How does fentanyl get into the US?(bbc.com)
bbc.com
How does fentanyl get into the US?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg93nn1e6go
201 comments
This rings true with my experiences. The people who I've known to become addicted usually started with something prescribed and then graduated to heroin. When heroin became harder to find, smuggle in, or too expensive, fentanyl happily stepped up to meet demand.
Addicts literally carry around fent testing kits so they can _avoid_ this synthetic opioid.
Addicts literally carry around fent testing kits so they can _avoid_ this synthetic opioid.
>Addicts literally carry around fent testing kits so they can _avoid_ this synthetic opioid.
Its my understanding that heroin and street pharmaceuticals aren't really around anymore. Its ALL fentanyl now and everyone knows it.
Its my understanding that heroin and street pharmaceuticals aren't really around anymore. Its ALL fentanyl now and everyone knows it.
> Addicts literally carry around fent testing kits so they can _avoid_ this synthetic opioid.
Choosy addicts choose...is something I never thought I'd read. I'd suggest they weren't addicting right if they are choosy. When you can find your fix of choice, you just fix with what's available.
If your comment were accurate, fent sales would plummet and the problem would fix itself. This is clearly not the case.
Choosy addicts choose...is something I never thought I'd read. I'd suggest they weren't addicting right if they are choosy. When you can find your fix of choice, you just fix with what's available.
If your comment were accurate, fent sales would plummet and the problem would fix itself. This is clearly not the case.
>fent sales would plummet
None of what you've described is how any of this works in the real world.
There's an entire world of behaviour from a seller's perspective for every drug and an entire set of behaviour from a user's perspective. They match closely to how 'legal' alcohol production and consumption works. Biggest profits are from the biggest addicts of alcohol and their suppliers are all on the stock exchange for everyone to see. Beer almost never kills anyone, same with the production from large reputable companies. but if you find a great deal of homemade hard liqour make sure you test for ethanol and methanol. Thats simply how addicts die no matter the product they are using.
'some white powder' could literally be anything and everything. Idiots could cut it up wrong and what previously got you high just fine might potentially be a lethal dose right in front of you in the form of a powdery white line with no way to tell. Theres the mostly harmless chemicals used to reduce dose to cut the dealer more profit but could still not be mixed properly so new users wouldn't be able to notice. Then theres the nitazenes and other stuff that most tests only detect 'presence of' but not the dose so you would still have to throw everything out even though it might be mixed and dosed properly. And then theres the less addicted group who doesn't even bother with anything ever and only wants the pure stuff in large single batches in order to test fully and properly. Those people never get screwed over because thats what they pay for.
None of what you've described is how any of this works in the real world.
There's an entire world of behaviour from a seller's perspective for every drug and an entire set of behaviour from a user's perspective. They match closely to how 'legal' alcohol production and consumption works. Biggest profits are from the biggest addicts of alcohol and their suppliers are all on the stock exchange for everyone to see. Beer almost never kills anyone, same with the production from large reputable companies. but if you find a great deal of homemade hard liqour make sure you test for ethanol and methanol. Thats simply how addicts die no matter the product they are using.
'some white powder' could literally be anything and everything. Idiots could cut it up wrong and what previously got you high just fine might potentially be a lethal dose right in front of you in the form of a powdery white line with no way to tell. Theres the mostly harmless chemicals used to reduce dose to cut the dealer more profit but could still not be mixed properly so new users wouldn't be able to notice. Then theres the nitazenes and other stuff that most tests only detect 'presence of' but not the dose so you would still have to throw everything out even though it might be mixed and dosed properly. And then theres the less addicted group who doesn't even bother with anything ever and only wants the pure stuff in large single batches in order to test fully and properly. Those people never get screwed over because thats what they pay for.
Are you channeling Bob Saget?
That's true to an extent. But we can also reduce the incidence of opioid addiction by prescribing them only for really severe pain, and in smaller quantities. This is already happening. Back in 2007 an oral surgeon gave me a prescription (which I never filled) after a minor procedure but today that probably wouldn't happen.
This is the main problem why this problem is much larger in the US
We did legalise opium by way of oxycontin and I'm not sure that helped reduce the scope of the problem. Arguably a lot more people got hooked on opium than ever before because something legalized has less stigma attached and is more easily accessible. Society has waffled repeatedly on the legality of opium and the effects of opium are a bit different than less destructive narcotics where legalization makes more sense.
> Arguably a lot more people got hooked on opium than ever before because something legalized has less stigma attached
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I know that by the 80s heroin had a bad stigma attached to it even by other drug users, and it was rarely seen in the circles I knew. Coke, pot and meth did not have that at the time.
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I know that by the 80s heroin had a bad stigma attached to it even by other drug users, and it was rarely seen in the circles I knew. Coke, pot and meth did not have that at the time.
Oxycontin was overprescribed for pain, it's not available for recreational use.
Possibly it's just too potent for legalization to be viable.
Possibly it's just too potent for legalization to be viable.
Oxycodone (Oxycontin) has similar potency to diamorphine (heroin) and is ~2 orders of magnitude less potent than fentanyl.
https://www.gloshospitals.nhs.uk/healthcare-professionals/tr...
https://www.gloshospitals.nhs.uk/healthcare-professionals/tr...
I wasn't referring to potency strictly in the capacity of risk of overdose, but strongly addictive potential.
OxyContin was de-facto legalized. You could go to certain doctors, complain of pain, and walk out with a prescription. Just like you could do with medical marijuana in California. Legalization made the problem much worse because it increased demand markedly.
> If you want to stop the flow of hyperpotent opioids like fentanyl and nitazenes, legalise opium and heroin.
Why is the solution always either "let them take drugs" or "don't let them take drugs"?
To fix the problem, shouldn't people be asking why they feel the need to take drugs to start with?
The same goes for alcohol abuse.
Why is the solution always either "let them take drugs" or "don't let them take drugs"?
To fix the problem, shouldn't people be asking why they feel the need to take drugs to start with?
The same goes for alcohol abuse.
100%.
There is already some compelling anecdata that warrants studying.
Rat park is one, and the doctor who prescribed heroin in the 60s is another.
The jist of it was that addicts stopped abusing when there was something better to live for. In the absence of community, opportunity, and hope, abuse abounded.
The reality of some people's experiences though is that while euphoric in the beginning, long term use leads to an unpleasurable mental haze. The lack of clarity becomes its own hell.
----
The potential solution is likely unpopular and likely difficult to implement. Investing into communities that promote community along with incentives for economically depressed areas to be rebuilt, IMO would likely reduce opioid abuse.
But that's not nearly as popular as the moral displacement schadenfreude the people get by being able to point the finger at the drug abusers.
There is already some compelling anecdata that warrants studying.
Rat park is one, and the doctor who prescribed heroin in the 60s is another.
The jist of it was that addicts stopped abusing when there was something better to live for. In the absence of community, opportunity, and hope, abuse abounded.
The reality of some people's experiences though is that while euphoric in the beginning, long term use leads to an unpleasurable mental haze. The lack of clarity becomes its own hell.
----
The potential solution is likely unpopular and likely difficult to implement. Investing into communities that promote community along with incentives for economically depressed areas to be rebuilt, IMO would likely reduce opioid abuse.
But that's not nearly as popular as the moral displacement schadenfreude the people get by being able to point the finger at the drug abusers.
I'll drink to that!
Seriously, it feels like society has drifted too far away from the idea of small, local communities. So much of modern life separates people either physically or technologically. Though I would like to blame modern marketing and consumerism, I think these problems have been brewing for centuries.
From a sociological perspective, I do see the benefits of small conservative communities that effectively serve as a guarding or protective mechanism, shielding the more vulnerable from potentially destructive influences.
Seriously, it feels like society has drifted too far away from the idea of small, local communities. So much of modern life separates people either physically or technologically. Though I would like to blame modern marketing and consumerism, I think these problems have been brewing for centuries.
From a sociological perspective, I do see the benefits of small conservative communities that effectively serve as a guarding or protective mechanism, shielding the more vulnerable from potentially destructive influences.
That's very true. The drug issue is a very complex problem, and I was only addressing a very narrow aspect of it, namely the root cause for the proliferation of hyperpotent opioids in black/grey markets.
The legal side of it is just that; one side. It's important, yes, but just legalising opium won't automagically solve the opioid crisis on its own. We also need to address societal causes of opioid addiction. At least in the US, overprescription from doctors corrupted by big pharma(especially purdue), is one major contributing factor that's been thoroughly exposed in recent years. Obviously the role of money in medicine needs to be changed.
The deeper issue though is that more people are becoming vulnerable to developing addiction. Speaking as an addict myself, one of the root causes of addiction at an individual level can be untreated mentall illness. Drugs can often provide a temporary reprieve from mental illness, and unfortunately is often more easily available than good treatment options. In many western countries, funding for mental health treatment programs has been reduced. This is contributing to a rise in unmanaged mental health issues.
I think spending a ton more on mental health, especially in youth, is essential to reducing the prevalence of addiction.
Other issues include poverty, unemployment, housing. The thread through all of this is that more people lead miserable lives, and that makes drugs more tempting.
But let me circle back to the legalisation issue and why it's so important. The main health risks with opioids are overdose in the short term, infections(hepatitis, HIV, endocarditis) from dirty needles and organ damage from dirty drugs in the longer term. Legalisation can address all of these things. Any addict will tell you the main reason overdoses are so common is there's no consistency to the potency of their drugs. Even when it was still heroin, the constant battle with LE meant the purity would fluctuate wildly. Add to that synergistic adulterants, and now these hyperpotent drugs, and you get addicts dying like flies. Legalising the drugs would allow regulating them and providing consistent dosages, eliminating harmful adulterants, and mandating that doses be sold alongside clean user equipment. This would greatly limit the health impact of these drugs on its users. It's obvious that recovering from addiction would be a lot easier if your body hadn't been destroyed by it before you even enter a treatment programme.
In addition, remember what I said about funding for mental health declining? How much money is spent futilely fighting the war on drugs? I haven't done the tedious task of adding up federal, state and police budgets for the US, but the budget for the DEA alone is in the billions, so it's safe to assume once you do the math it'll be in the tens of billions for LE alone. And that's without accounting for the courts, prisons, and all the money being funneled away from the legitimate economy by criminal gangs. This is money that should be spent elsewhere. On mental health and addiction treatment, housing, social programmes. But instead it's essentially being piled up and lit on fire.
So at least for me, that's why I keep saying "let them take drugs".
The legal side of it is just that; one side. It's important, yes, but just legalising opium won't automagically solve the opioid crisis on its own. We also need to address societal causes of opioid addiction. At least in the US, overprescription from doctors corrupted by big pharma(especially purdue), is one major contributing factor that's been thoroughly exposed in recent years. Obviously the role of money in medicine needs to be changed.
The deeper issue though is that more people are becoming vulnerable to developing addiction. Speaking as an addict myself, one of the root causes of addiction at an individual level can be untreated mentall illness. Drugs can often provide a temporary reprieve from mental illness, and unfortunately is often more easily available than good treatment options. In many western countries, funding for mental health treatment programs has been reduced. This is contributing to a rise in unmanaged mental health issues.
I think spending a ton more on mental health, especially in youth, is essential to reducing the prevalence of addiction.
Other issues include poverty, unemployment, housing. The thread through all of this is that more people lead miserable lives, and that makes drugs more tempting.
But let me circle back to the legalisation issue and why it's so important. The main health risks with opioids are overdose in the short term, infections(hepatitis, HIV, endocarditis) from dirty needles and organ damage from dirty drugs in the longer term. Legalisation can address all of these things. Any addict will tell you the main reason overdoses are so common is there's no consistency to the potency of their drugs. Even when it was still heroin, the constant battle with LE meant the purity would fluctuate wildly. Add to that synergistic adulterants, and now these hyperpotent drugs, and you get addicts dying like flies. Legalising the drugs would allow regulating them and providing consistent dosages, eliminating harmful adulterants, and mandating that doses be sold alongside clean user equipment. This would greatly limit the health impact of these drugs on its users. It's obvious that recovering from addiction would be a lot easier if your body hadn't been destroyed by it before you even enter a treatment programme.
In addition, remember what I said about funding for mental health declining? How much money is spent futilely fighting the war on drugs? I haven't done the tedious task of adding up federal, state and police budgets for the US, but the budget for the DEA alone is in the billions, so it's safe to assume once you do the math it'll be in the tens of billions for LE alone. And that's without accounting for the courts, prisons, and all the money being funneled away from the legitimate economy by criminal gangs. This is money that should be spent elsewhere. On mental health and addiction treatment, housing, social programmes. But instead it's essentially being piled up and lit on fire.
So at least for me, that's why I keep saying "let them take drugs".
If I were to become a drug addict, I would also choose opium and heroin. I do see interviews on YouTube with folks who seek out fentanyl. But as other commenters mention, this may be a minority, and likely more so if safe and pure opium and heroin were accessible.
Dumbest thing I’ve heard. You’d have large swathes of the population (at least 15%) addicted to them within the year. Any country where it’s freely available ends up having a large number of addicts (20th century China, modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan etc.)
This argument is too dismissive for me to bother spending time on it except to say this: try to think about other factors than just availability, because it's not the only thing that matters.
Here's an exercise for you to do just that. Alcohol is legal and extremely available in the west. It has an even stronger addiction potential than opioids do. And the majority of people in the west drink at varying rates. But the rate of addiction is generally under 5%(in the west). Why do you think that is?
Here's an exercise for you to do just that. Alcohol is legal and extremely available in the west. It has an even stronger addiction potential than opioids do. And the majority of people in the west drink at varying rates. But the rate of addiction is generally under 5%(in the west). Why do you think that is?
> It has an even stronger addiction potential than opioids do. And the majority of people in the west drink at varying rates. But the rate of addiction is generally under 5%(in the west). Why do you think that is?
I conclude that... alcohol doesn't actually have an even stronger addiction potential than opioids do?
I conclude that... alcohol doesn't actually have an even stronger addiction potential than opioids do?
Alcohol is more addictive than opioids??
Is opium considered the least harsh/dangerous variant?
Drug trafficking has little to do with the border issue, since you cannot really do anything about it when you have thousands of miles of border to secure. The issue here is how much corruption exists in the US and how little it does against the really big criminals who control traffic.
The justice system concentrates only on putting small vendors behind bars (usually black people), but they're not the ones making real profits. I guarantee you don't know any big drug traffickers operating inside the US that were sent to jail. When you hear about big bosses it is always some guy outside the US, but the ones operating inside the country are all protected in one way or another. They're all laughing and buying mansions all over the country. This corruption is what the US should be concentrating on if they want to stop drug trafficking.
The justice system concentrates only on putting small vendors behind bars (usually black people), but they're not the ones making real profits. I guarantee you don't know any big drug traffickers operating inside the US that were sent to jail. When you hear about big bosses it is always some guy outside the US, but the ones operating inside the country are all protected in one way or another. They're all laughing and buying mansions all over the country. This corruption is what the US should be concentrating on if they want to stop drug trafficking.
Most drugs enter the country through legal ports of entry, not in the gaps. Most drugs are also brought back across by US citizens (~90%)
Here is one such study: https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/llic...
Here is one such study: https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/llic...
So, they were half-right since that's tantamount to "corruption in the US"
I don't see corruption, I see supply & demand and "enterprising" people.
The war on drugs has shown that focussing on the supply side has done little to solve the problem. There will be new ways to smuggle or new drugs to catch in the drag net while the demand remains.
The question then is, why is the demand for drugs so high?
The war on drugs has shown that focussing on the supply side has done little to solve the problem. There will be new ways to smuggle or new drugs to catch in the drag net while the demand remains.
The question then is, why is the demand for drugs so high?
>The question then is, why is the demand for drugs so high?
Because they (at least opioids) make people feel great. Better than sex, better than achieving a lifelong goal, better than a lot of things. The second half of the story is after 5 or so years, the effect isn't nearly as strong. After 10 years you don't get the high, you just don't feel like shit. That along with a likely police record, takes people completely out of society.
I remember the crack epidemic in the 80s, and it was pretty much over by the late 1990s. I've heard it's because people saw what crack did to other people and didn't want that to happen to them. That's honest marketing.
Nothing wrong with some honest marketing about what drugs really are. Nothing like DARE, just make some good, honest commercials and play them. Drugs are great to start with, but this is what will happen. You think it won't happen to you, but it probably will.
Because they (at least opioids) make people feel great. Better than sex, better than achieving a lifelong goal, better than a lot of things. The second half of the story is after 5 or so years, the effect isn't nearly as strong. After 10 years you don't get the high, you just don't feel like shit. That along with a likely police record, takes people completely out of society.
I remember the crack epidemic in the 80s, and it was pretty much over by the late 1990s. I've heard it's because people saw what crack did to other people and didn't want that to happen to them. That's honest marketing.
Nothing wrong with some honest marketing about what drugs really are. Nothing like DARE, just make some good, honest commercials and play them. Drugs are great to start with, but this is what will happen. You think it won't happen to you, but it probably will.
This doesn't get at why people decide to do drugs. You have to know, talk to, and hear the pains that addicts are running from to understand the drug problem.
They aren't doing it to feel good, they are doing it to escape what they feel all the time.
They aren't doing it to feel good, they are doing it to escape what they feel all the time.
>They aren't doing it to feel good, they are doing it to escape what they feel all the time.
There's lots of reasons, boredom, a friend talks you into it, a doctor prescribes pain meds, getting drunk at a party and trying it, take a little mental vacation from the stress of life, and as you mentioned, despair. Lots of people with good lives get hooked on them as well.
There's lots of reasons, boredom, a friend talks you into it, a doctor prescribes pain meds, getting drunk at a party and trying it, take a little mental vacation from the stress of life, and as you mentioned, despair. Lots of people with good lives get hooked on them as well.
Thousands of miles of border isn’t actually the issue here. How many people are crossing the Korean DMZ each year without South Korea noticing?
Adjusted for population size and it’s roughly half the length of the US/Mexico land border and it’s designed for military incursion via tanks not just people in a pickup truck.
Similarly the amount of money spent on inspecting imports is well under 1% of the total value of said imports. It’s possible to inspect literally every package crossing the border, we just don’t want to.
Adjusted for population size and it’s roughly half the length of the US/Mexico land border and it’s designed for military incursion via tanks not just people in a pickup truck.
Similarly the amount of money spent on inspecting imports is well under 1% of the total value of said imports. It’s possible to inspect literally every package crossing the border, we just don’t want to.
There is no commerce crossing the DMZ. There are no tourists crossing the DMZ. Hundreds of millions of people cross the southern US border every year. You cannot compare these two borders in any realistic way.
Edit: also, landmines
Edit: also, landmines
They do have cross broader trade and movement of people. I think SK is NK’s 4th largest trading partner right now, but there’s also some movement of people.
But that stuff is independent of length which is why I mentioned trade separately.
But that stuff is independent of length which is why I mentioned trade separately.
I do not think it makes sense to scale national borders based on population size. It is what it is, you can choose to invest resources on the entire length, but there is no mathematical averaging out.
For anyone else that was curious, the Korean DMZ is 150 miles long. US Mexico border is 1950.
For anyone else that was curious, the Korean DMZ is 150 miles long. US Mexico border is 1950.
50 million people each paying 100$ in taxes can’t get as much done as 350 million people handing over 100$.
On the other hand suggesting there’s suddenly massive issues with coordination because a country is 7x the size just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
PS: 160 mi, but that should be obvious from my comment and the relevant population sizes.
On the other hand suggesting there’s suddenly massive issues with coordination because a country is 7x the size just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
PS: 160 mi, but that should be obvious from my comment and the relevant population sizes.
It scales exponentially in difficulty with border length for something like fentanyl where so little is needed.
There’s a lot of research into this effect due to it’s application in a frontline in warfare.
Manpower can only travel so far in a rapid response to incidents, which quickly makes distant sections 100% independent. That’s linear scaling.
Manpower can only travel so far in a rapid response to incidents, which quickly makes distant sections 100% independent. That’s linear scaling.
Again, not the same due to the very low amount of goods that have to be smuggled. I'm aware of the rules of thumb for frontline warfare, those are intended for sizeable or sustained troop movements.
For something like fentanyl where a single success is enough for a single trafficker over a long time, the fact that sections are 100% independent is exactly why scaling is exponential - only one section has to fail for the goal to be achieved.
For something like fentanyl where a single success is enough for a single trafficker over a long time, the fact that sections are 100% independent is exactly why scaling is exponential - only one section has to fail for the goal to be achieved.
Try and articulate in what way that meaningfully hampers securing a border such that you’re looking at zero illicit crossings a month.
Driving 1 truck through a brick wall isn’t easier than driving 10, you need to deal with the wall either way.
Same deal with a tunnel, it’s detecting that’s hard. Shipping thousands of tons through a small gap is easy.
If anything length of border gives you economies of scale in terms of specialization equipment.
Driving 1 truck through a brick wall isn’t easier than driving 10, you need to deal with the wall either way.
Same deal with a tunnel, it’s detecting that’s hard. Shipping thousands of tons through a small gap is easy.
If anything length of border gives you economies of scale in terms of specialization equipment.
My model is pretty simple, just like yours we cut up the borders into segments. Certain of these segments will have higher or lower probabilities of interception for various reasons, and drug traffickers are able to estimate this probability somehow. Only one of these segments needs to be vulnerable for the traffickers to succeed, and they will assess essentially the whole length of the border. It's then clearly exponentially more likely for the traffickers to succeed as the border is longer, as the likelihood for at least one segment with acceptable probability increases exponentially with the number of segments.
If you assume that drug traffickers can't estimate the likelihood of success or that every part of the border is consistently just as secure at every point in time as any other then you'd be right, but those aren't reasonable assumptions in my opinion.
If you assume that drug traffickers can't estimate the likelihood of success or that every part of the border is consistently just as secure at every point in time as any other then you'd be right, but those aren't reasonable assumptions in my opinion.
You just commented a minor logically fallacy here.
People are unwilling to accept infinite risk and the question of if a segment of broader is secure depends on the risk of crossing that segment.
They might have better targets, but if a given segment isn’t secure that’s an inherent issue even if people happen to choose somewhere else.
In the other direction, if some segment is effectively impossible to cross that’s irrelevant. You don’t need other segments to reach an arbitrarily high standard just high enough to either get people to give up on the idea or fail often enough you’re dealing with the issue. IE one guy with a backpack per decade isn’t failure.
People are unwilling to accept infinite risk and the question of if a segment of broader is secure depends on the risk of crossing that segment.
They might have better targets, but if a given segment isn’t secure that’s an inherent issue even if people happen to choose somewhere else.
In the other direction, if some segment is effectively impossible to cross that’s irrelevant. You don’t need other segments to reach an arbitrarily high standard just high enough to either get people to give up on the idea or fail often enough you’re dealing with the issue. IE one guy with a backpack per decade isn’t failure.
> People are unwilling to accept infinite risk and the question of if a segment of broader is secure depends on the risk of crossing that segment.
People are, in practice, given a commensurate reward, willing to accept arbitrarily high risk, and market dynamics are willing to provide the rewards in this case.
People are, in practice, given a commensurate reward, willing to accept arbitrarily high risk, and market dynamics are willing to provide the rewards in this case.
Your comparison doesn't even make sense. SK and NK have no relation and no border crossings. It is the easiest border to patrol.
Border crossings are independent of length. But they actually do have trade, and even people crossing the border.
https://www.voanews.com/a/korean-industrial-zone-reopens-as-...
https://www.voanews.com/a/korean-industrial-zone-reopens-as-...
Did you even take 30 seconds to check, before posting this?
>I guarantee you don't know any big drug traffickers operating inside the US that were sent to jail.
Feel like putting forward a source for that claim, or did you simply decide it's true because you think it sounds true?
Just to name a few examples: The Flores brothers, Frank Lucas, the five families of NYC, George Jung. All of these were heavily prosecuted and if they weren't major drug traffickers in the U.S, then no one is.
Feel like putting forward a source for that claim, or did you simply decide it's true because you think it sounds true?
Just to name a few examples: The Flores brothers, Frank Lucas, the five families of NYC, George Jung. All of these were heavily prosecuted and if they weren't major drug traffickers in the U.S, then no one is.
Ending the war on drugs would be a wise choice.
Treat drug addicts as people with a health issue instead of making the entire society pay for it due to the fact that the druggies pay the cartels to smuggle drugs to them and all the consequences of the drug wars...
Tariffs are just taxes that will destroy the economy.
Tariffs are just taxes that will destroy the economy.
Portland tried that in 2020 by decriminalizing drug possession.
They reversed course and recently passed a law to recriminalize possession. I think its the right move. Downtown turned into a very unpleasant place.
They reversed course and recently passed a law to recriminalize possession. I think its the right move. Downtown turned into a very unpleasant place.
Seemingly, the major failure there was having the one part (decriminalization) without the other - crucial - part (treatment and support).
The support and treatment structures have remained essentially unchanged since Measure 110 passed, with holdups to funding and logistics at almost every level of the state's government. Oregon was already ranked almost dead last in addiction treatment, and that hasn't budged. I can't see how it would work without this other critical piece.
Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) has some good coverage about this failure from the first couple years (which was never really rectified): https://www.opb.org/article/2022/05/24/oregons-measure-110-i...
Also worth noting is that research has found no association with with Measure 110 and crime, and crime has been steadily falling since the measure was passed. (along with most other metro areas in the USA) https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/24/portland-crime-violen...
The support and treatment structures have remained essentially unchanged since Measure 110 passed, with holdups to funding and logistics at almost every level of the state's government. Oregon was already ranked almost dead last in addiction treatment, and that hasn't budged. I can't see how it would work without this other critical piece.
Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) has some good coverage about this failure from the first couple years (which was never really rectified): https://www.opb.org/article/2022/05/24/oregons-measure-110-i...
Also worth noting is that research has found no association with with Measure 110 and crime, and crime has been steadily falling since the measure was passed. (along with most other metro areas in the USA) https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/24/portland-crime-violen...
It wasn't Portland. Voters in Oregon as a whole passed Measure 110 in 2020 that replaced criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs with $100 fines.
Then in April of 2024 House Bill 4002 made possession once again a misdemeanor but kept most of the other provisions of Measure 110 and still focuses on "deflecting" people who possess out of the criminal justice system and into treatment programs.
So Measure 110 is still mostly in effect. They just made it so you do in fact have something on your record if you're caught with possession.
Then in April of 2024 House Bill 4002 made possession once again a misdemeanor but kept most of the other provisions of Measure 110 and still focuses on "deflecting" people who possess out of the criminal justice system and into treatment programs.
So Measure 110 is still mostly in effect. They just made it so you do in fact have something on your record if you're caught with possession.
> It wasn't Portland. Voters in Oregon as a whole passed Measure 110 in 2020 that replaced criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs with $100 fines.
Unless you're forced to do something to deal with the addiction then there's probably not much point for this kind of thing:
> Starting September 1, 2024, possession of hard drugs became classified as a criminal misdemeanor outside of the regular A-E categorization system, carrying a sentence of up to 6 months of jail, which may be waived if the convictee enters into mandatory drug treatment.[8][9]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_110
Of course one needs to keep at it, otherwise things fall apart:
> Funding ebbed still more recently due to new national budget pressures, which undercut efforts encouraging addicts into rehabilitation programs. The results of “disinvestment” and “a freezing in [their] response” led Goulão to state that “what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.”
> Speaking more quantitatively, drug users in treatment declined from 1,150 to 352 (from 2015 to 2021) as funding dropped in 2012 from $82.7 million to $17.4 million. Budget pressures and the apparent desire to cut immediate program costs of drug addiction (distinct from the total societal cost of drug addiction) led to program decentralization and the use of NGOs. Anecdotal evidence of a fragmenting, even breaking, system abounds: Demoralized police no longer cite addicts to get them into treatment and at least some NGOs view the effort as less about treatment and more about framing lifetime drug use as a right.
* https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-dru...
The other question is does the US have the resources (that people can afford) to have folks go to treatment.
Unless you're forced to do something to deal with the addiction then there's probably not much point for this kind of thing:
> Starting September 1, 2024, possession of hard drugs became classified as a criminal misdemeanor outside of the regular A-E categorization system, carrying a sentence of up to 6 months of jail, which may be waived if the convictee enters into mandatory drug treatment.[8][9]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_110
Of course one needs to keep at it, otherwise things fall apart:
> Funding ebbed still more recently due to new national budget pressures, which undercut efforts encouraging addicts into rehabilitation programs. The results of “disinvestment” and “a freezing in [their] response” led Goulão to state that “what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.”
> Speaking more quantitatively, drug users in treatment declined from 1,150 to 352 (from 2015 to 2021) as funding dropped in 2012 from $82.7 million to $17.4 million. Budget pressures and the apparent desire to cut immediate program costs of drug addiction (distinct from the total societal cost of drug addiction) led to program decentralization and the use of NGOs. Anecdotal evidence of a fragmenting, even breaking, system abounds: Demoralized police no longer cite addicts to get them into treatment and at least some NGOs view the effort as less about treatment and more about framing lifetime drug use as a right.
* https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-dru...
The other question is does the US have the resources (that people can afford) to have folks go to treatment.
> The other question is does the US have the resources (that people can afford) to have folks go to treatment.
In terms of GDP per capita, the USA is the 6th richest on the planet. So the question is not do we have the resources (we do!), but are we willing to make the political and social choices that would be required to deploy the resources to such ends.
In terms of GDP per capita, the USA is the 6th richest on the planet. So the question is not do we have the resources (we do!), but are we willing to make the political and social choices that would be required to deploy the resources to such ends.
Decriminalization is step the first step. The obvious result is going to be that a problem _sometimes_ hidden becomes more prevalent. What failed in the Portland experiment was a lack of stable housing coupled with a public space system that was never designed for use by those afflicted by addiction.
The deterioration of our public spaces is not caused by our drug epidemic, it's the logical outcome when the state fails to provide services to the most vulnerable. People literally have nowhere else to go.
The deterioration of our public spaces is not caused by our drug epidemic, it's the logical outcome when the state fails to provide services to the most vulnerable. People literally have nowhere else to go.
Decriminalizing possession is one thing, but if the selling market is still illegal you really haven't done much other than keeping the jails a bit less full
Imagine that you're a politician trying to keep your job ahead of an election, and your opponent points to your policy making the lives of your constituents miserable. You understand that the argument you're making here would be political suicide, you'd be replaced, and the policy would be reversed.
How would you sell this in a way that could get you re-elected?
How would you sell this in a way that could get you re-elected?
A good reason why every leadership position should have term limits. If you have no chance for re-election, might as well go ahead and put in policies which may hurt in the short term but are overall great in the long term.
Do you expect such development in the case of the current president?
Yeah I'm certainly in favor of term limits for almost every position, even if in some cases they'd be very generous limits. That sort of thing isn't a one-shot fix though, there's always the NEXT job to think about. "I'm a mayor for 4 years, limited by law, but I'll be governor next, and then a house member, then senator, etc." Or it might be about work in the private sector that comes after political life... incentives have a way of adapting themselves to this sort of remedy.
It's still a good idea, but term limits only really work as part of a much broader program of oversight and control over the incentives of politicians.
It's still a good idea, but term limits only really work as part of a much broader program of oversight and control over the incentives of politicians.
Imagine you're a politician trying to keep your job and during your term you magically solved a crisis (somehow, just pretend one of their 'plans' actually worked).
How would you persuade voters to NOT vote for that other guy, now that the problem is solved? How would you "secure more funding" for x,y, or z now that z doesn't exist? If you eradicate suffering, you can't blame the other side for it anymore. It's political suicide.
How would you persuade voters to NOT vote for that other guy, now that the problem is solved? How would you "secure more funding" for x,y, or z now that z doesn't exist? If you eradicate suffering, you can't blame the other side for it anymore. It's political suicide.
Maybe you could say: Look, I fixed X! Reelect me and give me money and I'll fix Y and Z, too!
Not likely you'll run out of problems to fix.
Not likely you'll run out of problems to fix.
I don't think that's really a factor, because realistically the world is FAR from having any form of suffering eradicated. At best, most of what we can do is a good faith attempt to minimize suffering, and even that's incredibly difficult to do at scale.
I haven't been to Portland since 2018, but I have been to and seen LA and San Francisco downtowns. They didn't decriminalize, but their downtowns are pretty unpleasant too.
I wonder to what degree Portland is a product of its local policy (like this decriminalization/recriminalization) vs the national trends that are seen across the USA.
I wonder to what degree Portland is a product of its local policy (like this decriminalization/recriminalization) vs the national trends that are seen across the USA.
One might argue they de facto decriminalized drug consumption and personal-usage-level possession in LA and SF.
Decriminalization seems to lead to negative outcomes in every respect, including prostitution. I expect legalization is what's required as that would allow for optimal regulation and tax.
You could go the way of East Asia. That would be very difficult, but easy access to narcotics could lead to disastrous results.
You could go the way of East Asia. That would be very difficult, but easy access to narcotics could lead to disastrous results.
I once saw a drug addict shoot up what looked like heroin in plain view of a police officer in Seattle. The officer did absolutely nothing. Needless to say downtown Seattle is also an extremely unpleasant place. In fact I'd say Seattle as a whole is gradually turning into a SF-like shithole. The only real solution to this is to make the decision makers experience the consequences of their luxury beliefs. How to do that in Seattle is not entirely clear, aside from that solitary case when a bunch of CHOP thugs marched to the mayor's home in 2020.
decriminalizing is a half assed way to try to help. The only issue with drug use isnt that you'll get arrested for possesion.
You need access to safe and clean drugs. Support systems need to be in place. The look of downtown isn't the only way to measure success. How many people aren't dying because there isn't a stigma around drug use, where clean and predictable drug doses (like alcohol) can be had, drug testing kits, safe pieces to use with, safe places to be etc
You need access to safe and clean drugs. Support systems need to be in place. The look of downtown isn't the only way to measure success. How many people aren't dying because there isn't a stigma around drug use, where clean and predictable drug doses (like alcohol) can be had, drug testing kits, safe pieces to use with, safe places to be etc
The "war on drugs" has been waged for more than 40+ years. It seems like it takes more than a few years, most of which was during the worst public health crisis in generations, to succeed.
Most incarceration is about helping those who aren't the ones suffering (evidenced by "... a very unpleasant place"). Not attacking you for your comment, just pointing out the paradigm we as a society have.
Most incarceration is about helping those who aren't the ones suffering (evidenced by "... a very unpleasant place"). Not attacking you for your comment, just pointing out the paradigm we as a society have.
This sentiment peaked in popularity in urban areas ~4 years ago. Since then I've noticed support for this position slowly eroding, and my hypothesis is that the general population has slowly had enough interactions with someone who is on fent.
it’s always a little weird to me how out of touch this comments section is, especially on the topic of certain social ills that people wish to normalize. I really think the constant pressure on these subjects has been counterproductive to that goal.
People making decisions around drugs have no experience with drugs and users.
They just get hysterical information about the extreme cases and extrapolate to everyone.
People just need to be supported through hard times and experimentation phases so they come out the other side.
So many people eventually get clean, stop using and get back to having productive lives.
I saw so many unnecessary deaths, friends with potential, die, because we don't want to help and support them. Overdoses are not needed.These aren't street people that make up so much of the hysteria, just middle class normal people that had their life go a certain way.
People don't want fentanyl or fake drugs in general. Access to drugs that can be measured are safe. Opiods are safe, doctors give fentanyl to patients constantly, and you don't come out of surgeries a opioid addict because you got a dose one times.
The hysterical people need to learn there place in the discussion on drugs and get to the side.
They just get hysterical information about the extreme cases and extrapolate to everyone.
People just need to be supported through hard times and experimentation phases so they come out the other side.
So many people eventually get clean, stop using and get back to having productive lives.
I saw so many unnecessary deaths, friends with potential, die, because we don't want to help and support them. Overdoses are not needed.These aren't street people that make up so much of the hysteria, just middle class normal people that had their life go a certain way.
People don't want fentanyl or fake drugs in general. Access to drugs that can be measured are safe. Opiods are safe, doctors give fentanyl to patients constantly, and you don't come out of surgeries a opioid addict because you got a dose one times.
The hysterical people need to learn there place in the discussion on drugs and get to the side.
The point of waging war on concepts or categories is so they never have an end.
> Tariffs are just taxes that will destroy the economy.
Tariffs are taxes and subsidies. See "Tariffs Give U.S. Steelmakers a Green Light to Lift Prices":
> Executives from U.S. steel companies were enthusiastic backers of the 2018 tariffs and have urged Trump to deploy them again in his second term. They have called for the elimination of tariff exemptions and duty-free import quotas, saying those carve-outs allow unfairly low-price steel to enter the U.S. and undermine the steel market.
[…]
> Higher prices for imported steel are often followed by domestic suppliers raising their own prices, which then get passed through supply chains, manufacturing executives said. For consumers already reeling from rising retail prices and inflation, pricier steel and aluminum could further lift costs for durable goods like appliances and automobiles, as well as consumer products with aluminum packaging, such as canned beverages.
> “The issue with tariffs is everybody raises their prices, even the domestics,” said Ralph Hardt, owner of Belleville International, a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer of valves and components used in the energy and defense industries. Steel and aluminum are Belleville’s largest expenses.
* https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trump-tariffs-mexico-canad...
So tariffs are taxes in the sense that consumers are paying higher prices. But they are subsidies in that domestic companies don't have as much pressure on prices and can get more money.
So if you want to help a particular industry might as well just go with subsidies directly instead of the taxation add-on as well.
Tariffs are taxes and subsidies. See "Tariffs Give U.S. Steelmakers a Green Light to Lift Prices":
> Executives from U.S. steel companies were enthusiastic backers of the 2018 tariffs and have urged Trump to deploy them again in his second term. They have called for the elimination of tariff exemptions and duty-free import quotas, saying those carve-outs allow unfairly low-price steel to enter the U.S. and undermine the steel market.
[…]
> Higher prices for imported steel are often followed by domestic suppliers raising their own prices, which then get passed through supply chains, manufacturing executives said. For consumers already reeling from rising retail prices and inflation, pricier steel and aluminum could further lift costs for durable goods like appliances and automobiles, as well as consumer products with aluminum packaging, such as canned beverages.
> “The issue with tariffs is everybody raises their prices, even the domestics,” said Ralph Hardt, owner of Belleville International, a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer of valves and components used in the energy and defense industries. Steel and aluminum are Belleville’s largest expenses.
* https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trump-tariffs-mexico-canad...
So tariffs are taxes in the sense that consumers are paying higher prices. But they are subsidies in that domestic companies don't have as much pressure on prices and can get more money.
So if you want to help a particular industry might as well just go with subsidies directly instead of the taxation add-on as well.
This is something that is ignored: the companies not affected by tariffs will raise their prices. Any intimation that they will keep prices the same is disingenuous. Leaving money on the table would be anti-capitalist.
By citing seizure numbers and mentioning nothing else about each respective border, this article and other news reports I am seeing seem to imply or suggest that that seizures are a direct representation of how much contraband is crossing a border. That's possible. It's also possible that seizures are a representation, at least in part, of something else. For example, the success of border authorities in detecting and confiscating contraband. Authorities on one border might be more more successful than authorities on another border. The frequency and amounts of seizures might not be indicative of the total amount of contraband that is crossing a particular border undetected. The seizure rate might be related to geographical or other characteristics of the border, for example.
It is possible the data is biased by enforcement ability. However, the difference is huge. Last year only 0.2% of fentanyl was seized at the northern border and 98% at the southern border.
I do find it interesting that the articles almost never mention the direction the drugs were moving in …
Since we don’t have outgoing searches, it’s safe to assume that 100% of the drugs reported in this way are incoming. You’d need to look at Mexico’s and Canada’s detail to see how much we’re sending that way. (Notably, it was a point of emphasis on the Trump-Sheinbaum call where she was asking for help since so many cartel firearms enter Mexico from the US)
I agree. I'd expand this by noting this doesn't only apply to borders, but the whole territory too. The article does note:
> [...] the trade in other chemicals involved in the manufacturing of fentanyl - some of which can have legitimate purposes - remain uncontrolled, as those involved in the trade find new ways to evade the law.
One has to imagine there's local manufacturing of fentanyl too, and one has to wonder the magnitude of it.
> [...] the trade in other chemicals involved in the manufacturing of fentanyl - some of which can have legitimate purposes - remain uncontrolled, as those involved in the trade find new ways to evade the law.
One has to imagine there's local manufacturing of fentanyl too, and one has to wonder the magnitude of it.
This is easily refuted by looking at flows in the opposite direction, which show large amounts of fentanyl going from the US to Canada.
Not sure why this is downvoted.
It’s the classic “put more armor on the areas with holes for planes that make it back from bombing raids”.
Inspections at the respective borders is absolutely not equal as anyone who has travelled by land through both borders. A lot more contraband comes through the South border and much more enforcement is there as well.
It’s the classic “put more armor on the areas with holes for planes that make it back from bombing raids”.
Inspections at the respective borders is absolutely not equal as anyone who has travelled by land through both borders. A lot more contraband comes through the South border and much more enforcement is there as well.
One thing this article doesn't cover is WHO is doing the trafficking, and in most cases, it's Americans.
https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/fentanyl-trafficki...
Most seizures happen at checkpoints or vehicle searches.
https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-c...
https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/fentanyl-trafficki...
Most seizures happen at checkpoints or vehicle searches.
https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-c...
Also who is coordinating this trafficking in the US? They make it believe that there is only the border smuggling and the retail sale problem. From the US point of view, NOBODY is handling and managing the drug business in US soil.
> Despite this, the trade in other chemicals involved in the manufacturing of fentanyl - some of which can have legitimate purposes - remain uncontrolled, as those involved in the trade find new ways to evade the law.
From a purely economic perspective, it just sounds like local production will replace foreign imports if the US does manage to stop fentanyl from entering from abroad.
From a purely economic perspective, it just sounds like local production will replace foreign imports if the US does manage to stop fentanyl from entering from abroad.
According to CBP, last year there were only 43 pounds of fentanyl seized on the northern border. The problem is almost entirely a Southern border problem. So it seems crazy to punish Canada. Also India is responsible for many precursors but are not named.
Now try adjusting for population. Here are the figures from the story:
> In the first 10 months of 2024, the Canadian border service reported seizing 10.8lb (4.9kg) of fentanyl entering from the US, while US Border Patrol intercepted 32.1lb (14.6kg) of fentanyl coming from Canada.
So the US is exporting 242 doses per 1000 Canadians to Canada. Canada is exporting 84 does per 1000 Americans to the US.
> In the first 10 months of 2024, the Canadian border service reported seizing 10.8lb (4.9kg) of fentanyl entering from the US, while US Border Patrol intercepted 32.1lb (14.6kg) of fentanyl coming from Canada.
So the US is exporting 242 doses per 1000 Canadians to Canada. Canada is exporting 84 does per 1000 Americans to the US.
The point is that it is almost entirely manufactured in Mexico using Chinese and Indian precursor chemicals. The amount crossing the US-Canada border is negligible by comparison.
There's nuance to these numbers since interception will be an artifact of where people are looking but 95% of intercepted fentanyl was from US citizens crossing the border.[0]
Funnily enough the Republicans seemed content to sit on their hands and play politics with this so called crisis until the media broke the story.[also 0]
[0]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/border-fe...
Funnily enough the Republicans seemed content to sit on their hands and play politics with this so called crisis until the media broke the story.[also 0]
[0]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/border-fe...
> Despite this, the trade in other chemicals involved in the manufacturing of fentanyl - some of which can have legitimate purposes - remain uncontrolled, as those involved in the trade find new ways to evade the law.
What are these chemicals, and what are their other uses? Which of them don't have any other uses?
What are these chemicals, and what are their other uses? Which of them don't have any other uses?
Phenethyl bromide5
Propionyl chloride4
4-Anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine (4-ANPP)2
N-phenethyl-4-piperidone (NPP)2
Propionic anhydride2
Sodium borohydride1
Why is the us the only place with huge demand ?
Imposing tariffs, further impoverishing the poor, in order to not show compassion for your own citizens? That doesn’t just sound backwards, it just is. The fentanyl crisis is just being used as an excuse to impose the tariffs. By now it’s well known that Trump desperately wants to proof his professor wrong and if the world has to burn, so be it.
> By now it’s well known that Trump desperately wants to proof his professor wrong
By now it it's well known that globalization is for a fantasy world that doesn't exist, and people should stop listening so much to economics professors. Trade barriers need to go up to re-orient things. Unfortunately, Trump is unlikely to do it competently.
By now it it's well known that globalization is for a fantasy world that doesn't exist, and people should stop listening so much to economics professors. Trade barriers need to go up to re-orient things. Unfortunately, Trump is unlikely to do it competently.
A 10% tariff on China won’t stop globalization. Even an 100% tariff wouldn’t. American goods aren’t 10% more expensive, a lot of them are 10x more expensive.
Look for American made kitchen knives. You will be lucky to spend less than $2k on a block of Made in USA knives. Meanwhile you can get a pretty good set made in China for under $200.
If you wanted American companies to compete, you would need a 10x tariff to make that $200 knife set cost $2000.
Look for American made kitchen knives. You will be lucky to spend less than $2k on a block of Made in USA knives. Meanwhile you can get a pretty good set made in China for under $200.
If you wanted American companies to compete, you would need a 10x tariff to make that $200 knife set cost $2000.
it’s almost as though the cost-of-living and cost-of-making differential is something that’s bad for Americans.
Well, at least we got some cheap knives or whatever.
Well, at least we got some cheap knives or whatever.
Tariffs will only increase the cost of living, with loads of unforeseen consequences.
The US has spent the last 35 structuring its economy under neoliberalism. Some people (rust belt) are worse off. Some are much better off, especially since they didn’t have to compensate the people who whose jobs were sold overseas for pennies on the dollar.
You guys tried everything but the things other countries that do well are doing. But hey, let’s try to stop globalization as a single country.
blastonico(7)
I've been saying this since 2011. China is waging a chemical war against the United States.
It's amazing the US started a trade war over 74,000 deaths from Fentanyl when heart disease causes 10x more deaths.
Last I looked at this (in a different context, a few years ago,) I read that most heart disease deaths are essentially natural deaths. Someone has to die from something and heart disease is one of those things. (Eating worse could perhaps be making people die earlier by one or two years on average.)
Some data (not exactly the same I found last time, but seems to still be accurate as I recalled it):
>About 82% of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 or older[0]
See also the CDC's list of deaths by cause by age group:
For 65 years and over, Diseases of heart is ranked 1st (531,583 deaths in 2019). For 45–64 years, it is 1st in 1980 and second in 2019 (111,975). For 25–44 years it is 4th (13,994) and 15–24 years it is 5th (1,223 and 872 total deaths for 1980 and 2019 respectively).[1]
I'm also pretty sure many (most?) drug overdoses manifest as cardiac arrest and are probably included in "Diseases of the heart:"
>Drug overdose is a leading cause of cardiac arrest and is currently the second leading cause of overall injury-related fatality in the United States.[2]
[0] https://memorialhermann.org/services/specialties/heart-and-v...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2020-2021/LCODAge.pdf
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3399948/
Some data (not exactly the same I found last time, but seems to still be accurate as I recalled it):
>About 82% of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 or older[0]
See also the CDC's list of deaths by cause by age group:
For 65 years and over, Diseases of heart is ranked 1st (531,583 deaths in 2019). For 45–64 years, it is 1st in 1980 and second in 2019 (111,975). For 25–44 years it is 4th (13,994) and 15–24 years it is 5th (1,223 and 872 total deaths for 1980 and 2019 respectively).[1]
I'm also pretty sure many (most?) drug overdoses manifest as cardiac arrest and are probably included in "Diseases of the heart:"
>Drug overdose is a leading cause of cardiac arrest and is currently the second leading cause of overall injury-related fatality in the United States.[2]
[0] https://memorialhermann.org/services/specialties/heart-and-v...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2020-2021/LCODAge.pdf
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3399948/
74,000 is the approximate number for just 2023. The number was even higher in 2022. It's not "just" 74,000 deaths.
~180k from 2015-2022 [1]. If the fraction of fentanyl is similar for 2023 and 2024 [2], then the number would be over 300k (I don't see direct numbers for 2023 or 2024).
[1] https://usafacts.org/articles/are-fentanyl-overdose-deaths-r...
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/overdose-deaths-a...
[1] https://usafacts.org/articles/are-fentanyl-overdose-deaths-r...
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/overdose-deaths-a...
One usually measures years of life-expectancy lost. Your heart attacks victims may well be 80 year old with 5 average years left, you need more than ten of those to account from one 20 year old incautious party girl...
A bad comparison. Fentanyl deaths are fully avoidable, heart diseases have existed forever.
There are things we can do that people are not doing. However plenty of people who do eat well and exercise die of heart diseases and we don't know how to stop that.
Point taken, but archeologists and anthropologists have known for a while now that cardiovascular disease is virtually absent in non-industrial societies.
And we also know there's a ton more that could be done to lessen how common heart disease is
And we also know there's a ton more that could be done to lessen how common heart disease is
What's the life expectancy again in non-industrial societies?
I don't know why that's relevant but I'm willing to bet you're referring to a popular science myth about short lifespans
Yes lifespans were extremely short on average in Medieval Europe which faced constant famine and disease from peasants living in such close conditions with animals.
But medieval europe isn't the whole world. Hunter-gather lifespans varied greatly depending on environment but the modal lifespan is usually around 70 years old. Modern archeological evidence shows us that people living past 100 was far from uncommon even 1,000 years ago:
https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22329
Yes lifespans were extremely short on average in Medieval Europe which faced constant famine and disease from peasants living in such close conditions with animals.
But medieval europe isn't the whole world. Hunter-gather lifespans varied greatly depending on environment but the modal lifespan is usually around 70 years old. Modern archeological evidence shows us that people living past 100 was far from uncommon even 1,000 years ago:
https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22329
> I don't know why that's relevant
We care about CVD because of mortality, and if mortality rate is terrible then it's a moot point.
> people living past 100 was far from uncommon
"uncommon" is not a number. The most we can infer from the data is that life was exceedingly harsh and short on average. Even if we believe it was 70 years old, that's still worse.
We care about CVD because of mortality, and if mortality rate is terrible then it's a moot point.
> people living past 100 was far from uncommon
"uncommon" is not a number. The most we can infer from the data is that life was exceedingly harsh and short on average. Even if we believe it was 70 years old, that's still worse.
We absolutely do not have data that confirms life was exceedingly harsh or shorter.
In fact, this is an age old debate in anthropology. A major discussion was sparked by a talk called "The Original Affluent Society" during a now-famous symposium which highlighted then-recent evidence that non-industrial societies generally had much more leisure time and less stress. We also know that they had much more stable food sources than agricultural counterparts and much less diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_the_Hunter
The debate has of course evolved since then and I won't recount the 50 years of research and debate that's happened but modern anthropologists are pretty much in agreement that the "nasty, brutish, and short" narrative is completely baseless.
In fact, this is an age old debate in anthropology. A major discussion was sparked by a talk called "The Original Affluent Society" during a now-famous symposium which highlighted then-recent evidence that non-industrial societies generally had much more leisure time and less stress. We also know that they had much more stable food sources than agricultural counterparts and much less diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_the_Hunter
The debate has of course evolved since then and I won't recount the 50 years of research and debate that's happened but modern anthropologists are pretty much in agreement that the "nasty, brutish, and short" narrative is completely baseless.
They are also for the most part avoidable
Heart disease is more preventable than given credence. Prevention is the best medicine.
Vehicle deaths are also avoidable.
Vehicle deaths are also avoidable.
If you start to ban cigarettes, mcdonalds and similar, also many heart diseases can be avoided
Tobacco consumption has plummeted in the West and continues to. If anything it shows that sin taxes and messaging work. A ban leads to a black market and would be a gross overstep. Alcohol consumption has also fallen.
For one we could stop subsidizing suspect products (e.g. HFCS) and create other incentives.
For one we could stop subsidizing suspect products (e.g. HFCS) and create other incentives.
[flagged]
Working on US healthcare affordability would avoid plenty of these (and many other) deaths.
get rid of fentanyl and how many go back to overdosing on heroine and oxycodone etc...
it's just political theater mostly to provide the appearance of "doing something" while also providing a new excuse for why high prices are still high and continue to rise
certain political figures and their supporters just need a story to tell, it doesn't have to be particularly accurate or even coherent for their purposes
certain political figures and their supporters just need a story to tell, it doesn't have to be particularly accurate or even coherent for their purposes
But that war (against metabolic syndrome) is already won because of Ozempic/Wegovy/Zepbound. Give it 20 years.
It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control. It's like making a bulky un-aerodynamic car go farther by adding a bigger engine/more fuel. But I understand too when you're 100s of lbs overweight it can seem impossible to change. I work out myself but my motivation is to get laid vs. actually embracing health I still binge eat for fun.
I think Ozempic doesn't have crazy side effects other than the face? Could be wrong
Edit: Regarding the topic at hand, I either don't drink or binge drink so I'm no saint same with driving fast.
I think Ozempic doesn't have crazy side effects other than the face? Could be wrong
Edit: Regarding the topic at hand, I either don't drink or binge drink so I'm no saint same with driving fast.
Obesity rates have been increasing globally for decades.
There is no example of a country that has reduced obesity through public policy, food policy (even in the EU with strong GMO regulations), or messaging.
From a government level a different approach is necessary. So far GLP-1 inhibitors are the only things that have worked at scale. Let's see if that holds up.
https://data.worldobesity.org/region/european-union-uk-1/#da...
There is no example of a country that has reduced obesity through public policy, food policy (even in the EU with strong GMO regulations), or messaging.
From a government level a different approach is necessary. So far GLP-1 inhibitors are the only things that have worked at scale. Let's see if that holds up.
https://data.worldobesity.org/region/european-union-uk-1/#da...
That' doesn't address the main point of the ge96's comment though, which is that we seem to be replacing a problem with a dependence in medication, which could cause further problems. It seems akin to solving the loneliness epidemic [1] or the prevalence of depression, which some call an "epidemic" [2], with anti-depressants.
[1] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-soci...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221265701...
[1] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-soci...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221265701...
It’s bad to fix a problem if the solution has side effects. I mean that’s the pragmatic, health-based answer to whether it is good or bad.
If these don’t have adverse effects then it is not bad. What “bad” we are left with is character-moralizing.
We could go further. “It is bad to fix your obesity by removing yourself from bad food.” Because this does not involve self-control either. If you isolate yourself from grocery stores and only have access to certain foods you can lose weight without self-control.
If these don’t have adverse effects then it is not bad. What “bad” we are left with is character-moralizing.
We could go further. “It is bad to fix your obesity by removing yourself from bad food.” Because this does not involve self-control either. If you isolate yourself from grocery stores and only have access to certain foods you can lose weight without self-control.
"isolate yourself from grocery stores" that sounds like self control. Anyway not trying to argue this.
if it's working for people great, I'm on the boat that does not like it when obesity is supported eg. in victoria secret but I'll just sound like an ahole to say that
edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.
I'm not religious so it's not from that perspective I'm also not white
Last thing I'll add, why not too, I mean humans don't have wings yet we engineered airplanes to surpass birds, is that wrong?
I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
if it's working for people great, I'm on the boat that does not like it when obesity is supported eg. in victoria secret but I'll just sound like an ahole to say that
edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.
I'm not religious so it's not from that perspective I'm also not white
Last thing I'll add, why not too, I mean humans don't have wings yet we engineered airplanes to surpass birds, is that wrong?
I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
> edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.
Being predisposed to obesity and yet overcoming it by working 300% harder than average (compared to someone who exercises at all) on your diet and fitness is another way to lie.
But this is self-control so then it is irrationally different I guess.
> I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
Random existential observations but okay.
Being predisposed to obesity and yet overcoming it by working 300% harder than average (compared to someone who exercises at all) on your diet and fitness is another way to lie.
But this is self-control so then it is irrationally different I guess.
> I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
Random existential observations but okay.
> It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control.
This argument applies similarly to the fentanyl crisis, since people could simply have the self control to not take fentanyl recreationally. Do you have a similar belief that the government shouldn't be trying to stop the mass import of fentanyl and other harmful drugs?
This argument applies similarly to the fentanyl crisis, since people could simply have the self control to not take fentanyl recreationally. Do you have a similar belief that the government shouldn't be trying to stop the mass import of fentanyl and other harmful drugs?
Actually, yes. I think the government should be addressing the cost-of-living crisis, loneliness crisis, the high cost of health, the overprescription of opioids, and the cultural issues that all contribute to people opting for fentanyl in the first place.
If the government manages to stop fentanyl imports, people will simply either manufacture fentanyl locally or opt for other drugs. I agree that it's not a matter of self-control— a fentanyl addict can't simply will its way out of it— but there is a reason they chose to consume fentanyl in the first place, and despite knowing its effects, willingly chose to "escape reality".
If the government manages to stop fentanyl imports, people will simply either manufacture fentanyl locally or opt for other drugs. I agree that it's not a matter of self-control— a fentanyl addict can't simply will its way out of it— but there is a reason they chose to consume fentanyl in the first place, and despite knowing its effects, willingly chose to "escape reality".
Sure if the drugs aren't there to begin with can't take em. But also depends where you are/who you associate with which again if you're in the bad areas probably exposed more to drugs/less hope of getting out having a better life. I guess I'm fortunate I've only ever been exposed to/try the weaker stuff.
I really think people don’t understand where fent zombies come from. They don’t emerge spontaneously from cracks in the sidewalk. The streets are just the last stop on a long road. Network effect among the unseen webs of addiction is a vastly bigger issue — if there were 74k overdose fatalities in a year, imagine how many people didn’t OD, or OD’d but didn’t die. And out of that, imagine how many people are more casual users who aren’t that heavy into it just yet. These are big numbers and big chunks of our social networks. They just haven’t gotten to the last stop yet.
> It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control.
I don't think it's only about self control. but it would probably be easier if the industry wasn't pushing junk food and sugary food on Americans. Look, other countries don't have this problem. Does it mean that self control vanishes within US borders?
I don't think it's only about self control. but it would probably be easier if the industry wasn't pushing junk food and sugary food on Americans. Look, other countries don't have this problem. Does it mean that self control vanishes within US borders?
someone else in this comment chain linked to stats how obesity is going up everywhere (other countries) but anyway, another thing to consider how cigarette packs nowadays have disgusting images of cancer-ridden organs or whatever on them and people still buy them
I also think regarding fentanyl it's a legit drug in hospitals so there will be a source
I also think regarding fentanyl it's a legit drug in hospitals so there will be a source
>nowadays have disgusting images of cancer-ridden organs or whatever on them and people still buy them
I think smoking cigarettes went way down in the US and other parts of the world. Sure, people still use them but the overall downward trend is good and that is because something was done about it.
I think smoking cigarettes went way down in the US and other parts of the world. Sure, people still use them but the overall downward trend is good and that is because something was done about it.
Why are you assuming it can always be fixed by self control? Some people have complete bad standards for eating compared to a regular person, both in quantity and quality. The drugs help deal only with the quantity.
Yeah different approaches to a problem, drugs, physical changes (surgery to stomach size), maybe something like CBT. When I get bored I binge eat so I get it.
Generally we are more concerned when people die at 40 than at 80. The latter is considered "normal". There are a few ways that the epidemiologists try to quantify this notion — DALYs or QALYs.
Fentanyl takes people young. And it's new. Those characteristics make it a serious concern.
Fentanyl takes people young. And it's new. Those characteristics make it a serious concern.
If victims of Fentanyl die much younger than victims of heart disease, the total # of lost years of life can be of the same order.
I remember reading that elimination of heart disease would increase life expectancy by some 5,5 years. Not nothing, but it indicates that most people die of heart disease at a relatively old age, when something else would kill them quite soon.
OTOH if a Fentanyl victim loses 40 or 50 years of potential life, that is a major loss for society as a whole. Kids may not be born etc.
I remember reading that elimination of heart disease would increase life expectancy by some 5,5 years. Not nothing, but it indicates that most people die of heart disease at a relatively old age, when something else would kill them quite soon.
OTOH if a Fentanyl victim loses 40 or 50 years of potential life, that is a major loss for society as a whole. Kids may not be born etc.
> If victims of Fentanyl die much younger than victims of heart disease, the total # of lost years of life can be of the same order.
It can be even without that if you are looking at quality-adjusted life years and not just raw life years.
It can be even without that if you are looking at quality-adjusted life years and not just raw life years.
Have you seen the RFK confirmation hearing?
It was never about a perceived moral crusade against fentanyl and addiction at large. It's only ever been about throwing our weight around to disrupt alliances and institutions with the goal of destroying American soft power.
If killdrones were murdering 74,000 random Americans a year during their morning commute, you’d better believe people would be prioritizing it over heart failure.
Ahh yes, that was definitely the core reason and not just something sensational to put out as the cause. We definitely care about drug deaths in this country wink.
Feels like the main reasons you institute tariffs, historically, is to 1- control the production/flow of goods and 2- to raise money for other endeavors. As tariffs are a much more difficult form of taxation for a payer to track (they're not getting a bill the way they do on income/real estate taxes, it's being hidden in the cost of the good) they're also a great way to obfuscate "raising taxes" if you're running on a platform of, say "I'm going to institute the largest tax break in American history".
Feels like the main reasons you institute tariffs, historically, is to 1- control the production/flow of goods and 2- to raise money for other endeavors. As tariffs are a much more difficult form of taxation for a payer to track (they're not getting a bill the way they do on income/real estate taxes, it's being hidden in the cost of the good) they're also a great way to obfuscate "raising taxes" if you're running on a platform of, say "I'm going to institute the largest tax break in American history".
> As tariffs are a much more difficult form of taxation for a payer to track (they're not getting a bill the way they do on income/real estate taxes, it's being hidden in the cost of the good)
Oh no, it's very easy. When I sell my product, I will be including the exact amount the buyer is paying above what is normal due to tariffs. The tariffs are very well expressed on the purchase price of the parts that go into the product, so it's very easy for me to add up the tariffs and tell the buyer how much more trump is demanding they pay for the product.
Oh no, it's very easy. When I sell my product, I will be including the exact amount the buyer is paying above what is normal due to tariffs. The tariffs are very well expressed on the purchase price of the parts that go into the product, so it's very easy for me to add up the tariffs and tell the buyer how much more trump is demanding they pay for the product.
People voted for fewer drug deaths, and it looks as though the looming tariffs have stirred a drug-death-preventing response, which has paused the tariffs[0]. It seems as though people are getting what they voted for so far?
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-discuss-tariffs-canadi...
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-discuss-tariffs-canadi...
We don't profit from fentanyl deaths.
[deleted]
What's the YLL stats on fent vs heart disease?
Why don't we ban automobiles since they cause 41,000 deaths per year?
A lot more people use automobiles. Hard drugs are used, but very few people use them, many have never tried them.
If you think that's a surprise, consider the fact the US responded to 3000 deaths on September 11th with a 20 year, multi-trillion-dollar pair of wars that killed far more than 3000 people.
It turns out there are a lot of concerns beyond than the number of bodies.
It turns out there are a lot of concerns beyond than the number of bodies.
wait til you hear what they did in 2001!
133 comments and the Sackler family has yet to be mentioned. I don't think the comments here are well informed.
145 comments and still no mention of the Sackler family, except in my own comment. 2 down votes also, LOL! What are you afraid of people! Look into the history of fentanyl.
Huge hint for all you search challenged: Sackler family on wikipedia.
I've got a bit of karma to spend, and I think I'll double down and spend it to zero for the next year, dribbling a bit of facts out, to the consternation of the conspiracy bots now obvs infesting this now hell-site by a large majority.
Paul Graham, is this what you meant to create, 25 years ago?
(PG counts money.... YES!)
(Main takeaway: big money protects big money first)
Edit: fuck no, I'm not going to provide a courtesy link to Wikipedia. If you can't be bothered to use the ah user interface, you're too lazy to respond to.
Huge hint for all you search challenged: Sackler family on wikipedia.
I've got a bit of karma to spend, and I think I'll double down and spend it to zero for the next year, dribbling a bit of facts out, to the consternation of the conspiracy bots now obvs infesting this now hell-site by a large majority.
Paul Graham, is this what you meant to create, 25 years ago?
(PG counts money.... YES!)
(Main takeaway: big money protects big money first)
Edit: fuck no, I'm not going to provide a courtesy link to Wikipedia. If you can't be bothered to use the ah user interface, you're too lazy to respond to.
You just walked in to a room, called everyone stupid, and then surprised Pikachu faced about the fact that everyone is looking at you funny now.
Maybeee reconsider your motivations and/or your social tact my dude. Cause right now you just look like someone trying to feel smarter than others.
Maybeee reconsider your motivations and/or your social tact my dude. Cause right now you just look like someone trying to feel smarter than others.
it makes more sense when you look at the LD-50 of fentanyl vs. any other synthetic substance, and it's hard to see it as anything other than a WMD.
it's a security issue and municipalities and public health exploit it to "manage" for increased bureaucracy and funding. whenever they want more federal or state money, they turn the crisis tap on or off. public agencies all benefit from rising poverty, and where they can't create it with lax enforcement, they import it.
stopping the flow of drugs cuts off a huge source of bureaucratic crisis leverage, and local political corruption funding, that both poison the entire system of institutions. it's difficult to find a coherent moral case against a radical crackdown on fentanyl for those reasons.
it's a security issue and municipalities and public health exploit it to "manage" for increased bureaucracy and funding. whenever they want more federal or state money, they turn the crisis tap on or off. public agencies all benefit from rising poverty, and where they can't create it with lax enforcement, they import it.
stopping the flow of drugs cuts off a huge source of bureaucratic crisis leverage, and local political corruption funding, that both poison the entire system of institutions. it's difficult to find a coherent moral case against a radical crackdown on fentanyl for those reasons.
“They downvoted him because he told them the truth.”
This is a completely artificial problem, created by the war on drugs. Just like the waves of PMMA deaths in europe caused by safrole seizures. Western nations have no one to blame for this but themselves.