3 ms·

It's interesting to note that sharp increases in overdose deaths coincide with increasing restrictions on opioid prescriptions and decreased legal supply.

dcolkitt 5y ago
Exactly. It all comes down to fentanyl and fentanyl derivatives. Moving opiates to the black market heavily incentivizes suppliers to substitute relatively safe traditional opiates for highly dangerous fentanyl concentrates. Because fentanyl can deliver so many more effective doses per unit of mass than traditional opiates, it's far cheaper on the supply side. Think of it this way. Would you rather smuggle a shipping container filled with heroin or a briefcase filled with carfentanil? You keep wholesale supply as potent and concentrated as possible. Don't dilute until the very last point in the supply chain, at which point you try to pass it off as heroin. The problem is a trap house is not a pharmaceutical grade lab, and unless the product is homogenized perfectly some poor bastard gets an unbroken clump of carfentanil in his hotshot and dies. The simple solution is to legalize heroin, and make sure the supply is regulated for purity and consistency.
- helge9210 5y ago
  > some poor bastard gets an unbroken clump of carfentanil in his hotshot and dies. The simple solution is Every problem has simple and easy to understand incorrect solution. I don't understand why society has to carry a burden of preventing an individual from harming oneself.
  - dcolkitt 5y ago
    Imagine if we were making chocolate chip cookies and rat poison in the same factory. Periodically a family would drop dead after buying a bad batch at the grocery store. Reformers loudly cry out "Can we please stop making chocolate chip cookies next to rat poison!" Skeptics chime in "Well... It's really not that simple. Even without rat poison, chocolate chip cookies are pretty unhealthy. Do we really want to be sending a message that it's okay to eat cookies by not poisoning them. Wouldn't that just encourage more people to try them. These people knew the risk of rat poison when they choose to eat the cookies, why is it our job to protect them?"
    - helge9210 5y ago
      > "These people knew the risk of rat poison when they choose to eat the cookies, why is it our job to protect them?" That is my question. What is the answer?
      - version_five 5y ago
        Compassion for other people? We've evolved to have a society for a reason, stepping over dead or desperate people on our way to work isn't good for us either, even if you don't care about them. There are solutions, specifically access to treatment and "clean" drugs that have a much lower chance of killing, that can actually help people.
        helge9210 5y ago
        Inpatient detox will take up to two weeks. After that there is nothing that will make a person to continue except deliberate choice to do so. So access to treatment is OK. "Clean drugs" and "substitute therapy" is already beyond compassion.

dcolkitt 5y ago

Exactly. It all comes down to fentanyl and fentanyl derivatives. Moving opiates to the black market heavily incentivizes suppliers to substitute relatively safe traditional opiates for highly dangerous fentanyl concentrates. Because fentanyl can deliver so many more effective doses per unit of mass than traditional opiates, it's far cheaper on the supply side. Think of it this way. Would you rather smuggle a shipping container filled with heroin or a briefcase filled with carfentanil? You keep wholesale supply as potent and concentrated as possible. Don't dilute until the very last point in the supply chain, at which point you try to pass it off as heroin. The problem is a trap house is not a pharmaceutical grade lab, and unless the product is homogenized perfectly some poor bastard gets an unbroken clump of carfentanil in his hotshot and dies. The simple solution is to legalize heroin, and make sure the supply is regulated for purity and consistency.

helge9210 5y ago
> some poor bastard gets an unbroken clump of carfentanil in his hotshot and dies. The simple solution is Every problem has simple and easy to understand incorrect solution. I don't understand why society has to carry a burden of preventing an individual from harming oneself.
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  Imagine if we were making chocolate chip cookies and rat poison in the same factory. Periodically a family would drop dead after buying a bad batch at the grocery store. Reformers loudly cry out "Can we please stop making chocolate chip cookies next to rat poison!" Skeptics chime in "Well... It's really not that simple. Even without rat poison, chocolate chip cookies are pretty unhealthy. Do we really want to be sending a message that it's okay to eat cookies by not poisoning them. Wouldn't that just encourage more people to try them. These people knew the risk of rat poison when they choose to eat the cookies, why is it our job to protect them?"
  - helge9210 5y ago
    > "These people knew the risk of rat poison when they choose to eat the cookies, why is it our job to protect them?" That is my question. What is the answer?
    - version_five 5y ago
      Compassion for other people? We've evolved to have a society for a reason, stepping over dead or desperate people on our way to work isn't good for us either, even if you don't care about them. There are solutions, specifically access to treatment and "clean" drugs that have a much lower chance of killing, that can actually help people.
      - helge9210 5y ago
        Inpatient detox will take up to two weeks. After that there is nothing that will make a person to continue except deliberate choice to do so. So access to treatment is OK. "Clean drugs" and "substitute therapy" is already beyond compassion.