On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 3:08:58 PM UTC+1, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2017-10-30 14:58 GMT+01:00 PGC <multipl...@gmail.com <javascript:>>: > >> On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 6:40:53 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> Right. >>> >>> >>> >>> In acute, severe pain they are often the only thing that works, and >>> denying them to a suffering patient is inhumane. In chronic pain, their use >>> is more controversial. Perhaps not widely known is that in a way they are >>> very safe drugs in that they do not cause end organ damage, unlike, say, >>> alcohol or tobacco. >>> >>> >>> Note that tobacco would be much less dangerous if people were informed, >>> and could have more choice. Since tobacco exists, it has been used orally >>> by many people, and today, studies shows that this mode of consumption is >>> far less dangerous than smoking it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Elephant-killing doses of fentanyl are used in cardiac surgery, and as >>> long as respiration is supported, the patient wakes up fine. The problem is >>> that some people (not all) enjoy the euphoric effect so much that they >>> misuse them, leading to tolerance, dose escalation and risk of overdose. >>> >>> >>> That is right, but seems to be an effect of its prohibition. >>> >> >> Then next time a person requires that kind of surgery, they can thus >> inform the doctor that a small salvia infusion and some chewing tobacco >> suffices for their analgesic needs before a scalpel is reached for? The >> efficacy of opiates is not merely an effect of prohibition. >> >> Assuming something severe like heart surgery, a work related accident, a >> soldier being exposed to an IED and losing a limb in a war zone... anywhere >> where high levels of pain are a clear matter, I know why most humane >> doctors today turn to opiates. Efficacy at pain management. Stathis is >> correct. >> >> In addition to their utility in surgery, it is a fact that said soldier >> with a lost limb, supplied with an appropriate dose of morphine, fentanyl, >> or one of its equivalents may not have their mortifying/traumatic level of >> pain disappear completely; i.e. the pain is still there but somehow, from a >> subjective point of view, *it matters much less than before the opiate >> was administered*. If pain is assumed to be nature's "argument of >> authority", then opiates are the best local god atm. This property is >> remarkable, useful, and well established. You could argue that some of the >> dynamics of prohibition are due to opiates' efficacy: they are so effective >> at relieving pain that people have waged war over their control/use. >> >> >>> In the city of Liege, in Belgium, they have made (two times) a three >>> year experience of legalizing heroin. You need a medical prescription. This >>> has confirmed that the best medication to quit heroin is ... heroin itself, >>> when cheap and medically prescribed. heroin then loose completely its >>> appeal for "beginners", and old consummers, not only get fine, got the time >>> to search a job, diminish by themselves the consumption, and eventually >>> most have stopped. Obviously, this is helpful for getting clean needles and >>> preventing AIDS. Despite this success, heroin is still illegal in Belgium, >>> for pure insane political reason. >>> >> >> What's so insane about the usual social dynamics of loosing face or being >> in office? Assuming you had a sizable bit of political reputation to >> uphold, would you risk it by switching sides on something that is clearly >> not decidable in public? Betting on your aesthetic preference for >> everything minimalism, you'd choose the path of minimal risk and uphold the >> very prohibition you flatter yourself denouncing. >> >> Because it's much easier to yodel conspiracy from the outside than to >> face the practicalities and admit the tension of two opposing facts: >> >> 1) Opiates are the most effective tools for pain management known, and >> their usefulness in surgery is well established, so we need them for now. >> 2) With chronic pain, it is often impossible to distinguish between those >> that are "truly suffering from consistent and/or worsening pain" and those >> that want access to the drug for whatever reason (which the Christians >> demonize because they loose subscribers). All copies state that they are in >> severe pain for true reasons in their history. Unfortunately, interviewing >> them in a thought experiment sheds no light on the matter. Some of them >> will die of overdose and respiratory failure. >> >> >>> >>> Note that heroin was first sold in Germany to cure young infant cough. >>> >> Its illegality is one of the most source of finance of terrorism, and in >>> this case there are proof that the CIA have organized traffic. It seems >>> also that it is part of the reason the american have gone to Afghanistan >>> (to protect the field of Opiate-plant (Pavot, in french). I have verified >>> this, but it does not obvious to interpret all data; need to pursue the >>> research. >>> >> >> By all means do so with a bit more rigor. This list is a place where >> wishful thinking is shared most liberally, but I do know that some folks >> read and interpret it literally and when I saw "Analgesic effect of opiates >> is a result of its prohibition" >> > > Hi, I will only answer to this, as I think that's not what Bruno said, if > you reread the sentence here: > >> The problem is that some people (not all) enjoy the euphoric effect so >>> much that they misuse them, leading to tolerance, dose escalation and risk >>> of overdose. >>> >>> >>> That is right, but seems to be an effect of its prohibition. >>> >> > I think "seems to be an effect of its prohibition" refers to the misuse > and dose escalation, and not to the analgesic effect which would be false > of course... >
Valiant try for a save but merely a variant of the same distortion of facts: the misuse and dose escalation is not merely an effect of prohibition.The misuse and dose escalation is due to what opiates are: extremely effective at treating pain. See reports of pre-prohibition opium use. Their attraction is well documented before prohibition. You might argue that prohibition sharpens this needlessly but this still won't bring about a general, more careful attitude towards their use in populations currently affected by high death rates. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
