4 ms·

It seems like the real problem causing the overdoses is that fentanyl and carfentinal are getting mixed into the heroin. At the minimum, the US should provide a

It seems like the real problem causing the overdoses is that fentanyl and carfentinal are getting mixed into the heroin. At the minimum, the US should provide a program where heroin addicts can get heroin from government clinics, which is what they offer in the Netherlands[1] where addicts can get heroin three times a day and apparently rarely overdose presumably because the heroin is pure. But at this point, I'd rather see most drugs legalized and the tax money poured into addiction recovery programs, government clinics for supervised drug use, and drug use prevention. [1] https://news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-netherlands-do-addicts-complain-about-free-government-heroin https://news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-netherlands-do-add...

mirimir 10y ago
If morphine was legal, probably about ~10-20% of the population would be addicts. In 1900, 2-5% were morphine addicts.[0] And advertising was pretty lame back then. 0) http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dpf/whitebread02.html http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dpf/whitebread02.html
- elchief 10y ago
  90% of (US) men used to smoke, now 15% do...
- culot 10y ago
  Upside: the laxative industry would boom.
  - arthur_pryor 10y ago
    actually, they are selling something for that... https://www.drugs.com/movantik.html https://www.drugs.com/movantik.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxegol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxegol
- touchofevil 10y ago
  I'm not sure where you are getting your estimate that 10-20% of the population would be addicted to morphine if most drugs were legalized in the USA today. If you look at the stats on Portugal, you'll see that drug use and drug related deaths have declined since the country legalized all drugs[1]. Also, morphine was only invented around 1818 and its addictive properties were not understood until much later[2]. For example, "...initially morphine was also marketed as a non-addictive cure for addiction to both alcohol and opium..." That was happening in 1853, nearly 40 years after the invention of morphine. In the article you linked to, the author states that many of the morphine addicts of the 1900s were people in rural communities who were sold "elixirs" by traveling "doctors" and these potions were often 50% morphine. Which causes the author to state: "...if you look at drug addiction in 1900, what's the number one way in which it is different than drug addiction today? Answer: Almost all addiction at the turn of the century was accidental." If drugs were legalized, consumers would not be getting accidentally addicted to morphine as they were in the 1900s, because they would be able to know for certain what drugs they were buying and ingesting. [1] https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.ldEGEaPU2 https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decr... [2] http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/09/invented-morphine/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/09/invented-mor...
  - mirimir 10y ago
    10-20% is my estimate. 50% morphine is only about three times opium potency. I'm talking legalized, not just decriminalized. I doubt that there are any morphine sodas for sale in Portugal. With viral Facebook promotion featuring tunes from Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins.
    - touchofevil 10y ago
      I assume that the same rules that prevent cigarettes from being advertised would also apply to legalized drugs.
      - mirimir 10y ago
- sampullman 10y ago
  The linked page doesn't list any sources for that claim. It seems believable, but I couldn't find any evidence from a quick google search and the article itself isn't very persuasive. From the article: "You know as late as 1900, ... let's say you would have appendicitis, you would go into the hospital, and you would get morphine as a pain killer during the operation, you would be given morphine further after the operation, and you would come out of the hospital with no appendix but addicted to morphine." I find that interesting, because as late as 2010 I went to the hospital with severe abdominal pain and received morphine while the cause was being determined. Before I was diagnosed with appendicitis the efficacy of the morphine decreased to the point that I was switched to dilaudid. I was educated briefly on the risk of addiction, had the surgery, left the hospital two days layer, and haven't sought either since. I don't know if full legalization is the best option, but dismissing it with shaky historical claims is not a great argument.
- fragmede 10y ago
  That's probably roughly right, given that the WHO says alcoholism ranges from 0% to 16%. http://www.who.int/gho/substance_abuse/burden/alcohol_prevalence/en/ http://www.who.int/gho/substance_abuse/burden/alcohol_preval... But there's an additional question for context; would you rather that 10-20% of opiate addicts be contributing members of society, with jobs, and homes, and who simply enjoy some opiates after work, as some enjoy a beer or wine with dinner? Or is it better to force them into the margins of society so they end up robbing convenience stores for drastically marked up and adulterated drugs with an inconsistent supply, so addicts end up alone, jobless, and homeless with little chance of ever recovering? Because we've been trying the second option for decades, and it hasn't made the problem go away. In fact, articles like this say it's worse than it's ever been. Fun fact; alcohol, being illegal in several Middle Eastern countries, has a similar problem with black market sales leading to death there, as we have with fentanyl mixed with heroin. Bleach gets sold as liquor, victim tries to drink it to get drunk, and they die. Not because alcohol is bad for you, but because they drank fucking bleach, because the black market in the Middle East isn't regulated, just like black market heroin in the US doesn't give a shit about the FDA's regulations. Sell heroin at Walmart, regulated by the FDA, and at a tenth of the cost, and the problem of accidentally doing life-ending amounts of fentanyl because someone said it was heroin; that problem goes away.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. The major problem with black market alcohol is the methanol.

mirimir 10y ago

If morphine was legal, probably about ~10-20% of the population would be addicts. In 1900, 2-5% were morphine addicts.[0] And advertising was pretty lame back then. 0) http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dpf/whitebread02.html http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dpf/whitebread02.html

elchief 10y ago
90% of (US) men used to smoke, now 15% do...
culot 10y ago
Upside: the laxative industry would boom.
- arthur_pryor 10y ago
  actually, they are selling something for that... https://www.drugs.com/movantik.html https://www.drugs.com/movantik.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxegol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxegol
touchofevil 10y ago
I'm not sure where you are getting your estimate that 10-20% of the population would be addicted to morphine if most drugs were legalized in the USA today. If you look at the stats on Portugal, you'll see that drug use and drug related deaths have declined since the country legalized all drugs[1]. Also, morphine was only invented around 1818 and its addictive properties were not understood until much later[2]. For example, "...initially morphine was also marketed as a non-addictive cure for addiction to both alcohol and opium..." That was happening in 1853, nearly 40 years after the invention of morphine. In the article you linked to, the author states that many of the morphine addicts of the 1900s were people in rural communities who were sold "elixirs" by traveling "doctors" and these potions were often 50% morphine. Which causes the author to state: "...if you look at drug addiction in 1900, what's the number one way in which it is different than drug addiction today? Answer: Almost all addiction at the turn of the century was accidental." If drugs were legalized, consumers would not be getting accidentally addicted to morphine as they were in the 1900s, because they would be able to know for certain what drugs they were buying and ingesting. [1] https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.ldEGEaPU2 https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decr... [2] http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/09/invented-morphine/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/09/invented-mor...
- mirimir 10y ago
  10-20% is my estimate. 50% morphine is only about three times opium potency. I'm talking legalized, not just decriminalized. I doubt that there are any morphine sodas for sale in Portugal. With viral Facebook promotion featuring tunes from Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins.
  - touchofevil 10y ago
    I assume that the same rules that prevent cigarettes from being advertised would also apply to legalized drugs.
    - mirimir 10y ago
sampullman 10y ago
The linked page doesn't list any sources for that claim. It seems believable, but I couldn't find any evidence from a quick google search and the article itself isn't very persuasive. From the article: "You know as late as 1900, ... let's say you would have appendicitis, you would go into the hospital, and you would get morphine as a pain killer during the operation, you would be given morphine further after the operation, and you would come out of the hospital with no appendix but addicted to morphine." I find that interesting, because as late as 2010 I went to the hospital with severe abdominal pain and received morphine while the cause was being determined. Before I was diagnosed with appendicitis the efficacy of the morphine decreased to the point that I was switched to dilaudid. I was educated briefly on the risk of addiction, had the surgery, left the hospital two days layer, and haven't sought either since. I don't know if full legalization is the best option, but dismissing it with shaky historical claims is not a great argument.
fragmede 10y ago
That's probably roughly right, given that the WHO says alcoholism ranges from 0% to 16%. http://www.who.int/gho/substance_abuse/burden/alcohol_prevalence/en/ http://www.who.int/gho/substance_abuse/burden/alcohol_preval... But there's an additional question for context; would you rather that 10-20% of opiate addicts be contributing members of society, with jobs, and homes, and who simply enjoy some opiates after work, as some enjoy a beer or wine with dinner? Or is it better to force them into the margins of society so they end up robbing convenience stores for drastically marked up and adulterated drugs with an inconsistent supply, so addicts end up alone, jobless, and homeless with little chance of ever recovering? Because we've been trying the second option for decades, and it hasn't made the problem go away. In fact, articles like this say it's worse than it's ever been. Fun fact; alcohol, being illegal in several Middle Eastern countries, has a similar problem with black market sales leading to death there, as we have with fentanyl mixed with heroin. Bleach gets sold as liquor, victim tries to drink it to get drunk, and they die. Not because alcohol is bad for you, but because they drank fucking bleach, because the black market in the Middle East isn't regulated, just like black market heroin in the US doesn't give a shit about the FDA's regulations. Sell heroin at Walmart, regulated by the FDA, and at a tenth of the cost, and the problem of accidentally doing life-ending amounts of fentanyl because someone said it was heroin; that problem goes away.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. The major problem with black market alcohol is the methanol.