"Heroin deaths nearly quadruple" between 2002 and 2013.

[agamemnus]

The crackdown on prescription drugs wasn't just in Maryland though

Your entire theory depends on the 'maybe' you mention, so sure, you might be right about something, but you have yet to give even a shred of evidence that this is actually happening. You only linked to one source, and that one didn't mention anything about your theory. So I've got a source supporting my argument for at least one state, proving it's as least possible, where as you have shown.. well, nothing at all. Sure, what I've linked doesn't disprove what you say, but you haven't shown anything supporting what you say, let alone proving it.

But you are all assuming facts not in evidence and then badgering me to accept. That's worse than having a theory that is based on supply and demand.

[Aimless]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo...st-explains-19

HEROIN was a scourge of America’s cities in the 1960s and 70s. But then it seemed to go out of fashion. By the 1990s it was less widely used than crack cocaine. In Europe its use has continued to decline, with the number of addicts falling by about one-third in the past decade. In America, by contrast, it is resurgent. Last year nearly 700,000 Americans took the drug, twice as many as a decade ago. It is now more popular than crack, by some measures. What explains heroin’s return?

One cause is the growing popularity of another drug: the prescription painkiller. Opioid painkillers such as OxyContin became more widely prescribed in the 1990s and 2000s. They are effective painkillers, but they are commonly abused: about 11m Americans use them illegally every year. That has led to a crackdown on prescriptions: doctors can now check databases to make sure patients have not already been prescribed the drugs somewhere else, for instance. So they are harder to obtain. But that means that some prescription-pill addicts have turned to heroin, which sates the same craving for a lower cost. More than two-thirds of heroin addicts have previously abused prescription painkillers.

Another reason is that the supply of heroin has increased. America gets most of its heroin from Mexico. Between 2000 and 2009, the amount of land in Mexico being used to grow opium poppies (from which heroin is derived) increased tenfold. It has fallen in the past few years, but is still far higher than before. This means that more heroin is making its way to the United States, feeding the growing demand and keeping prices low. The increase in poppy cultivation in Mexico was driven partly by the diversion of Mexican soldiers from poppy eradication to urban peacekeeping, under a crackdown on organised crime launched in 2006.

Heroin traffickers are also responding to market forces in America. For one thing, Americans are consuming less cocaine than they used to. And the cannabis they buy is increasingly home-grown: nearly half the United States now allow medical marijuana, and four have voted to legalise it outright, making it difficult for Mexican exporters to find a market. Struggling to sell cocaine and cannabis, they have homed in on heroin. The rise in consumption is therefore down to the coincidence of rising supply at a time of rising demand.

[agamemnus]

Thanks, Aimless.

Edit: although, when you think about it... it's a serious matter so maybe smileys should be banned from this thread.

[Aimless]

Heroin is much cheaper than oxycontin. Do you have any reason to believe the cost of heroin was comparable to that of oxy before this trend started?

[agamemnus]

I don't know. But, that nice article you linked and quoted does support my own conjecture.

What percentage of heroin addicts come in through some method other than as a painkiller addiction replacement?

[LittleFuzzy]

Cocaine users used to be the most prominent, then alcoholics. Other substance abuse issues, like prescription-drug abusers and people who use other drugs recreationally generally trail. But the use of most substances has mostly stayed at consistent levels over the time period you're focused on. Here. This is the precise figure you want. A decade ago, alcohol abuse was the leading abuse problem prior to heroin, now prescription opiates have blown the rest out of the water.

[Aimless]

Er, it doesn't really support your conjecture, aggie...

[agamemnus]

Aimless, that last paragraph is my conjecture.....

LittleFuzzy, thanks!...

Although it has been postulated that efforts to curb opioid prescribing, resulting in restricted prescription opioid access, have fueled heroin use and overdose, a recent analysis of 2010–2012 drug overdose deaths in 28 states found that decreases in prescription opioid death rates within a state were not associated with increases in heroin death rates; in fact, increases in heroin overdose death rates were associated with increases in prescription opioid overdose death rates (6). In addition, a study examining trends in opioid pain reliever overdose hospitalizations and heroin overdose hospitalizations between 1993 and 2009 found that increases in opioid pain reliever hospitalizations predicted an increase in heroin overdose hospitalizations in subsequent years (7). Thus, the changing patterns of heroin use and overdose deaths are most likely the result of multiple, and possibly interacting, factors. Moreover, there is a lack of research examining recent trends in the prevalence of other substance use among persons using heroin, especially among the high-risk population of heroin users who meet diagnostic criteria for heroin abuse or dependence.

Interesting.....

Does anyone have a gold-plated escalator and a fake gold-plated wig I could use?

[LittleFuzzy]

Not interesting, Aga. Two years rather short for a reliable a timeline to measure for that change. Heroin is dangerous, but it's dangerous because of how the body suddenly "resets" its tolerance so a dose that wouldn't have been lethal to you before suddenly is. Which means that the death stats are, as they usually do, going to trail changes by a good margin.

[GGT]

Aggie, would you mind giving a short summary of what you're trying to say in this thread about this issue? I'm having a hard time figuring it out.

More drugs = cheaper price = more deaths. (marijuana margins are now NON-EXISTENT, so drug dealers are going for the harder drugs. That reduces the price as there is more competition.)

The prescription thing is purely anecdotal. There isn't any mention of prescriptions becoming shorter or more addictive from 2002-2013.

Your "theory" doesn't make sense, especially since you insist opioid prescriptions are "purely anecdotal". There's plenty of data showing a correlation between pharmaceutical addictions and heroin use that extends beyond your one article -- so it doesn't look like you've done much homework before coming up with your "theory".

There's a heroin 'epidemic' in the US that doesn't just show up as heroin-overdose deaths, but also spikes in Hepatitis and HIV (from sharing needles). That's become a public health and police enforcement problem of 'epidemic' proportions to small US towns, too. Just look at Indiana.....

[agamemnus]

Littlefuzzy: yes, it's 2 years, but it's 28 states... but ok, good points.....

But, GGT, The Economist supports my view.

[GGT]

But, GGT, The Economist supports my view.

What? If The Economist supports your theory of supply/demand, it's based on opioids, not marijuana.

[agamemnus]

What? If The Economist supports your theory of supply/demand, it's based on opioids, not marijuana.

Marijuana. And cocaine, I guess.

Heroin traffickers are also responding to market forces in America. For one thing, Americans are consuming less cocaine than they used to. And the cannabis they buy is increasingly home-grown: nearly half the United States now allow medical marijuana, and four have voted to legalise it outright, making it difficult for Mexican exporters to find a market. Struggling to sell cocaine and cannabis, they have homed in on heroin. The rise in consumption is therefore down to the coincidence of rising supply at a time of rising demand.

[GGT]

You're trying to insert a "drug" variable in your supply/demand model without understanding the mechanics of pain or pharmaceutical addictions that lead to black market use.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but whatever it is isn't based on facts or studies.

[Being]

You're trying to insert a "drug" variable in your supply/demand model without understanding the mechanics of pain or pharmaceutical addictions that lead to black market use.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but whatever it is isn't based on facts or studies.

Maybe he's fighting addiction ???

[RandBlade]

Littlefuzzy: yes, it's 2 years, but it's 28 states... but ok, good points.....

But, GGT, The Economist supports my view.

Actually The Economist said the primary reason was prescription drugs. Also The Economist supports drug legalisation.

[agamemnus]

You're trying to insert a "drug" variable in your supply/demand model without understanding the mechanics of pain or pharmaceutical addictions that lead to black market use.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but whatever it is isn't based on facts or studies.

Yes, it is..... Aimless (facts -- "early half the United States now allow medical marijuana, and four have voted to legalise it outright, making it difficult for Mexican exporters to find a market. Struggling to sell cocaine and cannabis, they have homed in on heroin.") and LittleFuzzy (studies -- "a recent analysis of 2010–2012 drug overdose deaths in 28 states found that decreases in prescription opioid death rates within a state were not associated with increases in heroin death rate").

[GGT]

Mexican exporters have honed in on heroin because there's a growing demand for black market opioids -- as legal prescriptions have decreased. You're cherry-picking bits of data (from the studies other posters cited) in an effort to make your "theory" sound better?

Also, some of those drug overdose death rates were reduced after Naloxone was put in emergency kits for police, and family members of addicts, as first-responders (not just EMTs). The important point is that heroin use has sky-rocketed. The legality/availability/price of marijuana doesn't matter; it's not "interchangeable" with opioids.

[agamemnus]

No, not because there's demonstrably growing demand for heroin, but falling demand for marijuana.

> The important point is that heroin use has sky-rocketed.
Because it's cheaper than it was.

> The legality/availability/price of marijuana doesn't matter; it's not "interchangeable" with opioids.
Not for users. For sellers, it is.

[GGT]

But the demand for marijuana isn't falling! And heroin has always been cheaper than prescriptions!

So what's your "theory" again?

[agamemnus]

Demand for marijuana isn't falling, but supply is up. Do you deny that?

[GGT]

Demand for marijuana isn't falling, and the legal supply has grown. Can't deny that. But it's a stretch to theorize that has led to more heroin use and/or deaths.

What's your supply/demand economic theory again?

[agamemnus]

I'll say it again. (and it's also The Economist's theory/fact). Marijuana sales have led to a decrease in drug profits for drug dealers and cartels. Cheaper marijuana (or lower demand for "illegal" marijuana) makes selling heroin on the black market relatively more lucrative, thus leading to an increase in heroin users.

[LittleFuzzy]

No, it's not the Economist's theory/fact. Minx has already pointed out they accept the same conclusions from the CDC that we all repeatedly tried to point out to you from your own article. You cherry-pick a sentence here and a phrase there from everyone's sources and try to string them together, out of context, to "prove" your empty hypothesis and disregard everything else all those sources say pointing to something else, abuse of prescription opiates.

Even if your hypothesized (and STILL completely unsupported) claims about cannabis and heroin being competing goods supply-side were true, supply does not create demand. Supply has never created demand. The rising use (and death rate) from heroin is because of prescription opiate abuse, as every single one of the sources linked in this thread claims, not because cannabis is increasingly legal or semi-legal.

[GGT]

I'll say it again. (and it's also The Economist's theory/fact). Marijuana sales have led to a decrease in drug profits for drug dealers and cartels. Cheaper marijuana (or lower demand for "illegal" marijuana) makes selling heroin on the black market relatively more lucrative, thus leading to an increase in heroin users.

If you're trying to use supply/demand economic theories to explain illegal cartel behaviors.....you're doing it wrong.

[agamemnus]

Even if your hypothesized (and STILL completely unsupported) claims about cannabis and heroin being competing goods supply-side were true, supply does not create demand. Supply has never created demand.

I never said that supply created demand. ??????????????????????????????????????????????

Edit: I suppose you mean that I am saying drug dealers are pushing the most-profitable product, and that this means this is supply creating demand. However, I never said this.

If you are a drug supplier group (i.e.: a Mexican drug gang), will you go around selling now wildly unprofitable marijuana? No, you wouldn't. You would try to create and sell something else that has a better profit, meaning you would source more of the other drugs, whatever they are, be it highly dangerous designer drugs, or cocaine, or (since cocaine doesn't have much demand right now according to The Economist) heroin.

Heroin cost $400 per gram in the US in 2002, and $1600 in 1982. According to the UN, the current price is $200.

The rising use (and death rate) from heroin is because of prescription opiate abuse, as every single one of the sources linked in this thread claims, not because cannabis is increasingly legal or semi-legal.

You linked something which described a quantitative study that potentially refutes this claim.

I give up. Well, maybe. We'll see.

[Flixy]

Even if your hypothesized (and STILL completely unsupported) claims about cannabis and heroin being competing goods supply-side were true, supply does not create demand. Supply has never created demand. The rising use (and death rate) from heroin is because of prescription opiate abuse, as every single one of the sources linked in this thread claims, not because cannabis is increasingly legal or semi-legal.

To be fair, increased supply would lower the price, which would (together with better availability due to increased supply) make it more accessible - in theory. Not sure how that works with addictive drugs, to be honest.

[LittleFuzzy]

I never said that supply created demand. ??????????????????????????????????????????????

Edit: I suppose you mean that I am saying drug dealers are pushing the most-profitable product, and that this means this is supply creating demand. However, I never said this.

If you are a drug supplier group (i.e.: a Mexican drug gang), will you go around selling now wildly unprofitable marijuana? No, you wouldn't. You would try to create and sell something else that has a better profit, meaning you would source more of the other drugs, whatever they are, be it highly dangerous designer drugs, or cocaine, or (since cocaine doesn't have much demand right now according to The Economist) heroin.

Heroin cost $400 per gram in the US in 2002, and $1600 in 1982. According to the UN, the current price is $200.

You are saying that because demand is the only thing talked about in the only material you've brought to the discussion.

You linked something which described a quantitative study that potentially refutes this claim.

It did not. That was you cherry-picking a phrase, ripping it out of context, and misinterpreting it to try and back up your fanatical claim.

To be fair, increased supply would lower the price, which would (together with better availability due to increased supply) make it more accessible - in theory. Not sure how that works with addictive drugs, to be honest.

Depending on elasticity yes but that's not the supply/demand context Aga's been using.

[agamemnus]

Ok, so first of all, marijuana prices have been falling for way more than 4 or 5 years. Maybe you should start with the legalization for medical use in California, and before that the growing of marijuana in Redwood forests in California, increasing supply...

I didn't make inferences or conclusions from pieces of text from the article I posted that you all did, taking it out of context. The article was posted in full so I wouldn't be accused of abridging. I considered the prescription stuff article fluff because it does not link or attempt to link one thing with another.

I don't think I took anything out of context from the link you posted.... it seems quite clear about what the mentioned study shows, which is that decreasing the prescription of opiods to deal with pain doesn't correlate with an increase in heroin use!

The claim that an increase in marijuana supply decreases the price of heroin isn't fanatical. The data supports a decrease in the price of heroin over the past 35 years, as marijuana supply increased.

I'll quote this again:

Although it has been postulated that efforts to curb opioid prescribing, resulting in restricted prescription opioid access, have fueled heroin use and overdose, a recent analysis of 2010–2012 drug overdose deaths in 28 states found that decreases in prescription opioid death rates within a state were not associated with increases in heroin death rates; in fact, increases in heroin overdose death rates were associated with increases in prescription opioid overdose death rates (6). In addition, a study examining trends in opioid pain reliever overdose hospitalizations and heroin overdose hospitalizations between 1993 and 2009 found that increases in opioid pain reliever hospitalizations predicted an increase in heroin overdose hospitalizations in subsequent years (7). Thus, the changing patterns of heroin use and overdose deaths are most likely the result of multiple, and possibly interacting, factors. Moreover, there is a lack of research examining recent trends in the prevalence of other substance use among persons using heroin, especially among the high-risk population of heroin users who meet diagnostic criteria for heroin abuse or dependence.

I fully recognize that the linked study also shows that heroin users are more likely to also be prescribed opiod abusers, however that is completely separate from any contention that a decrease in prescriptions per user leads to more heroin use and also separate from any contention that a path from prescribed drugs to heroin is the only reason that heroin deaths quadrupled from 2002 to 2013.

How can this (from your link) be taken out of context?:

The increased availability and lower price of heroin in the United States has been identified as a potential contributor to rising rates of heroin use (12). According to data from the Drug Enforcement Administration's National Seizure System, the amounts of heroin seized each year at the southwest border of the United States were approximately ≤500 kg during 2000–2008. This amount quadrupled to 2,196 kg in 2013 (12). Since 2010, increased availability of heroin has been accompanied by a decline in price and an increase in purity, which may contribute to its increased use in the United States (13). This increase in the amount of heroin seized, increased availability and purity, and decreased cost are temporally associated with the increases in heroin use, abuse and dependence, and mortality found in this study. Increasing availability points to the importance of public health and law enforcement partnering to comprehensively address this public health crisis.

So here are the facts, not contentions or suppositions:

1) Heroin use and deaths went up.
2) Heroin prices went down and supply went up, along with marijuana prices going down and supply going up.

And I say that if marijuana wasn't so cheap, heroin wouldn't be so cheap either. And if heroin is so cheap, then deaths will go up, because you can buy more of it. So that's fanatical?

[GGT]

So here are the facts, not contentions or suppositions:

1) Heroin use and deaths went up.
2) Heroin prices went down and supply went up, along with marijuana prices going down and supply going up.

And I say that if marijuana wasn't so cheap, heroin wouldn't be so cheap either. And if heroin is so cheap, then deaths will go up, because you can buy more of it. So that's fanatical?

But you're treating heroin and marijuana as if they're interchangeable drugs when they're not. The only supply/demand connection is between prescription opioids and heroin. You can't just add marijuana to the mix....and then "theorize" that heroin and marijuana are somehow connected.

Your own link says heroin purity has increased, which can explain the increase in overdoses/deaths better than its price can. That's another flaw in your "theory": all the studies and data you cite refer to opioid or heroin overdose deaths. Marijuana doesn't cause 'overdoses' let alone deaths (unless you're talking about synthetic substitutes that do, but that's a whole different category of drug).