Heroin use up dramatically; Low prices, high purity drive `epidemic'

Boston Herald ^ | Dec 18, 2002 | Michael Lasalandra

[68 grunt]

Wonderful news. The fed has made God's gift more expensive than this poison and now many of 'gateway' fears are realized.

Everyone of the heroin deaths is a blessing which makes me happy, and they serve as a beautiful object example for our youth of what not to do. Dear drug czar - kiss my a$$!

[Consort]

Play it again, Sam. I got the calliope music playing in the background.

[MrLeRoy]

Play it again, Sam. I got the calliope music playing in the background.

So you have nothing to say but you can't shut up. Very sad.

[kidd]

If a foreign government that was hostile to the United States decided to flood the US market with inexpensive beef that was tainted with a nerve agent, would you consider that an act of aggression?

How about if inspectors discovered the nerve agent in the beef after only a few deaths and notified the public. But people still consumed the tainted beef either because they hadn't received the notification or they thought that it couldn't happen to them. Does the actions of the inspectors change the intent of the hostile government and is it still an act of aggression?

If Pakistan were to flood the United States with cheap, potent heroin, is that an act of aggression?

[Consort]

...and stay away from our children.

[tpaine]

"Play the worn out record once again. The endless loop is....endless." - jimer -

Your wish is our command:


"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago.

The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all. "
Jim Robinson, 5/9/01 155

[mr.pink]

If coke, herion, pot etc. were legal, and meth weren't, would the usage rate of meth go up or down?

I would guess meth usage would go down relative to the cost of coke. Pot/heroin would not factor into that equation if a speed high was what the user was looking for.

However, some meth-heads just like a meth high.

[Consort]

...and stay away from your children.

[AUgrad]

The DPH report showed heroin is the most common drug for which people in the state are seeking substance abuse treatment, with 37 percent of those entering treatment last year saying it was for heroin

That's impossible. Czar Walters said the same thing about MJ just last week. The idiots need to get their lies straight.

[ModelBreaker]

This article undercuts the empirical case for legalization of hard drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Legalization would make the supply of available heroin even cheaper and even more pure. The crisis reported here is a result of the existing low price and high purity. Consider the possibility that legalization would drive the crisis even deeper.

If your position is that, on principle, people should be able to do what they want vis-a-vis drugs regardless of the empirical evidence, I don't agree, but I understand your position. No need to get into an argument about that, which we will never resolve.

But if your position is that the empirical result of legalizing hard drugs would be good (or at least not too bad), I think it is dubious. While I think a good (not compelling argument) can be made that legalization of pot would not cause a crisis (it would just produce a lot of stupid, slow people who accomplish virtually nothing in their lives--but most of them are already stoners), the empirical case on hard drugs seems to me to compel the opposite conclusion.

[Freebird Forever]

"Heroin deaths are suffocating our society," he said.

Reducing support for legalization one death at a time...... better then the threat of imprisonment I guess.

[Joe Bonforte]

The Druggers are at it again. Let's hear the mantra about alcohol again.

Yeah, having to repeat those pesky facts so that people like you will finally get it is boring and repetitious. But we keep hoping you guys will wake up.

Just to do my duty, here are numbers from an 1993 concerning preventable deaths per year from several causes. Here's the heart of the data:

"Substance abuse is a major contributor to preventable death in the US (Fig 1). 400,000 deaths each year are caused by tobacco, and 100,000 by alcohol. An additional 20,000 deaths are caused by illicit drug use."

Notice that the 20,000 figure is for all illegal drugs combined.

So you condemn those destructive, "evil" drugs but you're fine with 100,000 alcohol-related deaths per year?

[per loin]

A bag of heroin now costs only about $4, Mumbauer said.

Cheaper than the New York tax on a pack of cigarettes.

[mr.pink]

..no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner.

I'll agree with that, but I'll note the inclusion of the word "systematic".

A guy/gal wants to do some meth for a night out clubbing is one thing. Folks who go on days long binges on meth, crack, PCP or even diet pills (see Dr. Jeffery MacDonald) are dangerous, and unfortunately not just to themselves.

If we substituted amphetimine usage for alcohol use, same levels of widespread use, do you think violent behaviour levels would decrease? I'd bet increase.

That said, this past sunday morning, an acquaintance of mine was arrested for a murder that began as a drunken brawl amongst friends.

[MrLeRoy]

But people still consumed the tainted beef either because they hadn't received the notification or they thought that it couldn't happen to them.

There's where your analogy falls flat. ALL heroin is "tainted" in your sense of being potentially lethal to its consumer; if ALL beef were tainted people would have no reason to think "it couldn't happen to them."

If Pakistan were to flood the United States with cheap, potent heroin, is that an act of aggression?

It might be intended as such---just as Radio Marti is (was?) in a sense "aggression" against the Cuban government---but selling people things they want to buy is intrinsically nonaggressive.

[ModelBreaker]

"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. [...] Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior [...] There is no evidence to support the claim that snorting or injecting cocaine stimulates violent behavior. [...] Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."

If you believe this, you have never been exposed to substance abusers. I have done a fair amount of rehab counseling. I can tell you without any question or hesitation that meth, cocaine and PCP GREATLY increase violent behavior. Meth and cocaine turn folks into paranoid schizophreics. I don't know what it is PCP does in clinical terms--but its REALLY ugly. Long-term alcohol use (many years) is ugly. But cocaine for two months, meth for a week, and PCP for 30 minutes make ethanol look like a walk in the park.

Go to your local county hospital (the one where the indigent go and get free treatment) and volunteer to work in the detox or mental unit for a week. (The mental unit will give you a good cross-section too because it will be full of detoxing or detoxed druggies and depressed teenagers.) It will open your eyes.

[tpaine]

Jimer wrote:
"...and stay away from your children."



What's wih your child obsession, jimer?
-- You some sort of a pedo-weirdo?

[tdadams]

But the two alternatives are no war and legalization, which means much lower prices and more purity.

Do you ever read objectively or do we have to explain this in detail everytime it comes up? With lower prices comes lower profits for dealers, which leads to no incentives for dealers to push the stuff, which leads to fewer people trying it, which leads to less dependency. Yawn!

And you're factually incorrect in your assertion that legality would lead to a higher purity of drugs. The opposite is true. When drugs are illegal, dealers look for a higher purity in greater concentration because it's easier to smuggle.

Think about the prohibition era and ask yourself, which was easier to transport undetected, 100 bottles of beer, or it's intoxicating equivalent - 8 bottles of whisky, or even better, 3 bottles of pure grain alcohol. The answer is obvious.

[A2J]

This study shows that would increase dependency. So much for drug legalization wackos thinking.

Exactly!

[FreeTally]

You forgot to read the last few words which say:

...in any systematic manner."

Besides, it doesn't matter what I or you or the poster "believes", because these are the stats from the government. You know, the government who employees a man who said that marijuana is more dangerous than heroin.