I'll just leave this here....

[AFK]

I'm not sure about that, but I know they had reformulated oxycodone awhile back in a manner that made it more of a slow-release medicine, so you couldn't just pop a couple of pills to get high.  But, then the drug users figured that out and just crushed up the pills and snorted them. 

It's really hard to stay ahead of the drug abusers.  It's probably impossible.  But in all honesty, reformulating drugs to make them less prone to addiction is more about preventing your person who is NOT intending to get hooked on the drugs but does.  Like the soccer mom who fucks up her back, starts taking some oxy's and never fucking stops taking the oxy's.  It really isn't for the purposes of fixing your hardcore junkie. 

Then maybe they should fucking stop bothering, instead of making a mildly dangerous drug into a heart-exploding poison.

I think the argument would be that if medicines are taken properly as prescribed by a doctor they wouldn't be heart-exploding poison.  The expectation that NOT following strict dosage instructions from the Doc would be a risky behavior. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm not sure about that, but I know they had reformulated oxycodone awhile back in a manner that made it more of a slow-release medicine, so you couldn't just pop a couple of pills to get high.  But, then the drug users figured that out and just crushed up the pills and snorted them. 

It's really hard to stay ahead of the drug abusers.  It's probably impossible.  But in all honesty, reformulating drugs to make them less prone to addiction is more about preventing your person who is NOT intending to get hooked on the drugs but does.  Like the soccer mom who fucks up her back, starts taking some oxy's and never fucking stops taking the oxy's.  It really isn't for the purposes of fixing your hardcore junkie. 

Then maybe they should fucking stop bothering, instead of making a mildly dangerous drug into a heart-exploding poison.

I think the argument would be that if medicines are taken properly as prescribed by a doctor they wouldn't be heart-exploding poison.  The expectation that NOT following strict dosage instructions from the Doc would be a risky behavior. 

So we'll poison people who disobey, or make an error?

WE HAD TO BURN THE VILLAGE TO SAVE IT.

TOE THE LINE OR WE'LL MAKE YOUR HEART EXPLODE, YOU FUCKING HIPPIES.

[AFK]

Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive.  I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction.  I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.

This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one.  I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug. 

[BabylonHoruv]

Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive.  I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction.  I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.

This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one.  I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug. 

by making it so that it kills them.

"man,  I'm hurting really badly today,  I think I'll take two Vicodin instead of one"

BANG (that would be the sound of her heart exploding)

[AFK]

Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive.  I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction.  I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.

This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one.  I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug. 

by making it so that it kills them.

"man,  I'm hurting really badly today,  I think I'll take two Vicodin instead of one"

BANG (that would be the sound of her heart exploding)

I dunno, in the case of Vicodin it looks like the US Government has been pressuring pharmaceutical companies to make the drug less dangerous to those who take dosages that are too high. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocodone/paracetamol#Proposed_U.S._ban

Proposed U.S. ban
On June 30, 2009, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel voted by a narrow margin to advise the FDA to remove Vicodin and another painkiller, Percocet, from the market because of "a high likelihood of overdose from prescription narcotics and acetaminophen products". The panel cited concerns of liver damage from their acetaminophen component, which is also the main ingredient in commonly-used nonprescription drugs such as Tylenol.[10] Each year, acetaminophen overdose is linked to about 400 deaths and 42,000 hospitalizations.[11]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is asking manufacturers of prescription combination products that contain acetaminophen to limit the amount of acetaminophen to no more than 325 milligrams (mg) in each tablet or capsule.[12][13][14][15] Manufacturers will have three years to limit the amount of acetaminophen in their prescription drug products to 325 mg per dosage unit.[13][15] The FDA also is requiring manufacturers to update labels of all prescription combination acetaminophen products to warn of the potential risk for severe liver injury.[12][13][15]

Hydrocodone, the narcotic component of Vicodin, is still available in Canada as a single drug and marketed under the trade name Hycodan in syrup and tablet forms by Bristol-Myers-Squibb.[16

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

People just don't know what's good for them... they need to be controlled.

Of course, an interesting side effect of that particular gambit is that it forces doctors to prescribe two different forms of opiate laced with different toxins that can be safely combined, in order to control severe pain. In my case, hydrocodone and oxycodone.

That doctor, by the way, was the second doctor to tell me that the main reason codeine is mixed with acetaminophen is not for increased effect, but specifically to increase liver toxicity so people won't take higher doses. This made his job as a doctor more complicated, as well as my job as a patient, because I then had to keep notes of what dose of which medication I was taking at what time, and given that I was in severe pain, weak from blood loss, and DOPED UP, that just sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

[AFK]

That doesn't make much sense to me and doesn't seem very likely, let alone substantiated that it was government intent or government mandate.  But if the intent was to deter recreational use and addiction, you would want to either do something to alter the rate at which the controlled substance can enter the blood stream (as they've done with oxycontin) OR combine with another ingredient that creates an unpleasant, but short term, reaction.  It wouldn't make any sense to go for something that is slow building and more medium term like liver toxicity.  Because it would take too long for the effects to take hold to actually deter addiction. 

But if anyone has any documentation on that particular theory I would love to read it. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.

[Don Coyote]

That doesn't make much sense to me and doesn't seem very likely, let alone substantiated that it was government intent or government mandate.  But if the intent was to deter recreational use and addiction, you would want to either do something to alter the rate at which the controlled substance can enter the blood stream (as they've done with oxycontin) OR combine with another ingredient that creates an unpleasant, but short term, reaction.  It wouldn't make any sense to go for something that is slow building and more medium term like liver toxicity.  Because it would take too long for the effects to take hold to actually deter addiction. 

But if anyone has any documentation on that particular theory I would love to read it. 

Still doesn't explain the atropine.

Acetaminophen I can understand, as it is an analgesic.

Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.

That confuses me too.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive.  I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction.  I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.

This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one.  I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug. 

It doesn't matter.  They deliberately made medication unnecessarily poisonous.  There is no excuse for this.  None whatsoever.

[AFK]

Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.

Yes, that reason is because Schedule V drugs contain lower levels of narcotics, which is what you'd expect to see when you are mixing in other ingredients. 

Schedule V Controlled Substances

    Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. These are generally used for antitussive, antidiarrheal, and analgesic purposes.

    Examples include cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC® and Phenergan with Codeine®).

[AFK]

Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive.  I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction.  I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.

This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one.  I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug. 

It doesn't matter.  They deliberately made medication unnecessarily poisonous.  There is no excuse for this.  None whatsoever.

Eh, I'd argue that all medicines are poisonous, by definition.  Doctors just help us take amounts that are just enough to treat our symptoms (maybe) but not so much that it puts us in the hospital for a new reason. 

And who is "they"?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Eh, I'd argue that all medicines are poisonous, by definition.  Doctors just help us take amounts that are just enough to treat our symptoms (maybe) but not so much that it puts us in the hospital for a new reason. 

And who is "they"?

1.  Apparently, they put more than that in.  Apparently they spike it with a heart over-clocker.  It's a little bit dangerous, so it's PERFECTLY OKAY to make it MORE dangerous, in case people abuse it.  Or a toddler gets ahold of it.

2.  The drug companies, at what appears to be the behest of the FDA.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.

Yes, that reason is because Schedule V drugs contain lower levels of narcotics, which is what you'd expect to see when you are mixing in other ingredients. 

Schedule V Controlled Substances

    Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. These are generally used for antitussive, antidiarrheal, and analgesic purposes.

    Examples include cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC® and Phenergan with Codeine®).

Right. And you can't just take more because it'll poison you.

[East Coast Hustle]

Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive.  I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction.  I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.

This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one.  I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug. 

Funny, I've NEVER had a doctor inform me that the codeine he was prescribing me had atropine in it and that I should remember that before I decided to take more than the recommended dose.

Anyone else ever had their doctor tell them that?

I can't believe that you're actually making what appears to be a serious argument in favor of intentionally making prescription drugs MORE DEADLY, and framing that argument as though it's for the greater good.

Please tell me I'm wrong about that and have managed to badly misinterpret you somehow.