Facts about drugs, including fentanyl

But with mobile phones, texting, and social media, transactions can now be arranged electronically and completed by home delivery, reducing the buyer’s risk and travel time to near zero and even his waiting time to minimal levels. In the recent Global Survey on Drugs, cocaine users around the world reported, that their most recent cocaine order was delivered in less time, on average, than their most recent pizza order.

That is from Mark Kleiman, but most of the blog post is about fentanyl.  It is one of the best posts I have read all year, recommended.

Comments

A Cuck like me

Personally, I found this recent post at calculated risk to be even more interesting, since it takes a somewhat broader view of what is going on the in U.S., and its economic (forecasting) implications.

'Provisional estimates from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) indicate that the number of US deaths increased sharply last year, both in absolute terms and adjusted for age. According to the NCHS’ “mortality dashboard”, the “crude” US death rate (deaths per 100,000 of population) averaged 866.2 in 2017, up from 839.3 in 2016. The NCHS’ “age-adjusted” death rate (which adjusts for the changing age distribution of the population) for 2017 was 733.6, up from 728.8 in 2017 and the highest age-adjusted death rate since 2011. These data suggest that the total number of US deaths last year was around 2.821 million, compared to 2.744 million in 2016.

While data on deaths by age (or full-year deaths by cause) are not yet available, these data suggest that the recent alarming trend of significantly higher death rates among teenagers and non-elderly adults (shown in the table below) continued last year.' http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2018/05/lawler-us-deaths-jumped-in-2017.html

Sometimes, it is the big picture that is more interesting when looking at disturbing trends in the U.S.

And though everyone has their own interests, one would think that an economist would find this a bit more along the lines of markets in everything - 'Then we got hit with the wave of prescription-opioid (mostly hydrocodone and oxycodone) diversion and dependency that started around 1992 and was accelerated by the introduction of Oxycontin in 1996, and its relentless marketing by Purdue Pharma. The widespread availability of diverted prescription opioids – available in pharmaceutical bottles, in every neighborhood, often from friends or at least from people who didn’t look as scary as old-fashioned heroin dealers, and cheap enough to be taken orally rather than by the more efficient, but ickier, injection route – created a widespread national demand for opioids. As those oxycodone users built up habits they could no longer afford, or lost access to their favorite script-happy M.D. or “pill mill” pharmacy, the falling price of heroin enticed many of them to “trade down.”'

What is going in the U.S. in this area is not an accident, after all - it was a profitable business being aggressively pursued. And with minimal FDA interference, though strangely, Prof. Tabarrok rarely brings up such successful pharma activities when pointing out what happens when the FDA is not actively involved in dealing with a preventable public health problem as it starts to snowball into an epidemic.

"with minimal FDA interference"

Oh did the FDA not approve oxycontin??

Well, there is this for example - 'OxyContin went to market in 1996 with a campaign by Purdue Pharma that suggested a less abusable drug, one that doctors could prescribe for moderate pain, in addition to severe pain.

At the center of the company’s marketing aimed at physicians was a single sentence in OxyContin’s original label:

“Delayed absorption as provided by OxyContin tablets, is believed to reduce the abuse liability of a drug.”

Purdue’s marketing campaign relied on that sentence, which claimed OxyContin was believed to be less likely to be abused than other prescription opioids, according to depositions from various sales reps and physicians that were pitched on the drug. But that claim was not backed up by clinical studies.

Officials from Purdue Pharma, the company behind OxyContin, said in depositions from a 2004 West Virginia lawsuit that the company did not hold clinical trials to show that OxyContin was less likely to be addictive or abused. Purdue sales reps leaned heavily on that messaging of lower abuse potential to push the drug during the first six years following its launch.

Marketplace reviewed hundred of pages of court documents — including some that were recently unsealed — that shed light on the relationship between the Food and Drug Administration, the agency responsible for monitoring and approving prescription drugs, and Purdue between 1995 and 2001.' https://www.marketplace.org/2017/12/13/health-care/uncertain-hour/opioid

Those first years of Oxycontin's fabulously profitable run represent the sort of future Prof. Tabarrok apparently wishes to see - no testing of claims, and an FDA that does not spend any real effort at ensuring accurate labelling.

As noted further in the article - '“There's a caveat here, the sentence says it's ‘believed’ to reduce the abuse liability of a drug,” said Dr. Caleb Alexander, an associate professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the chairman of an FDA advisory committee on drug safety for neurologic diseases. “They're not stating that it does reduce the abuse liability of a drug. This is a slippery slope.”

The sentence should never have been allowed in the label because there are were no clinical studies to back it up, Alexander said.

“Not without data,” he said. “I mean, show me the data. Show me the studies. Show me the abuse liability studies.”

So where did that sentence come from? How did it wind up in an FDA-approved label?

When contacted by Marketplace, the FDA would not comment specifically about its relationship with Purdue during that time period.'

Did Purdue really commit fraud? if not why blame the sellers more that the buyers? Do you blame the wine, beer and alcohol makers for the death and misery related to alcohol abuse?

Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.

The effect of requiring consumers to obtain prescriptions for pharmaceuticals on mortality is examined for a sample of middle‐income countries. In countries enforcing the requirement, infectious disease mortality is no lower and poisoning mortality is higher than in those not enforcing the requirement. A broader measure of government intervention—public expenditures on health relative to GDP—is shown to have moderately adverse effects on overall life expectancy.

Opioid Drug Deaths Cost 500,000 Years of Life in U.S.
And them there is this:

Has Medicaid Made the Opioid Epidemic Worse?

Health Insurance Might not be Good for Everyone

These epidemics come and go. They go when people see others dying form OD's and so avoid the high.

While oxy is a bit pricey (and I've seen contradictory claims as to whether it available as cheap generic), but Vicodin and Percoset do have generics which are dirt cheap-- less than a case of beer or fifth of vodka-- provided they are being obtained from legal sources. The 60 day script I had after surgery in 2016 was so cheap it didn't even equal my lowest tier dry copay.

Have you see all the settlements? Yes, they really, really lied. A lot. Mostly to doctors, but that trickled down to what those doctors told their patients, while they prescribed the drugs in heavy stream.

That is a very interesting article. It has a very interesting chart. What is also very interesting is that it does not mention Barack Obama. It looks like heroin and then fentanyl took off from pretty much the moment Obama took office.

Why might that be? Perhaps Obama insisted on dropping prosecutions? Perhaps he insisted that drug laws were too racist? Perhaps he sent too many soldiers to, or withdrew too many soldiers from, Afghanistan? Who knows? But I think the question should be asked.

Certainly his much heralded shift from interdiction and enforcement to treatment and research has comprehensively failed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/the-radical-way-the-presidents-spending-plan-would-change-the-drug-war/

You can disagree with the cause suggested by the author, but you can't pretend the point was not considered.

"It didn’t take long for some of those Chinese outfits to start making fentanyl; unlike heroin dealers, they didn’t need a source of opium.......Somewhere in here someone figured out a technique for diluting the stuff with enough accuracy to reduce the consumer’s risk of a fatal overdose: far from perfectly, but enough to create a thriving market. "

I may be a little distracted today but it looks to me as if the role of the Obama administration was not covered. It certainly was not in your quote.

So we are supposed to believe what? That the Chinese suddenly discovered a new technique for producing it? Doesn't seem likely. That Alibaba suddenly opened a side line in drugs? Doesn't seem likely either. How about the fact that Chinese suppliers realized that they could get away with it without serious risk of punishment? That seems more likely.

That it took some genius in America to work out you had to add lots of sugar to it to avoid killing your customers is suggested but it is the dumbest idea ever. Drug dealers have been doing this since FDR was in the White House.

Somebody may not have read the relevant parts of the article, such as this - 'A street dealer buying fentanyl from a higher-level supplier and “stepping on it” – diluting it with mostly inert chemicals – would have needed remarkable skill to ensure that every dose had just 50 micrograms of the active agent and that none had the 300 micrograms – roughly the weight of a grain of table salt – that could be deadly. So fentanyl never really caught on.'

I fail to see why you find it incredible that someone in China might have found a quick and easy way to brew up fentanyl.
And China is a sovereign country,. We can't send DEA agents to arrest and prosecute people there.

Because leftists

No, because China, like any sovereign nation (including the US) might take serious exception top agent from a foreign country showing to seize its citizens, no matter what mischief they are up to. And since Chins has nuclear weapons we are obliged to respect their sovereignty.

Can we ask Treasury agents to track down and prosecute the US purchasers and distributors? Can we publish the names of Chinese persons or companies who collected money for those sales -- and then ban them from from US travel using the Magnitsky Act?

Gotta start somewhere.

Jonfraz - May 29, 2018 at 11:51 am 13

Because the technology is old and well understood. It is unlikely to have made all that much of a difference even if someone did come up with a new technique. Because the old technique is likely to be so cheap. And because the Chinese government is really sensitive on the issue of drugs. So they shoot people. You have to be brave to make illegal drugs in China.

The DEA goes to a lot of countries that are notionally sovereign. Admittedly most of them are a lot smaller than China.

I suspect the Chinese government doesn't really care (and may secretly smile at) people who are poisoning its chief rival. Why is this is so strange? China was once the recipient of that sort of thing (see: Opium Wars). And since, as I mentioned above, China has nuclear weapons we are bound to respect their sovereignty-- it's a bit more than merely "notional".

"I may be a little distracted today but it looks to me as if the role of the Obama administration was not covered. It certainly was not in your quote."

The role of the Obama administration was to cut off the opiate drug pushing, which was all legal transactions:

Drug companies "taught" doctors theiir opiates were safe, not addictive, and 400 million Americans were in severe pain, but these drugs will eliminate all the unnecessary suffering of hard working Americans. The teachers were the best American doctors.

The US doctors wrote prescriptions at ten to a hundred times the rate of their European peers.

Pharmacies filled the prescriptions.

Often, patients would sell some fraction of their pills to pay for the pills from the drug store, just to help out a friend in pain from an injury on the job, who would be fired if he asked for time off to see a doctor for an injury, on the job, if he was not warned to claim it was a ski accident.

While Bush was Preesident, Massachusetts had started cracking down on doctor prescribing, implementing a State registry for all opiate prescriptions, filled in by pharmacists, that doctors were required to check before writing any prescriptions for opiates. The State would audit drugs dispensed, and flag the prescribing doctor, and then audit the doctor, requiring explanation of large prescriptions.

This approach was advocated nationwide by Congress and the Obama administration. Obamacare provided funding to States to implement various electronic records keeping and processing. Opiates were a priority for 100% electronic prescribing. That system for all drugs has been in the works since the 70s, but it was much costlier then, and seen as eliminating the small drug store and the small doctor.

By 2008, cloud services by medical records vendors made it available to all for a fee, and paying the small guys to start using it was in the Obama budgets, and included in the stimulus and obamacare.

New Hampshire government did not require it until recently, but 90% of drugs are processed though corporate providers and drug stores, and the few not using the system became the focus of NH State drug oversight.

Basically, while Obama was president, everything in process for over a decade got implemented quickly.

The legal drug pushing in many States was greatly curtailed, and US doctors now only prescribe 6 times the opiates that European doctors prescribe.

But that does not cure drug addiction. Where there is demand, the market will supply. Very few people, especially conservatives,, feel bad about screwing big government Jack boot regulations and buying and selling opiates.

Point to Obama as the reason the doc can't prescribe 5 oxy per day, and conservatives will eagerly smuggle in opiates and help the people screwed by Obama. And any profit just covers their own needs, caused by Obama.

And do you think China cares about Chinese shipping fentanyl to the US after the two opium wars, which the .US supported, to force sales of opiates in China to addict the Chinese people, just to balance trade?

Obama would not blame China for a problem the US created.

I'm watching PBS American Experience which ties the Chinese exclusion act to opium, the railroad, free trade with China, Lincoln and the GOP to immigration of non-whites, and the rights of immigrants under the US Constitution.

Virtually everything that angers Trump has its seeds planted in the 1860s by the GOP and Lincoln, and then the backlash from Chinese immigrants, who then by 1890 had established via Supreme Court rulings the things conservatives just hate hate hate about immigrants, and that Trump and Sessions blame on Obama and Clinton.

Especially birth right citizenship.

Fentanyl, drug addiction, Chinese trade, immigration, twisted together from Lincoln and the GOP to the present day.

Blame it on Obama! The 200 year old man... 2000 year old man...

Obama modified marijuana and crack cocaine laws. What's the effect on "fentanyl"?

Nope, heroin started coming back again in the 90's when the fine cut stuff dropped in price and Alice in chains made it cool by the late 90's with the hipsters. That graph is poorly made lie. Heroin surged between 2002-2014 and the last recession, it was very affordable boosting it further. Since 2015, coke has made it back in with more money. I still say with moderation and cycling, high grade coke can help spur the brain.

The opioid epidemic got going strong well before Obama took office. And if there's a connection with the growth of heroin use, the most likely reason would the tightening up of standards for when to prescribe opioids that began in the 2010s.
Of course some people would blame Obama if they found a public restroom stall out of toilet paper.

So you are saying putting Eric Holder in charge and insisting that people not prosecute undue numbers of African Americans had no impact on the figures at all? That it is unreasonable to think that it might?

An interesting position.

As it happens I think law enforcement is likely to be overstated and what we are seeing is the end of the Taliban-enforced heroin drought following the US invasion. Opium production in Afghanistan has slowly recovered and so heroin use has slowly grown. But who knows? It is, as I said, interesting that they do not even consider US government policy.

Prosecuting black people for crimes committed by white people, including hispanic whites, helps How?

When you can order fentanyl over the Internet from China delivered by US mail, which black men prosecuted will reduce the trade?

Note, Chinese Internet sellers exploit the USPS ten times as much as Amazon. The Universal Postal Union treaty framework has China paying a low fee to have first class letters delivered in the US. China contracts to have these letters shipped cheaply to the US. A "letter" under the treaty is up to almost a pound, so for many people, it looks like parcel post. Note, the US Post Office has been delivering these letter under the Treaty since 1874, after a call for one by the US in 1863. Back to Lincoln, again. And the GOP.

"As of 2018, US companies pay more than twice as much to mail an item from a US plant to a US customer, than does a manufacturer in China to mail an item to a US customer." -- Wsj via wikipedia.

Yep, I am saying that, and more.
Tin foil hats are NEVER an acceptable fashion choice.

https://www.narconon.org/blog/narconon/property-crimes-higher-than-ever-due-to-meth-use/

Statistics show that meth addicts commit fifty to seventy percent of all property crimes. They often hit neighborhoods with a large number of foreclosures to cut down on attention from neighbors.

.......................................
That is a lot of crime, but the death rate is low, cocaine having more sudden deaths. Opioid users hide out, commit less crime. Meth heads cause problems by faking it. The uninitiated observer is confounded by the meth head who always seem to be scamming. The meth head becomes public enemy because of the scams, people simply cannot live around them.

The author really did miss the point of another recurring epidemic, though 'speed kills' sounds so dated these days. Particularly in regards to his final line - 'But the fentanyls aren’t going to be the last class of purely synthetic and super-potent recreational chemicals; they’re just the first.'

No, they aren't the first.

Depends on your definition of "super-potent" I guess

Kleiman writes: "It’s likely that the current opioid epidemic will burn itself out, as the younger brothers and sisters, and children, of today’s problem opioid users decide to profit from the bad example of their elders."

Yes, just keep on setting a bad example for your kids, and everything will work out fine. Self-destructive behavior is rarely passed on from one generation to the next.

Rather amusing to encounter such a statement on a blog called "The reality based community".

None of my friends seem to be doing much crack lately.

Or tincture of laudanum.

Open to interpretation, but I actually don't think he meant the literal siblings and children of individual opioid users. I think the meant the younger generation in general. Sort of like the low levels of young smokers we see today. Their parents and even older brothers smoked a lot more tobacco at their age. But vaping on the other hand...

Efficient communication lowers the costs and risks of doing business.

How much longer the war on drugs will be fought?

Interesting question, since the major drug epidemic now found in the U.S. can be quite well tied to a very profitable company - 'Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. In 2007 it paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against a pharmaceutical firm for mislabeling its product OxyContin, and three executives were found guilty of criminal charges. Although the company has shifted its focus to abuse-deterrent formulations, Purdue continues to market and sell opioids, and continues to be involved in lawsuits around the opioid crisis.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma

Never bet against the bottom line of an American pharma company - it is a good way to lose.

Witness again the failure of drug prohibition; the gun prohibition is gonna be just great.

Of course, guns are <1 gram and can be delivered by the USPS.

Guns have gotten smaller since Navarone. Many of them can now fit in a box and be lifted by one person.

It's amazing in terms of freedom that criminals will use the government-run delivery service to ship their illegal goods. That's how sure they are their package won't get opened up at random. If you remember how "unopened mail" was a big advantage of living in the US versus the USSR this gives an amazing glow of privacy in the modern age, for once.

What remains so interesting is how a place like the UK or Australia seem to be able to do much better than the U.S. at both reducing gun violence and opioid abuse. So, time to haul out that old Onion article - 'ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations.' https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

Mass shootings do happen elsewhere. They are not uncommon in the rest of the world.

And of course Britain and Australia have been historically White. White people are terribly law-abiding. Black people not so much. So London is now more dangerous than New York and knife crime is on the rise to the extent they are now talking about knife control. London is less than 50% British. As Britain adopts America's demography, it gets America's crime rate.

Well, careful on those statistical comparisons - 'So is it really true that London’s murder rate is now higher than New York’s?

Yes, but only if you look at the last two months – which some commentators think is way too short a time frame.

The Metropolitan Police has confirmed that it recorded 15 murders in February, while in the same month the New York Police Department (NYPD) recorded 11 killings.

In March London also had more murders, albeit by a very slim margin: 22 to New York’s 21.

But as soon as you start to look beyond the relatively narrow confines of those two months, the statistics start to come out in London’s favour.

The Met says there were 8 murders in London in January, which compares with 18 killings in New York during the first month of the year.

Taking into account two murders that have occurred in London in April, so far in London there have been 47 murders in London, compared to the higher running total of 50 in New York.
So were February and March 2018 just blips?

Possibly. While those two months may have been the first times in recent history that London had a higher homicide rate than New York, the year-on-year statistics are still firmly suggestive of the UK capital being the less murderous city.

There were 116 murders in London in 2017, fewer than half New York’s annual total of 290.' https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-murder-rate-new-york-compare-worse-stabbings-knife-crime-teenagers-statistics-figures-a8286866.html

We will see whether London can overcome its previous deficit, and at least stay within more than 50% of NYC's murder rate in 2018.

And New York city is not so white.

Yeah, we're all peaceable & law abiding in Australia

https://theconversation.com/why-are-rates-of-domestic-violence-in-australia-still-so-high-87187

Jesus Christ you're a fuckwit.

You're insulted by the claim that your countrymen are law abiding? That is .... impressive.

But yes, White Australians are notably law-abiding. That article more or less proves that. The problem with measuring domestic violence is that the definition is subjective. The more you encourage women to complain, the more complain. Doesn't mean a thing. Even so they have to carefully select the figures they want to "prove" Australian men are a danger. An objective look even at the figures they cite show Australians are very law abiding and domestic violence is not a particularly big problem.

Compared with, say, Palestine where half of all women are beaten every year. Or even Peru. Australia looks to be lower than Sweden. Which these days may not be saying much.

Your countrymen don't beat women. Be proud.

Of course gun violence can be prevented if you take away all the guns, but that would be very difficult in the U.S. Australia is not a great example since they only took away 20% of the guns and this didn't really have any effect.

We haven't had another mass killing with guns since Port Arthur.

& there's no way to measure the actual number of guns in the country, so the 20% figure you invoke is a nonsense

You're a fuckwit too.

Australia did not have a hell of lot of mass killings before Port Arthur either. They just had a cluster of them in a few years. Perhaps because of media coverage.

So there is no real way to say whether the laws had an effect or not. They seem to have made a difference to suicide figures. They do not seem to have made much of a difference to crime as a whole although crime does seem to be up. That may be due to immigration rather than guns.

The basic problem is that White Australians are like White people most places - they are very law abiding. Japan could let everyone buy a gun and crime would not increase much. Might even go down. Australia can prevent people owning guns and crime does not change much either.

I believe only one 'mass shooter' in the decades since Columbine has been black, the rest were almost all white. Which is what that Onion article was about, mass shootings (not ghetto violence). So troll harder, SMFS.

But your belief is worthless. It is also wrong. The problem is partially one of definition. If a White student shoots up a school it is national news. If a Black student does, it is Saturday night in Chicago. But you only need look at the data:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

56 our of 97 mass shootings were by Whites. 16 by Blacks. In other words, Blacks are over-represented. 7 by Asians. So Asians are really over represented.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/06/are_most_mass_murderers_really_white.html

Whites are about what you think they would be. Although there is a problem of definition.

From the linked article: "But with mobile phones, texting, and social media, transactions can now be arranged electronically and completed by home delivery, reducing the buyer’s risk and travel time to near zero and even his waiting time to minimal levels. "

So if Lou Reed were still with us, he'd have to rewrite "I'm Waiting For The Man" to reflect the speed and convenience of home deliver, using his dealer's app. No more of this "He's never early/He's always late/First thing you learn is that you've always got to wait"; nowadays, any dealer delivering such shoddy service is going to get downrated right out of business.

Life in Trump's America...

Even a casual glance would tell you that all of the data pre-dates Trump. The graph stops in 2016. The period of rapid increase would fall squarely during the Obama years.

I don't see any evidence that this is linked to a particular administration, but if you are going to be mindless, then the correct response is:

Thanks Obama!

I think it is obvious that Trump is logical conclusion of the American dysfunctional regime. I am talking about the internal contradictions of America as it exists now. I can not i imagine any other country standing by while opium addiction swallows persons, families, communities, cities. Even the Chinese fought wars over opium.

Life in Temer's Brazil:

Brazil’s truckers have been on strike. And while tensions there may be easing, fuel lines have stretched to 12 hours long and grocers have been short on perishable fruits and vegetables. The food delivery problems have extended to animals, too. Sixty-four million insufficiently fed chickens have died, according to a meat producers association, and another one billion chickens and 20 million pigs are at risk. [Bloomberg]

There is exageration. The strike lasted 8 days yet the country never bulged. In America, 8 days without gas and food and medicine re-supplying would lead to a collapse. President Temer waited the strikers out, bid his time and negotiated from a position of strenght. He was shrewd like a fox. Brazil is a rich country. The capital region alone threw away half a million spoiled (from lack of timely transportation) eggs yet no one starve.
We dealt pretty well with situation. No Tiananmen Squares, no Little Rocks, no Fergusons. No Trials of Tears. Nothing but blood, toil, tears and sweat.

BLACK MARKETS are such a new phenomenon in world history.

If only we had some brilliant academic economists to tell us why black markets exist and how they operate

Of course the Nixon-thru-Trump tyrannical War-on-Drugs has been fabulously successful eliminating illicit drug use, despite having no clue what they are doing /s

"So I think we’re going to wind up just making sure that naloxone is available to reverse as many otherwise-fatal overdoses as possible..."

"It’s likely that the current opioid epidemic will burn itself out, as the younger brothers and sisters, and children, of today’s problem opioid users decide to profit from the bad example of their elders."

If we make naloxone less available the younger generation will learn that much faster and the epidemic will burn itself out that much sooner.

Another fake crisis that peaked in 2014 and has declined since.

I'm surprised that generating an electronic transaction record is considered less risky.

Legalize it and hope that better dosing reduces deaths by OD.
The dose makes the poison.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mde.4090080108
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP56H_ZpEsE&t=251s

"And no, I don’t believe in “drug prevention” (or in the Tooth Fairy). Making people genuinely resilient in the face of temptation can’t be done by chanting “Just Say No,” or by inventing ever more creative lies to tell to schoolchildren."

This is just a retarded line. The "Just Say No" campaign was about trying to push kids that are on the fence to the no drug use side. It was an inexpensive campaign that didn't involve incarcerating anyone and probably did result in less drug use. Only a moron would really equate it with the "Tooth Fairy". My speculation is that this guy doesn't like it for partisan reasons and that's over ruling his common sense.

I'm genuinely baffled how any one could equate "Just Say No" with telling schoolchildren lies.

Wait..to be clear, you're arguing "Just Say No", DARE, and drug prevention programs *worked*, as we live through a literal opioid *epidemic*? Geez

Fentanyl has (probably) been used as a chemical weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hostage_crisis_chemical_agent

Might be useful for pasting a few extra charges on dealers and getting more funds to the relevant agencies, although I doubt that will really fix anything.

But the dealers can just coat themselves in it and kill all the cops that try and arrest them.

The obesity-related death rate in the U.S. is much higher, why all the media angst about this life-style choice?

People makes choices. Only in this Era has obesity been an option.

It's always 'compared to what?' Choose to die early from a bounty of food? Well that's a choice. Food scolds are always in preponderance, except when there's not enough food to feed the starving.

Fentanyl is death. If your doing heroin you're playing Russian Roulette. Disconcerting that News Reports indicate that Fentanyl importation into the USA is significantly China's responsibility. That doesn't sound like Win/Win, Comparative Advantage, mutually beneficial trade.

Revenge of the Chinaman!

LSD is making a big comeback among elites for similar reasons - a couple sheets of blotter paper are nearly impossible to interdict by post.

I myself am not a drug user (besides alcohol) but the war on drugs by the US hasn't worked and it will not work. All it's doing is wasting money year after year with no success overall. Follow Portugal's example, they legalized all drugs and focused on patient treatment instead.

Comments for this post are closed