[HN Gopher] 'Gas Station Heroin' Is Causing Intense Withdrawals....
___________________________________________________________________
'Gas Station Heroin' Is Causing Intense Withdrawals. It's Legal in
Most States
Author : pseudolus
Score : 39 points
Date : 2022-12-12 20:56 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vice.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com)
| [deleted]
| warning26 wrote:
| The total lack of regulation for "supplements" is kind of
| bizarre. Seems to me people shouldn't be able to sell any
| compound they like as a pseudo-medicine.
| burritas wrote:
| We could look at it as a problem, but if we keep idiots safe
| from this bullshit, they'll just go do something equally as
| stupid. If we get rid of this it'll be one less thing we have
| to thin out the herd.
|
| I look at it as a solution.
|
| .../s
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It shouldn't be surprising. It's the typical self-interested
| "freedom" debate.
|
| Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah essentially neutered the ability of
| the federal government to take most any useful action against
| supplements unless they are proven to cause harm. The rationale
| is pretty simple. Utah is the center of the MLM universe, and
| they are big supporters of the Senator.
|
| Supplements attract scammers like the flies to light. Herbalife
| is the best known of these products, but there are dozens of
| these schemes selling everything from powered bone material to
| herbal viagra.
|
| It's a common pattern that effective in selling bad ideas.
| gruez wrote:
| >Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah essentially neutered the ability
| of the federal government to take most any useful action
| against supplements unless they are proven to cause harm.
|
| Would you rather that the federal government can shut down
| any company they want without having to prove harm?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I think I'd you're selling me a cure, you should prove that
| it cures something and is safe.
|
| Safe needs to be defined as well. As we learned during the
| pandemic, there's a spectrum of risk tolerance that
| individuals have.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Would you rather that the federal government can shut
| down any company they want without having to prove harm?
|
| No, not "any". Is that really what you meant to ask?
|
| Supplements, though? Whether extracts or synthetic
| chemicals that don't have evidence of being safe in that
| form? Yeah probably.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| There is plenty of middle ground. Create a safe harbor
| for small producers and anyone who voluntarily gets
| certain certifications, with increased liability and
| maybe disclosure requirements for those who don't. Or
| maybe requiring a safety study without needing to prove
| efficacy, _et cetera_.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Yes. They should be able to take action against false
| claims of efficacy or purity.
| jfengel wrote:
| In theory, they can. Supplements are required to have
| labeling that "This product is not intended to diagnose,
| treat, cure, or prevent any disease." And they can't have
| advertising that says otherwise.
|
| In practice, the FDA doesn't even begin to enforce this
| rule. Even if the company is careful in its language,
| they're not going to monitor stores to ensure that the
| staff isn't pushing the product, or contradict social
| media posts.
|
| Smaller companies will just plain defy the rules. If it
| comes to the FDA's attention, they'll send a letter -- at
| which point the company will go bankrupt, and a new
| company will appear selling exactly the same product.
|
| The FDA does take a fair bit of action, especially after
| somebody has gotten hurt, but they don't have anywhere
| near the budget required to monitor the $40 billion
| supplement market.
| fabian2k wrote:
| Supplements are not really all that different from drugs.
| And for those you have to prove they're safe before you can
| sell them. For supplements you have to prove nothing.
| outside1234 wrote:
| All of the "supplements" should be banned by default and have to
| pass some sort of regulatory check to be sold. Just insane that
| after the opioid epidemic that we are still allowing this.
| RileyJames wrote:
| That's kind of what happened in Australia after the explosion
| of research chemicals and "technically not xxx" alternatives
| were being imported legally.
|
| They banned drugs based on 'having an effect' as opposed to the
| chemicals they contained.
|
| https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/psychoactive-substances-laws
|
| I knew a lot of people importing research chemicals from
| Chinese websites prior, and a lot of that stopped after these
| laws came into play. I'm not sure how wide spread the related
| issues were, but it was definitely a thing.
|
| But Australia never had the synthetics being sold in service
| stations like the article stated. That was a big thing in New
| Zealand tho, until it got clamped down on.
| eindiran wrote:
| The war on drugs (and prohibition at large) has caused
| externalities in the form of weird, experimental drug cocktails
| being marketed in this legal grey area since they aren't on the
| naughty list yet. Instead of treating the root cause (that
| prohibition has largely failed everyone except pharmaceutical
| drug companies and the companies that sell military gear to the
| police and DEA), we're going to expand the naughty list to
| include everything that hasn't been whitelisted by regulators
| and the pharma companies?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Totally different issue.
|
| To sell a drug, you need to demonstrate therapeutic
| effectiveness. Someone demonstrated that beta blockers lower
| blood pressure, for example.
|
| But I can sell a jar of bone meal mixed some ramen chicken
| flavor, and say that cavemen ate soup made with bone broth,
| and some people have reported developing caveman strength by
| consuming bone broth.
|
| The loophole is that products have dual use or traditional
| use. For example, isopropyl alcohol isn't a regulated
| "pesticide" for disinfecting surfaces because it predates the
| regulatory process. Or honey can help with a cough, but you
| can't label honey as a cough suppressant. Scammers abuse that
| loophole.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| I am really not sure how you look at this story about drugs
| which are just subject to no prohibition at all (those you
| can literally buy at a gas station) and the trouble they're
| causing for people, but your take-away is "the war on drugs
| is bad".
| citrin_ru wrote:
| People addicted to substance do suffer and can produce
| negative externalities but spending money on militarised
| police which puts in jail anyone who possess a banned
| substance IMHO is not the best way to allocate (always)
| limited funds. What would actually help is not clear but I
| hate when politicians follow the algorithm: we need to do
| something about the problem, here is something so let's do
| it (even if it doesn't work or cost is too high for
| provided benefit).
| eindiran wrote:
| How much have you followed along with the progression of
| grey area drugs over the last 30 years? Who was it that
| started the opioid epidemic again?
|
| Yeah, I'm thinking the solution is ban more stuff and then
| hand the reigns back to the regulators who have definitely
| not been subject to regulatory capture by the companies
| that started the opioid epidemic.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Why should the companies that pushed opioids be allowed
| to push anything else? All those doctors who knew they
| were overperscribing opioids to addicts knew what they
| were doing, and they would do it with any other drug too.
| eindiran wrote:
| I love how nuanced the thinkers of HN are. Given the
| responses here, evidently the options are to either (a)
| let Purdue market heroin to kids or (b) ban all non-
| pharmaceutical drugs and give no-knock warrants to FULLY
| TACTICAL(r) DEA AGENTS so that they can smash in the
| doors of non compliers.
|
| EDIT: this was in response to the pre-edit version of the
| comment. I think the current version of your comment is
| much more reasonable. I broadly agree with your point:
| when people have bad incentives they will do bad things.
| So my response to that is to try to give doctors better
| incentives, and limit the extent to which pharmaceutical
| companies like Purdue can inject perverse incentives back
| into the system.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| I really am confused here - are you say there should be
| regulation, but it should be done better, or that there
| should not?
| eindiran wrote:
| "Yeah, I'm thinking the solution is ban more stuff and
| then hand the reigns back to the regulators who have
| definitely not been subject to regulatory capture by the
| companies that started the opioid epidemic."
|
| That is sarcasm. Prohibition has failed and the growth of
| grey area drugs ("designer" drugs) is one of the direct
| consequences. I am not arguing against regulation, I am
| arguing against prohibition. As JumpCrisscross brought
| up, they are very different things.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _no prohibition at all_
|
| Prohibition is black and white. You can't have a little
| prohibition, that's on par with ending a ten-day detox with
| a mouthful of pills.
|
| The war on drugs enforced a prohibition. Most of this
| thread advocates for regulation. I suspect you and the
| comment you're responding to do as well.
| kube-system wrote:
| Sure you can have a little prohibition. Many prohibitions
| have exceptions. Between drug scheduling and various
| scopes of jurisdiction and enforcement, prohibition can
| be shades of gray.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Between drug scheduling and various scopes of
| jurisdiction and enforcement, prohibition can be shades
| of gray_
|
| You're describing enforcement. Prohibition is the legal
| action that precedes its enforcement. That semantic
| nuance is derailing this discussion.
| kube-system wrote:
| Ok, pretend I didn't mention enforcement. The written law
| for almost every prohibition the US has ever had, has
| explicit exceptions. Even the Volstead Act itself.
| str34m1ng wrote:
| Prohibition can exist for the most dangerous drugs while
| sensible regulation can steer people toward the safest
| possible use of safer alternative substances.
|
| As in, opium can be legal while carfentanyl is not, or
| marijuana instead of the synthetic compounds that mimic
| it but are more dangerous, etc.
| Clent wrote:
| The Drug War operates on a list of banned drugs.
|
| There is more evidence against banning drugs than there is
| against when the goal is stopping drug abuse.
|
| Adding this drug or a class of drugs to the ban list is not
| going to stop drug abuse.
|
| The only way to stop the war on drugs is to stop fighting
| drug abuse and accept it as an inevitability of the human
| condition.
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| Why should the government have such great control of what I put
| in my body? While the marketing should probably be limited and
| the risks made known, I don't think anything should be entirely
| banned.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Because some drugs are so addictive that they'd make you be
| willing to kill random passersby just to take their money and
| valuables to buy your next hit with. Such drugs should be
| banned for the same reason that DUI is.
| symlinkk wrote:
| Thought this was going to be about Kratom.
| DueDilligence wrote:
| .. state certified harm reduction counselor here .. yet another
| inflamed fear-inducing shite article not rooted in science or
| reality. Stablon [tianeptine] is a valid tri-cyclic, in use since
| the mid-80's and quite effective under proper guidance. And while
| it indeed nudges all three opiate receptors - it by no means is
| anywhere near as addictive [physiologically] as heroin. VICE, one
| step above The National Enquirer. Why this garbage makes it way
| to HN is beyond me.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Thanks for sharing your comments.
|
| I have a flurry of thoughts on all of this:
|
| - Vice is often very hyperbolic
|
| - but these sure sound like real stories
|
| - the medical community is kind of famous for telling people
| their symptoms aren't real, so I'm cautious of any claim
|
| - but maybe you're not saying it's not addictive, and while it
| might be able to destroy lives, it's just not "heroin"
| magnitude.
|
| - maybe the "heroin" label is a term developed by the community
| and not Vice itself
|
| - how this isn't controlled in the US and Canada is beyond me.
| Ignorantly this makes me wonder if it truly is that dangerous.
| Then again there sure are a lot of chemicals out there...
| kvetching wrote:
| As someone that has used and been extremely hooked on it, it is
| as bad psychologically as heroin. I drained my bank to use it,
| came up with extremely clever ways to get more. I was on a 10g+
| per day habit. I had to get on methadone to stop.
| belval wrote:
| I think you are using the most uncharitable reading here. I had
| never heard of tianeptine before this article and yes if my
| doctor was to prescribe it I'd have concern now, but the
| article is not about it being worst than heroin. It's about the
| fact that a substance which can cause significant physical and
| psychological addiction is being sold in gas stations without
| any indication that it might be addictive.
|
| If you look at the label in the picture, this is terrifying
| stuff that is marketed as a dietary supplement while causing
| enough symptoms that people are going to detox over it. Even if
| it's half or a tenth as bad as heroin, that's way too much
| considering how it's marketed.
| leetcrew wrote:
| the mandatory warning label on alcoholic beverages doesn't
| say anything about addiction either...
|
| > GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General,
| women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy
| because of the risk of birth defects.
|
| > (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability
| to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health
| problems.
|
| you can buy malt liquor at gas stations in several US states.
| at least they warn you not to drink it on your way home!
| rocky_raccoon wrote:
| Here's an entire subreddit that would disagree with you [1] as
| well as some pretty harrowing withdrawal accounts [2] [3].
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/QuittingTianeptine/ [2]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/QuittingTianeptine/comments/z7gopv/...
| [3]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/QuittingTianeptine/comments/yp7y6n/...
| rocky_raccoon wrote:
| The more comments I read about this stuff, the worse it
| looks...
|
| "I'm a father of 3 who is currently going through a divorce
| because of tia. I lost everything and currently staying at a
| friend's house and not with my family and wife of almost 18
| years. I blew through all of our money and it took this to
| happen for me to get off. I've been on suboxone for 8 days
| now and tia free for 8 days. If he truly wants to get off
| tia, he will have to get off of everything and take his
| subutex for the reason it is prescribed. Tia is the devil. I
| started taking it when I quit drinking and fell in live with
| the way it made me feel. I've spent thousands of dollars on
| it the last couple years." [1]
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/QuittingTianeptine/comments/xunr
| 2i/...
| species9606 wrote:
| "state certified harm reduction counselor here"
|
| Which means almost nothing. Unless you're a pharmacologist, or
| a neuroscientist (as I am), please refrain from giving
| scientific opinions in this field.
| chipgap98 wrote:
| This seems pretty gatekeeper-y. Who gets to decide which
| credentials are valid in this discussion and which aren't?
| bombcar wrote:
| I do. I rule in favor of the person who claims to be
| claiming to be trained officially.
| belval wrote:
| > He said he plans to move back to Alabama, where tianeptine is
| banned. Despite the difficulty of his withdrawal, he said he
| celebrated his 10-day detox by taking 12 pills. But he doesn't
| believe it will override the detox.
|
| Man these addiction stories are hard to read.
| species9606 wrote:
| "VICE News reached out to several manufacturers and retailers
| that sell tianeptine to ask for comment on the health concerns
| surrounding the drug but did not receive a response."
|
| Name them. Why not?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-12 23:01 UTC)