Canadian province experiments with decriminalising hard drugs

[Loren Pechtel]

The opioid crisis was created by the drug war. Every pain patient who kills himself because the government won't let him have his Vicodin was murdered by the government; that goes without saying. The irony is that even the overdosing junkies who the government was nominally trying to rescue from addiction were murdered by the government.

No. The fentanyl crisis was created by the drug war. The opioid crisis was created by misrepresenting the habituation potential to doctors so they weren't careful, both in overprescribing and in cutting off rather than careful tapering.

 

[Toni]

Your argument only makes sense if making drugs illegal reduces their use--but that's not what we actually see. Legal without permitting advertising doesn't increase the use rate. Decriminalization doesn't increase the use rate. Legal for addicts by prescription decreases the use rate. Yet we go with the path of maximum harm.

Show your data.

Decriminalization--Portugal has already been mentioned.

Legal with advertising--increased pot use in Amsterdam.

Legal without advertising--did not increase pot use, the effect of the time advertising was legal went away.

Legal for addicts--heroin in England some time ago. They switched to making it illegal and use went up considerably.

Illegal--USA, alcohol use was pretty much back to it's original level by the time we got rid of prohibition.

That's not data. That's words you typed. I'd really like to know what source(s) you used.

I'm not trying to challenge you. I'd just like to read more on the subject.

 

[barbos]

No. The fentanyl crisis was created by the drug war.

I was under impression it was cause by drug companies paying doctors to prescribe it left and right. So we have a bunch of addicts who would not be under normal circumstances.
Next step legalization. Great job, Free (?) World!

Speaking of pain drugs. I had my anecdote about that. Had some pain in the knees once. I think I tore/streched some ligaments. So when it became quite serious I went to a doctor in US.
I expected some tests, x-rays and everything. None of that, he listened we talked about tennis and he prescribed me some pain killers. Don't know what it was, I did not buy it, walked it off instead.
Pretty shitty health care, kinda what I expect in Russia.

 

[Bomb#20]

The opioid crisis was created by the drug war. Every pain patient who kills himself because the government won't let him have his Vicodin was murdered by the government; that goes without saying. The irony is that even the overdosing junkies who the government was nominally trying to rescue from addiction were murdered by the government.

No. The fentanyl crisis was created by the drug war. The opioid crisis was created by misrepresenting the habituation potential to doctors so they weren't careful, both in overprescribing and in cutting off rather than careful tapering.

But why the heck would a doctor want to cut her patient off instead of tapering him off in the first place, unless the government was threatening to prosecute her or yank her license? And how the heck can we even know who's genuinely overprescribing when the government will define anyone who prescribes more than average as an overprescriber? Doctors are so intimidated they underprescribe, which gives the government ridiculously low statistical estimates of how much need for pain management there is, so patients search and search for unintimidated pain care, which gives the government an excuse to define them as addicted "doctor shoppers" -- apparently an upstanding citizen is supposed to just bear his pain gracefully no matter how bad it is if the first doctor he goes to is too scared to care for him. And inevitably untreated pain patients will go find street dealers since the medical establishment abandoned them, and then they really will become addicted since the pushers have no reason to give them only what they need.

No. The fentanyl crisis was created by the drug war.

I was under impression it was cause by drug companies paying doctors to prescribe it left and right. So we have a bunch of addicts who would not be under normal circumstances.

When have doctors ever been prescribing fentanyl left and right? It's a painkiller of last resort. People aren't dying of fentanyl because they're on prescription fentanyl, or because they went out on the street looking for fentanyl when their doctors wouldn't prescribe fentanyl. They're dying of fentanyl because their doctors wouldn't prescribe oxycontin so they went out on the street looking for an oxycontin substitute and they found a heroin dealer and the heroin was cut with sugar to make it cheaper and laced with fentanyl to make it as strong as uncut heroin, because smuggling 10 grams of fentanyl is a lot easier to get away with than smuggling a kilo of heroin, and that makes fentanyl laced heroin a safer product for criminals to deal than vanilla heroin, because there's a drug war.

Or did you mean drug companies were paying doctors to prescribe oxycontin left and right? Why would they do that? Because there are huge profits to be made. Why are there huge profits to be made? Because the price per pill is so high. Why is the price per pill so high? Because the government strictly limits manufacturing so there's no competition driving the price down to actual manufacturing cost. I buy a typical generic prescription drug from Mark Cuban for 15 cents a pill -- and you can bet your ass there's no drug company paying doctors to prescribe that stuff left and right. Why does the government strictly limit manufacturing of opioids and make the price stay high? Because there's a drug war.

 

[barbos]

When have doctors ever been prescribing fentanyl left and right? It's a painkiller of last resort.

I don't which one is which but, opiate based painkillers WERE and ARE being prescribed left and right. That's just an established fact.
Bottom line, drug companies are to blame.

 

[barbos]

Because there are huge profits to be made.

Yes killing people is profitable.

 

[Elixir]

When have doctors ever been prescribing fentanyl left and right? It's a painkiller of last resort.

I don't which one is which but, opiate based painkillers WERE and ARE being prescribed left and right. That's just an established fact.
Bottom line, drug companies are to blame.

Just FYI, fentayl is different from almost all "opiate based painkillers" in that its LD50 for humans is around 7 ng/ml.
For example, Oxycodone the oral LD50 is 426mg/kg (mice&rats).
So fentanyl is MILLIONS of times more dangerous per weight. Amounts that are virtually invisible can kill you.
I have never heard of fentayl being "prescribed" at all, let alone "right and left". I have had it administered three times during surgeries, and developed such sensitivity that my records now indicate that I'm allergic. But really it's just out of control strong.

Because there are huge profits to be made.

Yes killing people is profitable.

I sincerely hope you're kidding. Nobody outside the Russian army - other than mob hitmen - gets paid for killing people. Drug dealers don't profit from destroying their customer base.

 

[Bomb#20]

Just FYI, fentayl is different from almost all "opiate based painkillers" in that its LD50 for humans is around 7 ng/ml.
For example, Oxycodone the oral LD50 is 426mg/kg (mice&rats).
So fentanyl is MILLIONS of times more dangerous per weight. Amounts that are virtually invisible can kill you.

[math geek]That comes to 60,000 times more dangerous.[/math geek]

Yes killing people is profitable.

I sincerely hope you're kidding. Nobody outside the Russian army - other than mob hitmen - gets paid for killing people. Drug dealers don't profit from destroying their customer base.

Take it as shorthand for "Doing dangerous stuff that risks killing people is profitable."

 

[Bomb#20]

When have doctors ever been prescribing fentanyl left and right? It's a painkiller of last resort.

I don't which one is which but, opiate based painkillers WERE and ARE being prescribed left and right. That's just an established fact.
Bottom line, drug companies are to blame.

Why is that the bottom line? Why don't you simply blame the pusher who put the fentanyl in the dead guy's heroin, and draw the bottom line right there, at the first guilty person you find? For you to blame the drug company that caused the guy to go looking for more opiates is rather like blaming the parent who didn't lock up his gun for the schoolboy shooting his classmates. It's almost as though you're tracing a chain of cause and effect...

Because there are huge profits to be made.

Yes killing people is profitable.

...so why do you suddenly stop tracing the chain of cause and effect at the people trying to make a profit? Why don't you take another step and also blame the drug warriors who made it profitable to kill people?

dead people
because fentanyl
because street dealers
because addicts
because overprescribing
because drug companies paying doctors to prescribe it left and right
because killing people is profitable
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <-- your proposed bottom line
because medical-grade opiate prices far above cost
because noncompetitive medical-grade opiate manufacturing market
because the government prohibits competition
because there's a drug war
because corrupt politicians
because power corrupts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <-- actual bottom line

 

[TomC]

Drug dealers don't profit from destroying their customer base.

Yeah, actually they do.

If a customer ODs, that's called advertising.
In certain circles.

It isn't rational or anything. But yeah, a well publicized OD is good for a dealer's business overall.
Jus'sayin
Tom

 

[Toni]

Drug dealers don't profit from destroying their customer base.

Yeah, actually they do.

If a customer ODs, that's called advertising.
In certain circles.

It isn't rational or anything. But yeah, a well publicized OD is good for a dealer's business overall.
Jus'sayin
Tom

How? A well publicized OD would alert possible customers to the fact that the dealer isn't very reliable. Or to be more careful with their own doses. Occasionally scare someone into getting clean.

 

[TomC]

A well publicized OD would alert possible customers to the fact that the dealer isn't very reliable.

A well publicized OD alerts possible customers to who has the strong shit.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Just FYI, fentayl is different from almost all "opiate based painkillers" in that its LD50 for humans is around 7 ng/ml.
For example, Oxycodone the oral LD50 is 426mg/kg (mice&rats).
So fentanyl is MILLIONS of times more dangerous per weight. Amounts that are virtually invisible can kill you.

[math geek]That comes to 60,000 times more dangerous.[/math geek]

Thx, my mistake. (Will keep it in mind in case it ever comes in handy )

 

[TSwizzle]

What could possibly go wrong, eh?

The numbers are horrifying, but drug overdose death statistics can't fully convey the crisis ravaging America, so DailyMail.com has documented the suffering in some of the worst-affected communities. There were 107,622 deaths from drug overdoses in the US in 2021, an increase of nearly 15 percent from the year prior, and shocking national trends show few signs of the crisis abating. Just two milligrams of fentanyl - the amount that fits on the top of a pencil tip - is deadly. Despite successful nationwide stings to bust dealers, authorities admit there's no end in sight for the epidemic. The animal sedative Xylazine - known as 'tranq' - is now exacerbating the crisis. It's often combined with fentanyl and its horrific effects cause visceral 'flesh-eating' abscesses and addicts to zonk out as they lose feeling in their muscles. These harrowing pictures lay bare the devastation across the country - as 'zombied' fentanyl and tranq users collapse on needle-littered streets stretching from Washington to Massachusetts, Louisiana to Philadelphia.
In 2021, courts in Seattle scrapped a law making hard-drug possession - including cocaine, meth, and heroin - a felony. Now, the crime is a misdemeanor - and social commentators believe this is a huge reason for Seattle's current issues.

Daily Mail

Are you familiar with the Iron Law of Prohibition? "The harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs."

Nope.

People are dying of fentanyl because the U.S. government, apparently ignorant of Econ 101, chose to incentivize drug dealers to add fentanyl to their less dangerous products.
The opioid crisis was created by the drug war. Every pain patient who kills himself because the government won't let him have his Vicodin was murdered by the government; that goes without saying. The irony is that even the overdosing junkies who the government was nominally trying to rescue from addiction were murdered by the government.

I never considered you a conspiracy theorist but holy cow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The opioid crisis was created by the drug war. Every pain patient who kills himself because the government won't let him have his Vicodin was murdered by the government; that goes without saying. The irony is that even the overdosing junkies who the government was nominally trying to rescue from addiction were murdered by the government.

No. The fentanyl crisis was created by the drug war. The opioid crisis was created by misrepresenting the habituation potential to doctors so they weren't careful, both in overprescribing and in cutting off rather than careful tapering.

But why the heck would a doctor want to cut her patient off instead of tapering him off in the first place, unless the government was threatening to prosecute her or yank her license? And how the heck can we even know who's genuinely overprescribing when the government will define anyone who prescribes more than average as an overprescriber? Doctors are so intimidated they underprescribe, which gives the government ridiculously low statistical estimates of how much need for pain management there is, so patients search and search for unintimidated pain care, which gives the government an excuse to define them as addicted "doctor shoppers" -- apparently an upstanding citizen is supposed to just bear his pain gracefully no matter how bad it is if the first doctor he goes to is too scared to care for him. And inevitably untreated pain patients will go find street dealers since the medical establishment abandoned them, and then they really will become addicted since the pushers have no reason to give them only what they need.

If they didn't expect habituation why would they taper?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. The fentanyl crisis was created by the drug war.

I was under impression it was cause by drug companies paying doctors to prescribe it left and right. So we have a bunch of addicts who would not be under normal circumstances.
Next step legalization. Great job, Free (?) World!

The Opioid war is a result of the overprescription of OxyContin--a high level opioid. All the opioids are fairly similar in effects (although some are far more potent than others) so people looking on the street will take whatever opioid is available. Fentanyl is an opioid but pretty much a last resort drug for doctors, not widely prescribed. The issue with fentanyl is a street problem, not a doctor problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your argument only makes sense if making drugs illegal reduces their use--but that's not what we actually see. Legal without permitting advertising doesn't increase the use rate. Decriminalization doesn't increase the use rate. Legal for addicts by prescription decreases the use rate. Yet we go with the path of maximum harm.

Show your data.

Decriminalization--Portugal has already been mentioned.

Legal with advertising--increased pot use in Amsterdam.

Legal without advertising--did not increase pot use, the effect of the time advertising was legal went away.

Legal for addicts--heroin in England some time ago. They switched to making it illegal and use went up considerably.

Illegal--USA, alcohol use was pretty much back to it's original level by the time we got rid of prohibition.

That's not data. That's words you typed. I'd really like to know what source(s) you used.

I'm not trying to challenge you. I'd just like to read more on the subject.

Dutch among lowest cannabis users in Europe-report

The Dutch are among the lowest users of marijuana or cannabis in Europe despite the Netherlands' well-known tolerance of the drug, according to a regional study published on Thursday. Among adults in the Netherlands, 5.4 percent used cannabis, compared with the European...

www.reuters.com

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/MacCoun2011_DutchCannabisCoffeeshopSystem.pdf

Apparently some of the use of prescribed heroin still exists in England:

Legal heroin prescribed to hundreds of UK drug users

‘Vital’ treatment threatened by cuts to addiction services, risking ‘untold damage’, expert warns

www.independent.co.uk

An estimate that says 60-70% of original level of alcohol use:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf

 

[bilby]

Back in the day, our factory in Australia was making Dihydrocodeine and Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) tablets for various overseas and domestic markets. The blend is used for the management of the most severe pain, usually in terminal patients.

One of our largest markets was the UK.

The Dihydrocodeine was made by Tasmanian Alkoloids, who are the largest legal opiate producer in the world. Almost all of their output is ultimately exported, but almost none is exported as raw material.

I was export manager, and got an email one day from our UK sister company, instructing me that the decision had been made at boardroom level to transfer manufacturing of that particular product to the UK factory, and requiring me to ship the necessary raw material from our store ASAP, so they could start production.

So I obtained the necessary export license from the commonwealth government, and applied to the UK Home Office for an import permit.

They said "No".

The UK does not permit the import of pure dihydrocodeine under any circumstances. Until it's mixed with paracetamol, which is almost impossible to re-separate, and is sufficiently toxic as to render unlawful use impossible, it's simply banned.

This is madness. The UK government are so absolutely terrified that this stuff might possibly be diverted, in part, to illegal use, that they won't even consider allowing imports of the material, by licenced and highly regulated companies, for relief of suffering by legitimate patients in agony.

 

[Bomb#20]

But why the heck would a doctor want to cut her patient off instead of tapering him off in the first place, unless the government was threatening to prosecute her or yank her license?...

If they didn't expect habituation why would they taper?

Why wouldn't they expect habituation? You said it yourself...

... All the opioids are fairly similar in effects ...

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you familiar with the Iron Law of Prohibition? "The harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs."

Nope.

Well, do you see any errors in Wikipedia's analysis?

People are dying of fentanyl because the U.S. government, apparently ignorant of Econ 101, chose to incentivize drug dealers to add fentanyl to their less dangerous products.
The opioid crisis was created by the drug war. Every pain patient who kills himself because the government won't let him have his Vicodin was murdered by the government; that goes without saying. The irony is that even the overdosing junkies who the government was nominally trying to rescue from addiction were murdered by the government.

I never considered you a conspiracy theorist but holy cow.

Why on earth would you think the observation that governments adopt stupid policies that have catastrophic unintended consequences because politicians completely ignore what anybody who's taken Econ 101 could have told them would happen because they care more about winning elections than solving problems is a "conspiracy theory"?

If you disagree with what I'm arguing, please explain by what mechanism an opioid crisis would have arisen if there hadn't first been a drug war.

"People respond to incentives. That is the whole of economics -- the rest is commentary."