On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 3:08:58 PM UTC+1, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2017-10-30 14:58 GMT+01:00 PGC <[email protected] <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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
