Drug info - Why is hydrocodone/apap CIII and oxycodone/apap CII?

[hamsterdam]

If you think about it..

a 10/325 hydrocodone/apap is CIII.. which is ~ 3X stronger then say.
a 2.5/325 oxycodone/apap, which is CII

How does 2.5mg of oxycodone have higher abuse potential then 10mg of hydrocodone?

Even with a 10/325 vs 10/325 comparison, the 2 drugs are still nearly bioequivalent.

[ConcertaXL]

It is just an anomaly of the US federal scheduling system. Oxycodone is in fact a stronger narcotic than hydrocodone, and both are in the same schedule (II) as pure chemicals: however, US commercial pharma companies have chosen not to make hydrocodone (or codeine) available as single ingredient preparations. Some people get CII RX's for pure hydro or 30/200 with APAP hydro made up at specialist compounding pharmacies but with stronger mass produced narcotics such as the ubiquitous OC's available, VERY few doctors are going to script a "special" like this. Oxycodone was originally used in high doses for severe pain, "Percodan-Demi" and other pills with only 2.5 mg of oxy came later. You could also question why a 2.5mg/325mg Morphine/APAP pill would be CII if it existed, but the DEA schedulers do not expect such potent drugs to be used in low doses so did not make an exemption to the high schedule.
Here in the UK, Oxy is only available in single-ingredient forms (OC and Oxynorm(=Oxy IR) 5/10/20mg or concentrated liquid), and is CII. However there are less potent forms of Morphine (Oramorph liquid, some anti-diarrhoea preparations) and Codeine/ Dihydrocodeine which are C-V, even though single ingredient.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good point on not being able to get a script for pure hydro, and the specialists

[mbarnes0]

That is a really strange question. It is weird in the States how pure hydro is schedule II like oxy, but hydro in a compound with an NSAID or APAP is schedule III. So many strange/illogical laws in this world.

[Lady Codone]

Unfair for Oxy lovers, but GRRRRREAT for Hydro fans!

Seriously, why is MARIJUANA--a non-toxic, natural plant-based drug with no physical addiction potential and numerous medical applications--a Schedule I substance, while amphetamine (Adderall), fentanyl, Ambien, Klonopin, and other HIGHLY addictive, toxic synthetic drugs are in lower scheduling levels? Makes no sense whatsoever.

[mbarnes0]

Yea it is ridiculous. I never got how Marijuana is schedule I but alcohol is an unscheduled substance. The whole Controlled Substances Act is a piece of completely whacked out legislation brought about by Nixon's 'War on Drugs' in America.

[hamsterdam]

Yeah.. cocaine is schedule II as well..

You can get a 4% or 10% cocaine Hcl solution prescribed to you.. legally

[ConcertaXL]

doubt Adderall is highly addictive... possibly in a psychological way after very heavy use, but normally its one you can take once a month at parties without wanting to use every day or "missing" it. same reason stimulant clinics will not often prescribe dexedrine maintenance except to huge coke/crack/meth users, they dont physically need maintaining. As far as "toxic" is concerned all chemicals are toxic... even water above 10-15L in a day can be fatal, but its a question of dosage and at therapeutic/lower recreational doses benzos,Z drugs and fent are not toxic. Hydrocodone, your drug of choice, is also synthetic so why are you knocking chemical compounds? Marijuana should be CIII/CIV though IMHO.

[mbarnes0]

I think that alcohol is way more destructive/addictive than marijuana could ever be. My feeling is that if it is so socially acceptable to go get shit-faced drunk, why is smoking pot such a big deal. If you go out in society ANYWHERE you can talk about that one night where you drank way to much and did something totally stupid and everyone will laugh at you and not think of it as a big deal at all. Start talking about smoking and see how many eyes turn to you as one of 'those drug users'.

Its bullshit, if marijuana is a federally scheduled substance alcohol sure as hell should be. I don't think that there should be a schedule against either drug or just about any drug for that matter.

[/2cents]

[hamsterdam]

fyi, medical marijuana exists as Marinol already.

swim thinks that trying to legalize marijuana on a medical basis is the wrong way to approach it. The "Less harmful then alcohol" approach is a much much better argument.

The problem is, a doctor can't write a prescription as something like "smoke 1 joint every 4 - 6 hours as needed". All pharmaceuticals are very precisely titrated.. and smoking is not a healthy way to deliver medicine. In order for the cannaboids in marijuana to be used for medical purposes, they'd have to isolate each one, and do clinical trials to prove the safety and effectiveness of it (which is what they did with Marinol, which is a synthetic cannaboid. It's a schedule III drug). The other problem with smoking pot for medical purposes is it's delivering many cannaboids, and medicines are typically a single compound.

Smoking pot is probably about as harmful as smoking tobacco, and that seems to be fine. If anything criminalizing marijuana pushes people to do harder drugs. Sure did for swim. Primary reason he uses opiates is because it's a lot safer legally, and won't cause a positive drug screen result (since it's a legit script).

[mbarnes0]

If anything criminalizing marijuana pushes people to do harder drugs. Sure did for swim. Primary reason he uses opiates is because it's a lot safer legally, and won't cause a positive drug screen result (since it's a legit script).

SWIM is in the same boat. He takes the hell out of his clonazepam script, but he can fail for that because he has a script. What bullshit. If SWIM just smoked he wouldn't need the fucking synthetic chemicals (clons) in the first place.

[ConcertaXL]

Marinol is not medical marijuana... It is like saying vodka is medical NyQuil because it contains ethanol (a key ingredient of NyQuil.) Marijuana contains dozens of chemicals in a natural blend, which certain people find relieves their symptoms. Just one of these substances artificially made and placed in a pill has much less pronounced effects, if any, on people who smoke weed for medical reasons. I am not saying there is no place for synthetic cannabinoids, but there is not always a substitute for smoking a joint. Why go through billions of dollars of testing to produce single cannabinoid derivatives, then expect weed users to experiment with all of them to see which one actually has an effect (and it could be a combination of several), when the plant is already giving them relief? And smoking pure marijuana is not nearly as damaging as tobacco. The fact is many people use tobacco because either they are addicted already or they want to make expensive weed last longer (it could be funded by Medicare if it was legal.) Cesamet and Marinol should be a stepping stone to federally legalised, Schedule III/IV prescription marijuana with a black box warning that tobacco is a highly dangerous substance which should not be smoked with the herb.