Top
Best
New

Posted by marojejian 19 hours ago

Overdose deaths are falling in America because of a 'supply shock': study(www.economist.com)
182 points | 160 comments
marojejian 19 hours ago|
archive: https://archive.is/C0Y0G#selection-1303.143-1303.175

this is my best guess for the research cited (paywalled): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aea6130

If true, the next question is what caused the supply shock?

lazarus01 15 hours ago||
>> Researchers have pondered what could have caused this sudden turnaround, pointing to the end of the covid-19 pandemic or a rise in drug treatment. A new article, published in Science on January 8th, suggests, instead, that a supply shock drove the decrease.

The supply shock sounds right.

I was volunteering at a state run institution, who had an addiction data science team, at the peak of the opioid crisis. I was developing ml models to predict patient dropout early in a 32 week program. The data and funding for such research was very scarce and it didn't go anywhere.

Treatment for opioid use disorder with medication is highly effective for 50% - 90% who respond well to treatment. The problem with the bottom 50% was early dropout, due to the lack of dissemination of proper treatment protocols and stigma attached to medication for treatment (methadone). I stopped following the work, I became too sensitive, it was pretty depressing.

The pandemic coupled with the increase in illicit fentanyl was just tragic in what it did to people. I remember reading the DEA research, where the precursor for fentanyl came from china and was manufactured and distributed from mexico. Mexico was also manufacturing high quality meth and displaced most of the meth labs in america, coming with increases in meth overdose during the same period. The fentanyl was so cheap compared to traditional heroin manufacturing.

I'm glad the supply seems to have dried up. It was nuts, what was going on a few years ago.

greygoo222 14 hours ago||
The initial spike in overdose deaths were largely caused by government crackdowns on pharma drugs.
monero-xmr 10 hours ago||
You can live with a sustained opioid addiction permanently without major issues. That’s the entire basis of methadone clinics - controlled dispersement of opioids at a level that solves cravings and allows the addict to be functional. It is very sad we don’t allow pharmaceutical grade opioids to be given to addicts in a controlled way, it would eliminate the purity variance that causes overdoses, and prevent the poison mixed in to increase street profits from destroying bodies (tranq, etc)
herbst 6 hours ago|||
In Switzerland they can get actual, state grown, heroin. Clean heroin is one of the least problematic substances appearantly, less problematic and more "everyday friendly" than Methadon even.

And you don't SEE any issues like in the US (or UK) around here at all.

Tom1380 5 hours ago|||
I live in Zurich. I spent 5 minutes waiting at a bus stop in Langstrasse and I was offered cocaine and marijuana by a thug
comice 4 hours ago|||
The comment was about heroin. Were you offered heroin?

Is cocaine and marijuana available from the government too? If not, what relevance is your comment?

Was this the first and only time you were waiting at a bus stop in Switzerland? If so, perhaps a notable story, if not then we'll need more information to conclude how bad this thug problem really is in Switzerland.

zhdc1 3 hours ago||
Langstrasse is as close to a red-light district as you'll find in Zurich.

It's gotten a lot better over the last couple of years, but stating that you were offered drugs there is like being offended that you walked past a casino in Vegas.

herbst 5 hours ago||||
Sounds like you have easy options for some common drugs. Not a bad thing perse and sounds like they didn't offer any opioids
fennecbutt 3 hours ago||
Lmao as a kiwi living in UK it's definitely a bad thing. Can't go on a night out in London without half dozen dudes trying to sell you coke. Same dudes who are waiting in alleys waiting to mug people when they get the chance.

If you ever see >1 person just standing around and not walking somewhere in London early in the morning just stay the fuck away from them. And if they start heading your way, run.

herbst 2 hours ago||
I know how annoying this can be, especially in some countries this behaviour is often directly associated with criminality. Here in Switzerland dealers are often (not always) just that, they make enough to not bother with anything else. They don't look like "dirty" junkies, they don't bother stealing from tourists, they basically don't look for any extra attention when the business is rolling anyway.
scotty79 1 hour ago||
When I was in Amsterdam people were offering hard drugs on the street but "no, thank you" was perfectly sufficient response
zhdc1 3 hours ago||||
"waiting at a bus stop in Langstrasse" -> what were you expecting?
jacquesm 2 hours ago||
Probably a bus?
Etheryte 2 hours ago|||
If you think cocaine and marijuana are comparable/interchangeable with heroin, you might want to educate yourself on the topic a bit more before trying to make a quip.
monero-xmr 6 hours ago|||
Imagine you are sitting in a room. Your child is in front of you. A scary man sits next to them. The man says:

“Your child is a drug addict. They are addicted to opioids. I am the devil, without any care in the world other than making money. The choice is yours. Would you rather they inject clean heroin made by a pharmaceutical company in your country, or banish them forever as street addicts slavishly doing what it takes to score their fix?”

When facing the devil I’m voting for my tax dollars to give them clean heroin made by my country. That is what every parent wants when faced with an addicted child

lolive 4 hours ago|||
I switched from my Twitter addiction to a Bluesky addiction. Still scrolling to death, but now my opinion is mine again. #dontDoGrok
znpy 4 hours ago|||
That’s a fake dichotomy btw, a sadly very common logical fallacy.

You (wrongly) assume there’s no way out of an addiction, for example.

acessoproibido 4 hours ago|||
Its definitely easier to beat addiction if you aren't living on the street, selling everything you have and are injecting one of the most horrible shit substances but instead you are using a clean, safe alternative that is provided by the state together with prevention programs (which is usually the model for this) - how is it a false dichotomy?

Or are you someone who assumes you just need to "use willpower" and "stop" being an addict? I assure you its not so easy with opiates.

dostick 4 hours ago||
[flagged]
spacecadet 3 hours ago|||
Defined as addiction... You ever struggle with one, loose a loved one to it? Comment comes off stupid.
threethirtytwo 1 hour ago||
Interesting fact:

Hordes of American soldiers were doing heroin in the Vietnam war.

When they came back to America we were expecting a massive addiction epidemic. It never happened. Overall, all the soldiers who came back lost the addiction.

Little known phenomenon about addiction that can’t be fully explained yet. What you say is true, but the person you responded to, what he says has an aspect of the truth as well. Look into it.

fennecbutt 3 hours ago|||
Lmao. You are so wrong. Addiction is the human brain wanting those sweet molecules to hit binding sites.

But you know, make it poetic or something. Suppose that's how religion still manages to thrive.

imtringued 3 hours ago|||
Usually the fastest and most effective way out of an addiction is medication assisted treatment, which means having a doctor control your dosage with a clean supply of the drug or a less addictive substitute that targets the same receptors.
mmooss 46 minutes ago||||
> You can live with a sustained opioid addiction permanently without major issues.

To me that seems to say cause of the opiod crisis doesn't exist, which probably isn't what you mean. But what do you mean?

monero-xmr 24 minutes ago||
The problem is not the opioids themselves as a chemical. They are tolerated well and have minimal side effects. The main issue is that street opioids are of uncertain purity, and cut with toxic chemicals. This causes overdoses when a batch is too strong, and various health issues from the harsh toxins.

A properly managed opioid addiction can be permanent. For a decade millions of Americans were addicted to opioids (OxyContin, Vicodin, etc.) prescribed by doctors. When the state cracked down they were forced to go on the street to get their medicine, which is when the opioid crisis exploded

specproc 7 hours ago|||
Methadone is available in the UK, on the NHS. I know at least one person who has been on it for decades.

https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/methadone/

20after4 14 hours ago|||
I think that many methadone clinics are operating very unethically, to the point I would call it fraudulent. Certainly it's cruel to the patients. They essentially set up the patient to be a lifetime methadone addict. This may be an improvement over getting your fix on the street but it's still addiction dependence and it's expensive (profitable!). I'm unsure if it's just a few or a large fraction of them that operate this way. Maybe my data point is a unique outlier but here's what I saw:

I had a friend who was going through the program in Springfield Missouri, approximately 10 years ago, and the clinic literally increased his dose every week or two. They also had strict controls to make sure the patients actually take the full dose (because otherwise they might sell some of it on the street). So they were left with just 2 options, either drop out of the program and find their fix elsewhere, or accept a gradually increasing dose of methadone, forever. It's a sick program that is set up to make sure patients gradually descend deeper into addiction while they rake in huge profits. It's not really any different from what the drug dealers on the street are doing except that it's even more exploitative and dishonest. The doctors had zero plan for weaning people off of the methadone and some people had been on the program for years, with correspondingly huge doses doled out to them every time they came in. This was 10 years ago, at the time it cost something like $50 per visit, paid by the patient or possibly medicaid.

Edited slightly for clarity.

deepsun 14 hours ago||
Well, addiction or not, the main question is what medics call "quality of life" -- whether a patient can life their life to the full potential.

There are millions of people addicted to caffeine, the most popular psychoactive substance in the world, but as it usually doesn't prevent them to live their life and "be a productive member of society", no one cares of treating caffeine addiction, save for religious societies.

My point is -- is methadone addiction "better" than fentanyl in that regard? If yes, than that's ok.

20after4 14 hours ago|||
My complaint was about the forced increasing of dosage. They literally would not allow the patient to wean off of it. So yes, it might be an improvement over the shit on the street but it's diabolical that they force patients to continually increase their dose rather than gradually decreasing it.

I have no idea if this is common or just this one shady clinic but my data point of 1 still stands. If there is one, then given that this would be very profitable, it's highly likely that there are other clinics with similarly unethical policies.

patmorgan23 17 minutes ago|||
> They literally would not allow the patient to wean off of it

If true that clinic needs to be reported. Patients have a right to taper down and exit treatment.

When a patient enters treatment at an OTP (Methadone clinic) they start with a small initial dose that is increased over the initial 30-60 days of treatment. Some clinics do this somewhat aggressively because they are trying to get the patient up to a "protective" dose. Methadone blocks the 'euphoric' effects of other opioids and protects patients who may still be taking other substance outside of their prescribed treatment program from overdose. Getting to a protective dose faster ends up saving patients lives.

So that maybe why the clinic was firm about trying to increase you friends dose.

OTPs are also required to offer counseling, the idea being methodone is used to address the physical aspects of addiction, and counseling is use to address the psychological/emotional side of addiction. Help patients build coping skills, figuring out what their triggers are, and find ways to stay out of those situations, etc. Some patients are instrested in that and eventually getting off of Methadone, some aren't. Some clinics provide really great counseling, some don't. The "dose and go" clinics are definitely a problem in the industry.

https://www.samhsa.gov/substance-use/treatment/options/metha...

antonvs 12 hours ago||||
To answer my own question: what you described sounds like part of the standard recommended protocol, and it seems likely your friend misunderstood or misrepresented that.

I'll explain with liberal quotes from the document linked below. Dosages start out low to avoid risk to the patient, because "the most common reason for death or non-fatal overdose from methadone treatment is overly aggressive prescribing/dose-titration during the first two weeks of treatment."

Because of this, "methadone induction and titration MUST be approached slowly and cautiously. It may take several weeks to address opioid withdrawal effectively. It is important to be upfront with patients about this requirement and to discuss ways to cope with ongoing withdrawal and cravings, to maintain engagement in treatment."

The dose increase is described in the following paragraph:

"...methadone can be initiated without the prerequisite presence of opioid withdrawal. This may be preferential for some patients. The patient’s dose should be titrated with a “start low and go slow” approach, based on regular clinical assessment, until initial dose stability is reached – see specific recommendations below. A stable dose is achieved when opioid withdrawal is eliminated or adequately suppressed for 24 hours to allow patients to further engage in ongoing medical and psychosocial treatment. The ultimate goal is to work toward clinical stability."

In other words, for patients who are continuing to take other opioids, the methadone dose is increased over time to make it easier for the patient to reduce that other intake. Dosage is based on interviews with the patient.

Addicts are very good at subconsciously coming up with rationales for remaining addicted. It's much more likely that your friend found himself in that trap, than that he was going to an unethical clinic trying to keep him addicted "forever". That would be a major violation of the law and breach of medical ethics, and would be likely to come to the attention of regulators if it was a recurring pattern.

https://cpsm.mb.ca/assets/PrescribingPracticesProgram/Recomm...

antonvs 13 hours ago|||
Was there some stated rationale for the dose increase?
20after4 12 hours ago|||
It's possible my friend wasn't telling me the whole story or just misunderstood the program. I don't think he was actually trying to stay addicted though because after a few weeks on methadone (with increasing doses and doctors telling him that he would always be an addict for life) he decided to take the more extreme route of getting clean by quitting cold turkey. He moved to a different state and cut ties with every possible source he had to acquire the drugs.
XorNot 11 hours ago|||
Did it work? Is he clean?
20after4 9 hours ago||
Yes it worked.
antonvs 9 hours ago||||
This is certainly possible, but it sounds more like what AA tells its clients. Doctors are less likely to say things like this, because it can have consequences for them.

Going cold turkey like you're saying he did is fine if (1) it doesn't kill you and (2) you're able to do it. For many people, it's just not very practical.

I don't think it's a good idea to demonize medical professionals for doing their jobs to the best of their abilities in the face of enormous challenges. That's the kind of thing that the conspiracy theorist and anti-science Robert F. Kennedy Jr. does, and it's not helping the US in any way at all.

idiotsecant 6 hours ago|||
And yet, you're comfortable accusing the people trying to cure addicts of some diabolical plot to ensnare them into permeant addiction in order to make money off them forever. Maybe next time you'll think before you propagate nonsense.
20after4 12 hours ago|||
Not that I'm aware of, it seemed rather arbitrary. The people who had been going to that clinic for a while all had massive doses, almost to a ridiculous degree. My perception was that it was to keep them hopelessly addicted. I was only peripherally involved as it was my friend who was the patient. He was very fortunate to have family with influence in the Mormon church - his family had the church send some local missionaries to help him - and they genuinely did help him escape that terrible situation.
lazarus01 14 hours ago||||
Agreed.

Methadone is effective because it comes with lower respiratory fatigue.

If you have a nasty addiction, methadone is the gold standard for treatment. It's really all that's available to ween people down.

There are other medications for maintenance like buprenorphine and naltrexone. But you can't take those if you're in the throws of heavy addiction, you can die.

herbst 6 hours ago||||
In Switzerland there is state grown heroin because it should be even less quality of life inferencing than most other alternatives. They do this for a long while now and it works, most people have jobs and you couldn't tell they get daily heroin in the best quality you could imagine (for free)
scotty79 1 hour ago||||
> no one cares of treating caffeine addiction

If people were aware in how many ways caffeine messes up a lot of people there would be. Exhaustion, migranes, anxieties, twitching, insomnia, mental issues to name a few. Most never attributed to caffeine but mysteriously going away after a person manges to kick the habit.

vixen99 5 hours ago|||
And no one bothers much about these either: 'A Neglected Link Between the Psychoactive Effects of Dietary Ingredients and Consciousness-Altering Drugs.' https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10....
AndrewKemendo 14 hours ago||
Even still today there is no reliable place to source black tar or China White or any of the traditional opium derivatives without having a fentanyl cut.
t-3 14 hours ago||
Isn't this more because the supply of poppy was cut off when the US pulled out of Afghanistan? Users want the good stuff, dealers buy the cheap and available stuff and pretend it's real.
metalman 6 hours ago||
poppy/opium/heroin production has shifted to myanmar, but there has been less production, and the synthetics are much cheaper ,so that reduces profitability for poppy Afganistan, have set up addiction centers, where addicts are put, but it's cold turkey. Opium poppy production is bieng eradicated in Afganistan ,and penaltiys for drug smugglers and dealers will escalate, but a quick search shows the increadable synicism of the western press who are spinning it as "hardship for Afganinstans farmers"
lukan 6 hours ago||
"hardship for Afganinstans farmers"

Isn't it hardship when people with guns come to you and burn your fields?

HPsquared 3 hours ago|||
I wonder how this compares to the common western situation of livestock culls. Presumably there is compensation in some cases and not in others (poppy cultivation being illegal). I suppose it's at opposite ends of a scale.
metalman 5 hours ago|||
ok, lets talk about Palestine ,if thats what you want.
greygoo222 14 hours ago||
The claim that fentanyl death rates are decreasing because fentanyl products are less pure does not make much sense. Even on their provided charts, deaths dropped months before purity did.

The article points to a 50% decrease in purity, which a habitual user would compensate for by taking twice as much. Lower average purity also increases the risk of inconsistent purity, where rare batches are unexpectedly strong and carry high accidental overdose risk. Less pure fentanyl floating around might mean lower chances of unsuspecting non-fentanyl drug users being poisoned with it, but it's hard to see how this could cut into overall overdose cases.

topspin 3 hours ago||
It makes a great deal of sense.

> deaths dropped months before purity did

That's a plausible lag: credible purity figures are not sourced from Mexican drug cartels. They come from laboratories at the end of a long chain of custody complicated by legal machinations, dealing with contraband having no provenance beyond its date of seizure. That it takes only "months" to wend its way though the byzantine and corrupt legal system, and the bankers hours academic process of laboratory professionals, is actually admirable.

> which a habitual user would compensate for by taking twice as much

Habitual users are operating in a market, seeking value. They cannot afford to simply double their spend, and I'll give you one guess as to how quickly purity drops are reflected by price drops in the narcotics business, because that's all a person of sound mind should need.

No, when the purity dropped, users paid the same and got less, and died less. Believe me, I understand why this finding is unwelcome: it serves to put arrows in the "drug war" quiver, and that is anathema, in my mind as well. But knee-jerk thinking, ultimately, isn't helpful. Further, I have complete faith that the ability of drug dealers and drug users of America to produce disturbing body counts will not be diminished for long.

sheepscreek 13 hours ago||
> article points to a 50% decrease in purity, which a habitual user would compensate for by taking twice as much

I’ll be first to admit I’m generally pretty ignorant on this topic but I’ve heard a plausible explanation for how Fentanyl is actually used.

A medical professional shared with me that Fentanyl is too potent to be consumed as is. So generally, dealers use it as an additive. They lace other drugs with trace amounts of to make them more addictive. It’s the MSG of drugs.

So while ODing on say, drug A is possibly with 5 uses at once. When laced with Fentanyl, a person might OD in just 3 uses (because Fentanyl is much more potent than the actual drug the user bought).

Hence, less Fentanyl = less chance of ODing.

fc417fc802 7 hours ago|||
> I’ve heard a plausible explanation

To be blunt it was total bullshit. Pharmaceuticals have an extremely wide range of dosages. Fentanyl is on the extreme low end, benadryl an adult might take 25 mg or 50 mg, tylenol an adult might take 500 mg, and something like amoxicillin an adult might take as much as 3000 mg for a severe infection. There are standard, extremely reliable ways to prepare pills that contain the correct dosage regardless of the potency of the pure chemical.

Obviously fentanyl (or its precursor) is imported (ie smuggled) in highly pure form in order to minimize the size of the shipment. Obviously it can't be consumed in that form.

The combination of being potent and cheap to smuggle lends itself nicely to cutting other (more expensive) products with it. That's false advertising but it won't typically kill you in and of itself.

When laymen who don't know what they're doing, don't have access to proper facilities, and certainly can't set up proper quality controls process something that potent it's no wonder that things go wrong and people die. If (for example) the same victims had purchased fentanyl from a pharmacy (as opposed to whatever it was they thought they were consuming) they almost certainly would not have had any issues. Almost no one ODs intentionally.

The point is that it's not "fentanyl is toxic so you OD" it's "the person compounding the pill messed up the dosage, you took more than you thought, so you OD". This could happen just as easily with any other drug. The danger here is due to pills not containing the dosage that the consumer believes them to.

jmalicki 6 hours ago||
Other drugs aren't dosed in micrograms. It's pretty believable that street labs don't having the precision to get reliable dosing in such small quantities. 50/100mcg is the typical ambulance dosing of fentanyl (where it's often used as the primary painkiller) - so at 500 times smaller than that of benadryl, it would take a reasonably high-end lab (at least by mid-level drug dealer standards) to not wildly mess up the dosing all the time - even if you mixed at larger scales, that still doesn't easily guarantee a uniform blend.

It couldn't happen "just as easily" with any other drug.

herbst 6 hours ago|||
LSD is an even smaller dose and I never heard of extremely strong LSD on the streets. Dealers manage to do their work properly.
zipy124 2 hours ago||
LSD is dropped onto paper in solution though. So to control dose is easy since you can easy halve a dose by doubling the volume of solution. Dosing a powder/crystal is much more difficult, especially if you need to get it back out of solution.
sva_ 1 hour ago||
LSD is a powder/crystal (a salt). People just don't consume opioids orally, usually. There's something similar though: skin patches, since (other than LSD) fentanyl can be absorbed through the skin.
cap11235 1 hour ago||
Blotters.
fc417fc802 6 hours ago|||
That's "pretty believable" but it's also complete bullshit. Why do you feel it necessary to comment in an authoritative manner when you don't know what you're talking about? It's literally spreading misinformation.

The relevant technique is called "serial dilution" and it's regularly practiced in intro level chemistry and molecular biology classes. An otherwise untrained undergrad, using only a pipette and a volumetric flask, can consistently and reliably dilute samples to nanogram per liter levels. The error accumulates as some (exceedingly small) percentage of the target value per dilution step so even after 10 or more steps the error will remain well within manageable range.

The issue is not fentanyl having a power level over 9000 or whatever other nonsense. It's people who don't know what they're doing, don't have access to a proper setup, and have no realistic way to implement a proper quality control regime manufacturing pharmaceuticals.

Fentanyl didn't kill all these people. Objectively poor public policy indirectly led to the deaths of those who violated the law just as it did during prohibition.

sneak 8 hours ago|||
Fentanyl isn't too potent to be consumed as-is, but the dosage is very very small. The amount of fentanyl that will kill you is literally invisible. The LD50 appears to be well under 0.01mg/kg (that is, a milligram will kill a 220lb person).
Tiktaalik 13 hours ago||
British Columbia declared the toxic drug crisis an epidemic in 2016, with the amount of deaths amounting to 6-7 a day through this period until now.

The article's theory is compelling but given the incredible amount of deaths, thousands upon thousands of deaths in BC alone, I wonder if the rate of death is declining simply because we're running out of people to kill with our indifference.

hattmall 10 hours ago||
Killing addicts more quickly than creating new ones would indeed eventually lead to a decrease in drug related deaths. I would really believe this because I know of multiple people that died from ODs in a fairly short window 4-5 years and that spans a range of about 12 years of people. As in to say everyone I know age 24-36 about half of those people that were opiate users died from about 2019-2023 due to fent. All of them that I know the details of were from fake pills too, so very much related to fentanyl.
gleenn 8 hours ago||
Long term you couldn't kill more than existed, asymptotically the maximum number of ODs per unit time would be exactly equal to the number created, impossible to be more.
fc417fc802 7 hours ago|||
> running out of people to kill with our indifference.

I wouldn't call it indifference. It's the drug policies that we've very intentionally adopted in the west that result in people purchasing from the black market. It's about as indifferent as the deaths due to denatured alcohol poisoning during prohibition when the additive was silently switched.

whimsicalism 7 minutes ago|||
What policies? Not legalizing heroin or other opioids?

I am not convinced we can claim what you think with any level of confidence.

mmooss 39 minutes ago|||
We know these policies result in mass deaths; we know other policies result in many fewer deaths; we choose the former policies.

I think that is partly because enough people consider those addicted to drugs to be subhuman - enough don't care much what happens to the addicted people. IMHO in that's because we a large political movement encourages indifference to those different from us, whether the difference is race, politics, gender/sexuality, nationality, or anything else.

paganel 4 hours ago||
The article does allude to that as possibility towards the end, even though it's not included in the paper on which its primary focus is.
jimnotgym 5 hours ago||
Could this effect actually be more of a customer service effect?

Drug dealers were lacing things with fentanyl to make them more addictive. They were putting too much in and killing people by accident. This was bad for business in 3 ways

1) they could have saved money by using less fentanyl

2) they were killing their customers, as well as reducing the customer base this has a reputational risk.

3) They were attracting too much public interest in their activities

Therefore they found that they make more money by putting less in.

Not a drug expert, don't live in US, never took fentanyl. I just picked these 'facts' out of the comments. Before anyone says, 'you don't know what to you are talking about' in the sweet way that has crept into hn, I really don't, and don't claim to.

christina97 5 hours ago|
The problem with fentanyl is not that people are putting in too much. It’s that it’s extremely potent so it’s too easy to accidentally put too much in.
hobom 3 hours ago||
So the problem IS that people are putting in too much (even if accidentally) ?
awakeasleep 13 hours ago||
What happened to the theory that the deaths were decreasing because we burned through our buffer of people susceptible to deaths of despair? That always seemed reasonable to me.
GrowingSideways 1 hour ago||
Surely as time goes on and wealth inequality increases, the number of people "susceptible" to deaths of despair will only increase.

But this attitude smells an awful lot like the stupid person's eugenics. Let's not cater to it.

whimsicalism 7 minutes ago|||
I feel like actual material wealth matters much more than relative wealth or inequality for this metric.
xvector 20 minutes ago|||
Wealth inequality doesn't cause this kind of despair. We have the greatest wealth inequality in history, but also the objectively best quality of life in history by most metrics (extreme poverty, hunger, starvation, death from disease, infant mortality...)

It does not matter to me if Elon Musk makes another billion dollars if I am making more as well. That does not cause "despair" to a well adjusted person.

Extreme poverty on the other hand (which has been decreasing) does cause these deaths. When people have nowhere left to go and no hope, they to turn to drugs.

Mental illness is another cause. I wonder if we should have gotten rid of asylums.

quixoticelixer- 9 hours ago||
well if you read to the end of the article you might find out.
bdauvergne 6 hours ago||
Maybe they completely reversed the causality, it's a demand shock not a supply shock. There are less users because they died, and they died pretty fast compared to previous opioid users. As demand diminished there was over supply and to maintain their margins provider had to lower the supply. QED.

As it's a pretty simple hypothesis to test and that it was not maybe imply that the conclusion is politically motivated. Supply-shock imply that something was done and it worked, but that the problem solved itself is not as palatable for someone politically motivated like an administration.

dopa42365 15 hours ago||
If the cost didn't go up, it can't have been a supply shortage. Even at its US peak, there wasn't much of a "fentanyl epidemic" in Mexico either.

The overprescription of opioids in the US (especially in the past) is hardly a secret.

conformist 15 hours ago|
“Even as quality worsens, prices in drug markets are sticky, so the decreasing potency probably meant people were taking less fentanyl.”
phtrivier 4 hours ago||
How good is overdose _deaths_ as an indicator of the epidemic of drug consumption ?

My point being : killing your customer en masse is bad business practice in the long run. (Or even in the medium run.)

So, the drug dealer's best interest is to reduce the potency of the drug, therefore limiting the overdoses but keeping the customers alive, and willing to get the next dose.

If it happens when the prices are high, and you're able to cut your product and see it with a higher margin, it's even more value for the sharehol... Sorry, wrong analogy.

Anyway, is the number of people _using_ fentanyl also going down ? Where are the quarterly sales number published ? What's the trend ? When is the IPO ?

asah 2 hours ago|
Drug trade participants don't consider the long run.
jimnotgym 6 hours ago|
This suggests to me that the government could reduce this even further by simply outcompeting with illegal sources.

One problem mentioned was that other drugs were being laced with fentanyl. Simply supply a licensed, guaranteed clean version through a legal source at a lower price?

Then people who want actual fentanyl, supply that in the same way too.

whimsicalism 5 minutes ago|
And how do you know this wouldn’t result in significantly expanding the number/frequency of drug consumers?
More comments...