Darvon is an opiate. It's simply an extremely mild opiate. This is why it's used to treat opiate (including heroin) withdraws. It takes away the withdraws and yet is not harmfully addictive in itself. Darvon addiction is difficult to attain (requiring very heavy use), does not include cravings, and only has a 1 or 2 day headache as a withdraw symptom. It can not be used effectively with naltexone.
Frankly its big advantage is that it doesn't have any real disadvantages. The excuses given by this mysterious lobbying group are largely not true, extremely exaggerated, or completely ignoring the fact that every other pain killer is worse in that regard. Frankly the only reason I see for anyone trying to get rid of darvocet is because darvocet is used as an alternative to stronger, more risky, and much more costly (darvocet, due to it's age, is so cheap it's practically free) patented narcotics. I can also see, theoretically at least, people who want all pain killers and medications abolished wanting to get rid of it. With darvocet gone doctors will no longer have a mild pain killer category to put people in. Many people will be upgraded to more dangerous but more profitable narcotics for their pain control (satisfying motive #1), and many people will be denied any prescription pain control and be forced to suffer the natural way (satisfying motive #2).
