnord666 (652) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:48AM (#238657) Homepage

    Gloucester Police will meet with big pharma after Facebook post [boston.com]

    On Friday, the department sent out another Facebook post announcing that Pfizer, a pharmaceutical corporation headquartered in New York City with research headquarters in Connecticut, called the department to set up a meeting

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:56AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:56AM (#238658)

      To do what? Donate to the police retirement fund to shut them up?

      • (Score: 2) by iwoloschin on Sunday September 20 2015, @12:42PM

        by iwoloschin (3863) on Sunday September 20 2015, @12:42PM (#238808)

        Presumably promise that they're working on a great solution that will be ready in about 5 years.

      • (Score: 2) by arslan on Monday September 21 2015, @03:25AM

        by arslan (3462) on Monday September 21 2015, @03:25AM (#239188)

        How about donate to lobbying for legalization and thus better control of the opioid problem?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:56AM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:56AM (#238659) Journal

    If heroin weren't so damn costly, largely because of its illegality, addicts would get their fix and get on with their day. They wouldn't be overdosing because the medicinal grade stuff is consistently pure, not filled with corn starch and fentanyl and other crap. That's why Keith Richards is still alive but Layne Staley isn't.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @03:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @03:04AM (#238664)

      Use might climb a little with legalization, but social cost of that use will decline with legalization...

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Sunday September 20 2015, @03:56AM

      by Francis (5544) on Sunday September 20 2015, @03:56AM (#238682)

      Why would that happen? Prescription drugs are pure and a known quantity and people still have huge problems with those.

      Perhaps, just perhaps, the problem here is that people are willingly ingesting substances that are known to be toxic in quantities above and beyond what anybody in their right mind would be taking. Legalization doesn't fix that.

      Legalization may or may not be a part of the solution, but it's insane to suggest that legalization alone is going to have any positive impact.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Sunday September 20 2015, @04:36AM

        by Adamsjas (4507) on Sunday September 20 2015, @04:36AM (#238698)

        Maybe they suggest legalization AND regulation?

        Whiskey is legalized. It also is regulated, inspected, tested, etc.

        With legalized marijuana, Washington and Colorado also enacted quality standards, testing requirements etc. Legalization doesn't necessarily mean a free-for-all.

           

        • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:21AM

          by davester666 (155) on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:21AM (#238734)

          And still, alcohol is abused. The posts were implying that legalization would result in all those problems going away.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 20 2015, @09:18AM

            by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 20 2015, @09:18AM (#238761) Journal

            The posts were implying that legalization would result in all those problems going away.

            The posts implied no such thing.

            They were simply saying that things might be a whole lot less deadly, even if you ended up having a certain percentage of high functioning heroin addicts [westgroveclinic.com] around.

            Personally, I suspect there would be a lot more people that society would have to take care of (financially and emotionally) forever, which would consume far more than those people could ever return to the community by their input. Still they might contribute something.

            I doubt legalization would ever work as a continuing solution, either for an individual addict or society as a whole. Probably there would be fewer overdose deaths, but a lot more people would get drawn into it. Still I can see that there might be other solutions that the never ending war on drugs, which seems to put a lot of people in prison that society has to take care of (financially and emotionally) forever.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:26PM

              by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:26PM (#238904) Journal

              I doubt legalization would ever work as a continuing solution, either for an individual addict or society as a whole. Probably there would be fewer overdose deaths, but a lot more people would get drawn into it.

              Portugal says you are wholly and totally wrong.

              The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following 10 years. Portugal's drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states, according to the same report.

              One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates, which experts believe is the result of the government offering treatment with no threat of legal ramifications to addicts.

              http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/120718/drug-decriminalization-portugal-addicts [globalpost.com]

              If you have the time, this debate between Glen Greenwald and GWB's drug czar is amazingly good: https://vimeo.com/32110912 [vimeo.com]

              • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:27PM

                by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:27PM (#238905) Journal

                I should have mentioned in my post that Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs 2001.

                • (Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:35PM

                  by Francis (5544) on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:35PM (#238958)

                  It's also dishonest of you to suggest that the same results would occur elsewhere just merely by decriminalizing the drugs. It's not a matter of criminalization that leads to all the misery, criminalization only causes some of the misery. Assuming that a different culture's solution would work without having to examine our own culture is naive at best and dangerous at worse.

                  I'm open to the idea of legalization, but the arguments being used are junk. I'm not aware of any countries with similar cultural institutions to the US decriminalizing all drugs.

                  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday September 20 2015, @09:14PM

                    by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday September 20 2015, @09:14PM (#239046) Journal

                    Oh get real. Portugal isn't a suburb of Timbuktu -- it's a former colonial power, constitutional republic, there's separation of church and state, and it's a modernized EU member nation. Your arguments just echo the fear-mongering of prohibitionists, but prohibitionists, whether motivated by money or moralism, are just wrong according to the evidence. Sure, you can trot out a parade of horrors, but just alcohol prohibition in the US, the cure was way worse than the problem.

                    And that bit about Portugal being so different -- damn, I suppose if you were shown evidence that shooting German in the head was fatal, you'd have to test it out on Swedes, because you know, different culture.

                  • (Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Monday September 21 2015, @05:20AM

                    by tathra (3367) on Monday September 21 2015, @05:20AM (#239219)

                    It's not a matter of criminalization that leads to all the misery, criminalization only causes some of the misery.

                    wrong. even cops agree [www.leap.cc] that criminalization causes the most misery surrounding drugs by a long shot.

      • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday September 20 2015, @04:59AM

        by GungnirSniper (1671) on Sunday September 20 2015, @04:59AM (#238702) Journal

        No one is going blind due to illegal alcohol, at least in America. Where does it happen? Places where it is illegal.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:09AM

          by tathra (3367) on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:09AM (#238709)

          No one is going blind due to illegal alcohol, at least in America.

          not since the 1920s anyway, you know, when authorities were deliberately adulterating ethanol to poison drinkers.

        • (Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:32PM

          by Francis (5544) on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:32PM (#238957)

          That still happens in the US. It's rare, but there are still folks out there that produce bad moonshine. That's not a function of legality, in places where moonshine is common, you buy based upon the reputation of the seller. Sure, you might be the unlucky sod that winds up going blind, but that's usually avoidable if you've got an understanding of the processes being used and you're dealing with a seller that lives in the commnity.

          As far as blindness goes, compared with liver disease, suicide and accident, blindness is a relatively minor problem. And in most cases, it's not even a real problem as long as you're careful about where you get the alcohol from.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:07AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:07AM (#238706)

      Heroin is a lot cheaper than most diverted pharmaceuticals. Dilaudid and Opana are really the only ones that compare to heroin in cost:potency.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:09AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:09AM (#238730) Homepage Journal

      Were it not so inexpensive and readily available Portland's pushers would not be begging for spare change on the street.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:47AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:47AM (#238737) Journal

      Not to mention these self righteous pricks cause good people to really suffer. My grandmother died of cancer in agony because all the docs were afraid to prescribe meds that would work because they were afraid of being flagged by the feds. So I have to wonder how many of these people on illegal drugs are on them because they are in REAL PAIN and cannot get shit from a doctor for fear of getting flagged. I know it took my cousin nearly a decade to get put on morphine, and it took him being taken to a shrink because he was hollowing out a bullet to blow his brains out before a doctor took him seriously. He has arthritis in his spine, a scan showed his pain centers were lit up like a xmas tree, yet docs would only give him a Tylenol II and tell him to "learn to live with it".

      So everytime I see articles like this all I can think of is my grandmother suffering and hope they all DIAF, preferably after getting third degree burns and being refused pain meds.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 20 2015, @09:24AM

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 20 2015, @09:24AM (#238763) Journal

        Docs seem fairly quick to prescribe Oxy. Probably renewing a prescription is hard.
        I know this guy who had open heart surgery this summer and was prescribed a substantial amount of Oxy, but ended up using exactly 4 of them.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday September 21 2015, @01:54AM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <bassbeast1968NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday September 21 2015, @01:54AM (#239169) Journal

          Bet it was on the coasts, in the breadbasket and bible belt? You can get an arm ripped off and will be given Tylenol II. The feds in different districts seem to react VERY differently to the same actions, I know of at least 3 docs that have had to have serious fights with the feds to protect their licenses simply because they were taking care of people that were seriously fucked up.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday September 20 2015, @09:53AM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Sunday September 20 2015, @09:53AM (#238771) Homepage

      addicts would get their fix and get on with their day

      Well, they'd get their fix, anyway.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @03:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @03:00AM (#238662)

    I was recently looking into the link between street opiates like heroin and prescription opiates like oxycontin.

    The best evidence I found [jamanetwork.com] is that there is a near constant rate of new users and that restricting access to prescription opiates just causes a 1:1 increase in the use of heroin. [silverchaircdn.com] I think it is total bullshit that big pharma is profiting, it ought to be handled by non-profits without a vested interest in keeping users hooked. But it seems like all that's going on here is an attempt to restrict prescription opiates with little thought being put into things like harm minimization, detox and diversion programs. So back on the merry-go-round it is.

    • (Score: 2) by BK on Sunday September 20 2015, @03:56AM

      by BK (4868) on Sunday September 20 2015, @03:56AM (#238683)

      it ought to be handled by non-profits without a vested interest in keeping users hooked

      It? Do you mean R&D? Manufacture? Distribution? Maybe all of them?

      See, here's the thing: Just because an organization is "non-profit" doesn't make it all socially perfect and inoffensive to all. And non-profits are still profit driven... it just looks different on paper. Non-profits can still have big CEO salaries and private jets and fleets of cars and (hookers and blow for the) weekly company parties (err... "training").

      I 'think' you are suggesting making a lucrative market into a lucrative monopoly market (with a feel-good mission statement) and expecting that this will make things better. I think you'll find that, if this is the case, you should expect the opposite result.

      Honestly, I'm not sure what you're really trying to solve here, so I can't offer more.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:08AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:08AM (#238708)

        Blah, blah, blah. Non-profits are imperfect. Gold star for you!

        > Honestly, I'm not sure what you're really trying to solve here, so I can't offer more.

        The problem I am trying to solve is that Big Pharma markets this stuff - they have all the incentives to create and maintain demand rather than reduce it.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by BK on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:03AM

          by BK (4868) on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:03AM (#238725)

          There is demand because people are in incredible pain and want it to stop. The product sells itself. Profit incentives aren't the main issue here.

          The options are:
          1) Allow doctors legal options to deal with incredible pain.
          2) Prohibition: Force doctors or patients to seek alternatives which may not be legal.

          The problem I am trying to solve is that Big Pharma markets this stuff

          So it would be better if [feel good, corrupt, monopoly] Pharma did it?
          Or Little Pharma?
          Or Canadian Pharma?
          Or Billy May?
          Or Jose's Cartel?
          Or Josh on the corner?

          If you don't let someone make and market the stuff legally, you'll just make a bigger mess when folks find an alternative.

          --
          ...but you HAVE heard of me.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:12AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:12AM (#238731)

            There must be a way to engineer drugs that have the same or better pain killing properties but not the addictive? Maybe some of the profits could be used to do just that, instead of paying the CEO tens of millions of dollars per year.

            • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Sunday September 20 2015, @12:42PM

              by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 20 2015, @12:42PM (#238809) Homepage Journal

              Doesn't work that way. My understanding is that the bigger problem is the psychological addition, not the physical. Which is to say: Someone likes being zoned out, and they will damn will find some drug that zones them out. Opiates happen to be an easy and (comparatively) safe way to achieve this.

              If someone wants to get high, and does so in a way that doesn't affect other people, why is this anyone else's problem? If it becomes a problem, because they lose their job or whatever, then counseling and treatment is still better than driving the problem underground by making it illegal.

              Really, it comes back down to that old definition by Mencken: "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

              --
              Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @01:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @01:57PM (#238830)

            Allow doctors legal options to deal with incredible pain.

            Is prescribing opiates and/or opiate derivatives illegal or something...? Morphine and its ilk are certainly available fairly easily over here, although it's prescription is exceedingly closely monitored - mostly to make sure it's having the desired effect and that the recipient doesn't get hooked. Codeine, in the form of co-codamol, is available over the counter and those really lucky people suffering things like gunshot wounds, surgical recovery or terminal cancer will get diamorphine hydrochloride, aka medical-grade heroin. A friend of mine was absolutely flabbergasted to see his wife given pethidine during childbirth and stupefied to discover they also gave out heroin for extreme pain in childbirth; as with all of this stuff, it's given under close supervision.

            Opiates are (relatively) cheap and effective and as long as the dose is sensibly managed there's little to no risk of habit forming or addiction; what's the problem?

            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:58PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:58PM (#238930)

              Is prescribing opiates and/or opiate derivatives illegal or something...?

              Basically. To prescribe Scheduled drugs (all painkillers), you have to get permission from the Drug Enforcement Agency, and they decide how much you are allowed to give, and if you are even allowed to prescribe it in the first place. If you think your patient is in pain and needs painkillers, or more than the DEA says they should get, you get a one-way trip to prison and lose your medical license.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:55PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:55PM (#238970)

                That's fucking insane.

          • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:38PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @02:38PM (#238847)

            God, for someone so fucking smug, you are so fucking stupid.

            I will repeat the key part of my post that you completely ignored so that you could go on your pseudo libertarian red herring rant.

            > they have all the incentives to create and maintain demand rather than reduce it.

            Address that point and then you can feel all superior. Until then, go do your masturbating in the corner. You doing it out here is just obnoxious.

            • (Score: 2) by BK on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:01PM

              by BK (4868) on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:01PM (#238895)

              they have all the incentives to create and maintain demand rather than reduce it.

              Address that point and then you can feel all superior

              Yep. The incentives are there and they follow them all the time. Just the other day I saw an internet advert that promoted lifting with you back, not your legs, because there's opiates for that. And another on TV recommending unnecessary invasive surgery because opiates. And on the radio last night I heard an offer to "become deaf in style" to escape the honey-do list.

              There are drugs that "Big Pharma" has to create markets for. These are not them.

              --
              ...but you HAVE heard of me.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @07:23PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @07:23PM (#238984)

                It isn't about advertisements on tv. Its about seeding doctors with manipulative studies, junkets and free samples. So that not only do they push the opiates, they are disinterested in and often ignorant of treatments that don't depend on opiates or that use them as secondaries rather than primaries.

                Guys like you are why I stopped calling myself a libertarian. You think you know everything, but its just teenage logic where you are ignorant of your ignorance.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:25AM

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 20 2015, @06:25AM (#238735) Homepage Journal

    So what do they want big pharma to do, exactly? Stop producing legal drugs that are used for severe pain?

    No so long ago there was a car accident near my house. I was helping the woman lying on the road with the broken hip. No idea how she got there - the car was quite a ways a way. She was in serious pain, and couldn't stand to be moved, until the ambulance came up and shot her full of painkillers. Were they supposed to say "here, take an aspirin"?

    Presumably, we have all heard of the problems that pain management patients have getting legal pain killers, because their physicians fear being targeted by the DEA.

    The problem isn't the legal medication. Whatever the solution to drug abuse is (legalization, War-on-Drugs, or something else), it certainly does not involve further restricting the production and use of legal, necessary drugs.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2015, @12:01AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2015, @12:01AM (#239124)

      The problem IS the legal medication. Addiction is not medically dangerous, if treated as a medical condition. The legal and illegal medications simply cost too much. They are after all herbal medicines at their base. This is due to the War on Some Drugs. It is also a war on Physicians, who live in fear of the DEA, and a war on people who are in pain. "Those people" are considered by society to be expendable. Just legalize all of those drugs. Keep the corrupt, incompetent, stupid govt. out of it. In the UK, heroin addicts got their daily dose from the Health Service, and led normal lives, holding jobs, raising families, and paying taxes. Most addicts will eventually taper themselves off unless the Prison-Industrial Complex gets them first.

  • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Sunday September 20 2015, @01:20PM

    by Entropy (4228) on Sunday September 20 2015, @01:20PM (#238821)

    It's only been thousands of years. People like drugs, including:
      Alcohol
      Tobacco
      Marijuana

    They will continue doing them, and when certain forms are made difficult(illegal) they will find NEW forms. Crack down on Marijuana and you get "Spice". Spice is much, much worse for you..so who is being protected, exactly?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:46PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday September 20 2015, @05:46PM (#238919) Journal

      Spice isn't so bad, you get to see the future, though you're eyeballs turn blue.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @03:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20 2015, @03:26PM (#238863)

    The drug companies bribe the gatekeepers (doctors, pharmacists, bureaucrats), and the patients do what they're told by their care providers.

    Some (*cough* Eli Lilly) even send out unsolicited "free samples" - the first one's always on the house.

    Nice. [huffingtonpost.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2015, @12:24AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2015, @12:24AM (#239136)

    Nice police have found the criminal mastermind behind the mayhem in their fair city!
    They were hiding in plain sight!
    Scapegoating is eeeeaassssyyyyyy once you decide to do it...

  • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Monday September 21 2015, @06:31PM

    by morgauxo (2082) on Monday September 21 2015, @06:31PM (#239473)

    I'ts just so much fun to watch someone you love in agony because doctors will not treat them due to the campaigns of well meaning idiots that think they can protect people who CHOSE to do drugs like Heroine.