If you examine fashion magazines you will find that "heroin chic" is still present in advertisements from designers like Calvin Klein and YSL (check out the model for the latest ad for Opium perfume - she looks pretty strung out, but in a very glamorous way, not an icky-skid row abscess-in-your-arm sort of way).
In addition to being a health problem, crime problem, etc etc, it is also a culturally driven phenomenon with encouragement coming not too subtly from the advertising industry. Where there is demand there will always be supply, and making drug use, and heroin in particular, look glamorous is unfathomable to me.
In addition to being a health problem, crime problem, etc etc, it is also a culturally driven phenomenon with encouragement coming not too subtly from the advertising industry. Where there is demand there will always be supply, and making drug use, and heroin in particular, look glamorous is unfathomable to me.
12
"New users are mostly white."
And that is the ONLY reason this is a news item. Period.
And that is the ONLY reason this is a news item. Period.
15
It's nice to get your report about heroin and the social details
It would be less nice, perhaps, but useful to get an in depth article about WHO GETS THE MONEY! I don't mean about the little guys on the street, but the big guys in easy chairs in offices wearing suits.
The world-famous NYT might also tell us why our national best friends and our Presidents' (note the plural plus the upcoming candidate's) best friends all happen to be producers of heroin - from Myanmar (20%) to Afghanistan (70+%) to the small quantities produced in Central and South America.
It would be less nice, perhaps, but useful to get an in depth article about WHO GETS THE MONEY! I don't mean about the little guys on the street, but the big guys in easy chairs in offices wearing suits.
The world-famous NYT might also tell us why our national best friends and our Presidents' (note the plural plus the upcoming candidate's) best friends all happen to be producers of heroin - from Myanmar (20%) to Afghanistan (70+%) to the small quantities produced in Central and South America.
7
The history of heroin and methadone is fascinating, mainly because it involves big corporations and their influence on society and culture. Heroin and methadone, the most common treatment for heroin addition, were both originated by Germany's chemical industry. Bayer synthesized heroin and marketed it as a cough suppressant in the 19th century. Later, during the Nazi era, methadone was synthesized by the I.G. Farben chemical cartel, of which Bayer was a member, and marketed as the treatment for heroin addiction, promoted with the claim that methadone was a safe substitute for heroin. I.G. Farben, some of whose member companies are still around today, was the single largest source of funding for the Nazi party's campaign which put Hitler in power, and it was the biggest profiteer from the war.
8
Legalization, control and education/treatment are the only answers to drug use. Wm F. Buckley, Jr. preached such decades ago, and it's still the only solution. From a principled standpoint, this approach satisfies both the liberal and libertarian mindsets.
10
Unless and until the drug laws are changed these white heroin users should be imprisoned without mercy. Whites are mostly getting a criminal prosecution pass anyway. Either they are not arrested or charges are dropped or they are sent to health and medical rehabilitation or lesser charges or lower sentences. African Americans are criminally persecuted.
9
The only thing missing from this well written article are just a few hidden elements of the "truth." Let us never forget what is inscribed in the Washington Headquarters of the CIA: "The truth will set us free." The truth is we have the capabilities to eradicate the poppy fields in Afghanistan, but are troops are told not to touch them. The truth is illegal drug sales in the United States is a huge business, billions and billions of dollars. The truth is our CIA has had their hands in this dirty business and controlling the flow of drugs into our country long before this current horrible epidemic that is killing so many people in our country today. Until we hold the drug profiteers at the top accountable, or even acknowledge this fact, the problem will only get worse, and the elite will profit even more. That's the truth!
11
Jeffrey, you've been living down there on that tropical isle too long. Do you realize who would have to go to jail if we did that? What administration figures, past & present? Who'd be left to run the country? To run the Mafia?
I thought they had Arbeit Macht Frei over their door.
I thought they had Arbeit Macht Frei over their door.
3
Talk about moral panic. Why no mention that prescription opioid drugs (i.e. legal painkillers) kill TWICE as many as heroin every year? And that over half of the 44,000 drug overdoses referenced come from prescription drugs (opioids and mood stabilizers)? Read the entire CDC report.
http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html
Not that heroin and street narcotics aren't a problem (8,000 overdoses is 8,000 too many). But we're legally killing double those numbers every year, all under the guise of "Big Medicine." The fact that most people who get hooked on heroin start with legal opioids first should not be lost on us.
Frankly, I'm more afraid of the M.D. in a white lab coat pushing Big Pharma junk, than I am a street thug dealing heroin.
http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html
Not that heroin and street narcotics aren't a problem (8,000 overdoses is 8,000 too many). But we're legally killing double those numbers every year, all under the guise of "Big Medicine." The fact that most people who get hooked on heroin start with legal opioids first should not be lost on us.
Frankly, I'm more afraid of the M.D. in a white lab coat pushing Big Pharma junk, than I am a street thug dealing heroin.
9
A number of reader seem to think that heroin use can be significantly reduced by destroying opium production in Mexico, now, apparently, the leading source of supply for users in the U.S. This is a fantasy. Time and again, as one source of supply has been destroyed, the locus has simply shifted to new real estate. Laos, Thailand, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, etc. As long as heroin remains illegal and expensive, some one will grow, transport and sell it. Supply is like a loosely inflated balloon -- squeeze it somewhere, and it pops up elsewhere. Can't we learn anything? DECRIMINALIZE IT. Yes, decriminalization will have costs, but it's hard to believe they can be as high as what the war on drugs has thrown down a rat hole over the last forty years.
22
Heroin is back. But today's crisis is markedly different from the devastation of past years... Naw, a junkie is a junkie.
8
The mistake in this article is in implying that now that white people are using heroin that the problem will be treated as a health issue with compassionate medical and social treatment. This is incorrect. Black heroin users will still be treated as dangerous thugs that need to be incarcerated.
9
"Treatment" seems such a more sensitive and caring alternative to criminalization. BUT, TREATMENT for heroin addiction largely doesn't work! Recidivism rates are sky high. No other government program-in an era when society seems only to demand MORE government-could survive the easily assembled indices of failure-60/70 percent back on heroin after treatment. So when you hear pols call for "liberalization" of drug control laws-legalization etc. Remember that the effects of their liberalization will not be on them in their communities, but rather on you in yours. BLACKS and poor Hispanics are the largest number of victims of drug related crime.
1
Perhaps a better way to go about this losing effort would be to legalize heroin, regulate the purity as is done with America's favorite drug, alcohol (by regulating the strength and purity heroin deaths would decrease dramatically), sell it OTC as is done with alcohol, tax it as is done with alcohol and use the revenues for prevention, education and treatment. Or just keep wringing our hands about the devastating effects of the War on Drugs™.
12
If I were devoted to cynicism I'd suggest we hard-incarcerate 40 years of white people, to balance what we've done to Black communities .... On second thought, that would be a devotion to blind justice, not cynicism.
3
I absolutely agree with the idea that drug usage should not be criminalized but I am equally certain that you need a good stick to hold over the head of users to get them to change behavior. What will that stick be if it is no longer to be a stretch in the pokey to get cleaned up? I have no idea what the solution is but I am not sure it is purely a medical problem either. Civil commitment to an institution is not really the answer either - if the commitment is a "stick" to encourage cleaning up, then it must also be punitive to be a good "stick". If it is punitive, it is essentially no different than locking someone up.
It is high time possession & use were decriminalized. It is inhuman to imprison a person for having a disease. Look more closely at the doctors who recklessly prescribe Vicodin for everything from a sore tooth to chronic nerve pain. The huge rise in such prescriptions directly parallels the rise of opiate overdose deaths.
1
When you look back at the arguments over the "opium question" back in 1914, you hear a great deal of "no" from those who were religiously or financially motivated to stamp it out - and also from the racists who needed to further vilify the Chinese. Our image of it in the west was formed through the lens of the missionaries and shock journalists, showing us the poorest of users, in the worst conditions. Imagine a foreign power evaluating alcohol use in our country by going straight to skid row - and nowhere else - to gather their data.
Actual scholarly examination of opium use throughout Asia at the time shows that the addiction rate was really not much different than what we're seeing today.
Smoking opium is certainly addictive, but it is very difficult to overdose, and the tolerance builds slower and hits a plateau in regular users. Aside from the addiction, it is relatively benign, as intoxicants go. Outlawing it gave rise to the more easily-smuggled heroin, which is much more dangerous to use, has considerably more damage potential for a user's health, and has a boundless curve of tolerance growth. Being illegal only compounds these problems.
There will always be opium users, and raw opium is cheap - it's a hardy flower that grows almost anywhere. Legalize it, regulate it so that it's pure, and let the opium-seekers be, the old way, without the specters of overdose, jail, financial ruin, and social stigma driving them further away from life.
Actual scholarly examination of opium use throughout Asia at the time shows that the addiction rate was really not much different than what we're seeing today.
Smoking opium is certainly addictive, but it is very difficult to overdose, and the tolerance builds slower and hits a plateau in regular users. Aside from the addiction, it is relatively benign, as intoxicants go. Outlawing it gave rise to the more easily-smuggled heroin, which is much more dangerous to use, has considerably more damage potential for a user's health, and has a boundless curve of tolerance growth. Being illegal only compounds these problems.
There will always be opium users, and raw opium is cheap - it's a hardy flower that grows almost anywhere. Legalize it, regulate it so that it's pure, and let the opium-seekers be, the old way, without the specters of overdose, jail, financial ruin, and social stigma driving them further away from life.
6
Sadly, the trend is to make recreational drugs okay, just look at the pot movement. So, why not any drug, heroin is just the drug of today, driven from a supply/demand model. Think about it, all these people who are taken these recreational drugs are just trying to create their own 'safe zones'. What could be wrong with that? College people do it with banning free speech. Others do it with drugs. If you read this article carefully, it is telling you the issue is medical, namely the overdose. What is implied is that taking the drug is okay, we just need to find a way to stop overdose and make it affordable. The issue is how we can make drugs 'safe', not whether we will stop people from taking them. Once we make these drugs, 'over the counter' available we will solve the crime problem. Insane.
For those of us who work in Federal law enforcement directly involved in the interdiction of drug dealers and their contraband, none of this story is a surprise. One need only look to the Latino drug gangs here in the Chicago area, whose heroin comes straight from the Mexican drug cartels. Sorry if anyone's offended by naming ethnic names, that's where the problem has its origin. As long as we lack the political will to deal head-on and with harshness, if necessary, in the face of our young people being killed by this evil opioid powder, I'll be working the money-laundering and counter-proliferation [of weapons] cases associated with huge hauls of this stuff.
3
Individuals who use a drug to medicate are looking for relief from mental pain. Marijuana is not included in this discussion, as it is not physically addictive. Alcohol should be included in this discussion, and insulin should be too. We as a country push alcohol and prescription drugs upon the population as if it were a normal part of human behavior to become addicted to a substance rather than addressing and treating the symptoms that draw individuals to places that they would not otherwise normally go. dangerous places.
Tipper Gore certainly was correct when she spoke to mental health, and the need to openly discuss the need to treat mental health. Instead, we promote chemical addiction, and punish those who have suffered generally childhood trauma. The arrest of dentist Moore should give law enforcement a pretty good idea of what aftermath will manifest from the victims of this individual and those who hurt the children. These children will, without enormous comprehensive support, will become addicted to drugs, alcohol and or food. Preventative care is what will end addiction, coupled with strong laws against drugs and alcohol to be pushed on society.
Tipper Gore certainly was correct when she spoke to mental health, and the need to openly discuss the need to treat mental health. Instead, we promote chemical addiction, and punish those who have suffered generally childhood trauma. The arrest of dentist Moore should give law enforcement a pretty good idea of what aftermath will manifest from the victims of this individual and those who hurt the children. These children will, without enormous comprehensive support, will become addicted to drugs, alcohol and or food. Preventative care is what will end addiction, coupled with strong laws against drugs and alcohol to be pushed on society.
1
What I would like to know is, where do the pharmaceutical companies get all their poppies from?
To supply the amount of opium required for the US pharma 'opiod' need, they must be supporting poppy growers around the world. Afghanistan? Mexico? Where do they get their opium from?
To supply the amount of opium required for the US pharma 'opiod' need, they must be supporting poppy growers around the world. Afghanistan? Mexico? Where do they get their opium from?
10
I recommend the book, "Chasing the Scream' about the creation of the drug war. Unless heroin, and other drugs, can be freely obtained from clinics, the scourge will be with us, always. Portugal, Switzerland made it a medical, not a legal, problem. Down went crime, drug use, overdoses, HIV.... great book
10
The War on Drugs in the state of New York is in the process of claiming one more victim. The paranoia over drugs has made it impossible for the minimal pain medication I receive to keep up with my increasingly painful condition, and I expect that fairly soon I‘ll die from the consequences of a lack of sleep or a mistake resulting from exhaustion. In any case, my quality of life, which would be decent if I were adequately medicated, is almost nonexistent and getting worse.
A February article in the Washington Post described veterans being limited or denied necessary pain medication from the VA because of the current hysteria over prescription opioids. Some veterans appear to already have died as a result. To deny the people who served proper relief because of politics is beyond shameful. The cost of limiting abuse must not be the lives of those who truly suffer.
A February article in the Washington Post described veterans being limited or denied necessary pain medication from the VA because of the current hysteria over prescription opioids. Some veterans appear to already have died as a result. To deny the people who served proper relief because of politics is beyond shameful. The cost of limiting abuse must not be the lives of those who truly suffer.
9
The emphasis on treating heroin addiction is not new.
In NY state, Nelson Rockefeller instituted drug treatment programs focused on methadone. The number being treated rose from 200 in 1960 to 30,000 in 1970. The focus on treatment became even greater as IV drug use fueled the rise in HIV.
The purity of heroin went from 10% in 1983 to more than 60% in 1993. That meant it could be snorted. People who would not have injected heroin could now smoke or snort it, meaning more people tried it and got addicted.
Many of those were the 14 million people addicted to oxycodone and similar drugs, who used heroin as a cheaper alternative.
And Mexican dealers flooded NY and other cities with black tar heroin, which first became available in 2010. They aimed specifically at those addicted to oxycodone and similar drugs.
A heroin drug bust in 2014 was the largest amount confiscated in NYC in 23 years. The push to get people addicted to heroin was driven by the collapsing price of marijuana, due to its legalization. When marijuana became unprofitable, growers switched to heroin poppies.
New methods of distribution specifically targeted white suburban populations.
In NY state, Nelson Rockefeller instituted drug treatment programs focused on methadone. The number being treated rose from 200 in 1960 to 30,000 in 1970. The focus on treatment became even greater as IV drug use fueled the rise in HIV.
The purity of heroin went from 10% in 1983 to more than 60% in 1993. That meant it could be snorted. People who would not have injected heroin could now smoke or snort it, meaning more people tried it and got addicted.
Many of those were the 14 million people addicted to oxycodone and similar drugs, who used heroin as a cheaper alternative.
And Mexican dealers flooded NY and other cities with black tar heroin, which first became available in 2010. They aimed specifically at those addicted to oxycodone and similar drugs.
A heroin drug bust in 2014 was the largest amount confiscated in NYC in 23 years. The push to get people addicted to heroin was driven by the collapsing price of marijuana, due to its legalization. When marijuana became unprofitable, growers switched to heroin poppies.
New methods of distribution specifically targeted white suburban populations.
6
What led to the "War on Drugs" was that Nelson Rockefeller tasked the Ford Foundation to come up with an issue for him to take on in the name of ''law and order'' in order to outflank Nixon and Goldwater on the right. That is where the "War on Drugs" got cooked up. Then Nixon simply appropriated it and hired Jack Kemp and a few of his NFL pals to 'team up' and the "DEA" was born. There were a couple of embarrassing asides there involving cocaine as I recall. But, that was just the mid-century variation on what was a travesty of politics that touched every aspect of American life in a generally destructive way, from the Red Channels of the McCarthy Era to flooding Harlem with cheap heroin during Vietnam. There were white users from affluent suburban and prep school backgrounds then as well, but they went to Silver Hills, or similar destinations. History is very good at forgetting and editing away bad things that happen to white people.
14
The drug war started in the early 30s with Harry Anslinger. Look it up. He used racism to scare the pee out of people.
3
Yes, Anslinger was put onto the war against marijuana when Prohibition fizzled, but before that there was the Harrison Act. Anslinger was backed by Hearst who was heavily invested in wood pulp source (v. hemp) for newsprint manufacture. In terms of scale, distortion of national purpose, and international impact- the Nixon saga was in a league of its own, however.
2
The Mexican cartels produce a product that is safer, purer and cheaper (heroin) than that produced by US pharmaceutical companies. It's the market at work.
8
Is the title of this article meant to be sarcastic? EVERY drug has not only survived the drug war, but has come out on top, victorious, and more thriving than the day the war was begun. But a lot of people made a lot of money, didn't they?
16
A lot more money was lost. Society wide drug abuse is net-negative economically.
1
All this because William Randolf Hearst was trying to get an edge on the hemp paper industry that caused him to pile support onto psychotic opportunist Harry Anslinger as Prohibition was on the wane and Republicans needed more devils to chase - preferably with a race factor introduced. So now we have all the major paper mills controlled by Koch Industries, and the talk is of 'medical marijuana' as opposed to general legalization. And since poor rural white people are the new opinoid population it's time to treat it medically as opposed to through incarceration and demonizing the victim. That's about it, right?
20
Every five or so years, there is another 'Heroin is back' headline in the Times.
News: It has never gone away, percentage of addicts has held steady for 100 years, and the only rational way to deal with this is to minimize harm to the addict and society.
But that will never happen, because so many people do not want to 'minimize harm' to the addict. They want miserable people to be punished for their misery, preferably in prison.
That this is like an abusive parent hitting a child, while telling them 'I'll give you something to cry about' seems not to occur to anyone.
News: It has never gone away, percentage of addicts has held steady for 100 years, and the only rational way to deal with this is to minimize harm to the addict and society.
But that will never happen, because so many people do not want to 'minimize harm' to the addict. They want miserable people to be punished for their misery, preferably in prison.
That this is like an abusive parent hitting a child, while telling them 'I'll give you something to cry about' seems not to occur to anyone.
22
Why not legalize all drugs, and allow people to lose their jobs and kill themselves if they so wish? Freedom brother.
7
Yes, why not?
Many people will not die, because they will ask for get help without the fear of being jailed for being miserable, but we cannot have that, as we must punish them, right?
Many people will not die, because they will ask for get help without the fear of being jailed for being miserable, but we cannot have that, as we must punish them, right?
6
Well, if we knew with certainty they were only going to kill themselves, we could kick back. But they will probably be killing their friends, families, relatives and neighbors - and that's not about freedom.
5
Apparently, Mr. Schmoe, you are unable to grasp the fact that people lose their jobs and kill themselves because the use of narcotics, unlike the use of alcohol and the use of nicotine, is a criminal act. Decriminalize the use of narcotics and the addict goes to rehab. That will cure an unknown number of addicts. The number is unknown because this approach has never been tried.
Keep things the way that they are and the addict goes to prison. That cures no number of addicts. The purpose of prison is to punish addicts, not to cure them. Punishment has not worked, does not work, and, based on decades of experience, will never work.
Does it really seem to you that continuing to fail - at the taxpayers' expense - is the only right thing to do, Mr. Schmoe?
Keep things the way that they are and the addict goes to prison. That cures no number of addicts. The purpose of prison is to punish addicts, not to cure them. Punishment has not worked, does not work, and, based on decades of experience, will never work.
Does it really seem to you that continuing to fail - at the taxpayers' expense - is the only right thing to do, Mr. Schmoe?
8
Welcome to the Southern Strategy -- make felons of as many black people as possible so they can't vote.
23
And then when whites are on drugs, decriminalize them; call them a public health crisis
15
Not every single thing, including addiction, is about discrimination and stigmatization against African Americans. We've become enlightens over many mistakes which transcend race. For example, homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness. Perhaps the fact that present thoughts and data and information has merely evolved like so many social constructs. Forty years ago nobody accepted profanity as acceptable speech but now such language is part of the vernacular. Having a baby out of wedlock is no longer stigmatizing. And so on, and on, etc. not every issue should be co-opted as another opportunity to claim racism as the cause.
4
Most Americans fail to understand that the criminal justice system does not regularly punish drug users. Most drug users who are arrested are referred to drug court, where they are given drug tests and an opportunity to get clean before doing any time. Often they are allowed to go through this program multiple times. Usually, when drug users end up in prison for longer periods of time, it is because the scourge of addiction has driven them to theft, DWI, or crimes of violence.
The truth is, almost everyone in prison for a drug offense was arrested for drug dealing. Yet the media and many Americans seek reduced prisons sentences and an end to the "War on Drugs". Since addicts rarely do any time, I suppose this means we will now reduce the significant penalties that dealers face when they are caught. Why? What moral claim does a drug dealer have to a reduced sentence? He is the one who made a choice to sell poison to sick people, knowing he would kill them by doing so. He's not sick; he needs no rehabilitation. Rather it is us who need protection from him.
The truth is, almost everyone in prison for a drug offense was arrested for drug dealing. Yet the media and many Americans seek reduced prisons sentences and an end to the "War on Drugs". Since addicts rarely do any time, I suppose this means we will now reduce the significant penalties that dealers face when they are caught. Why? What moral claim does a drug dealer have to a reduced sentence? He is the one who made a choice to sell poison to sick people, knowing he would kill them by doing so. He's not sick; he needs no rehabilitation. Rather it is us who need protection from him.
8
'...it is because the scourge of addiction has driven them to theft, DWI, or crimes of violence...'
No. It is because of the expense of addiction.
Legalize drugs and make them as cheap as alcohol and see the crime rate go down.
The addiction rate will stay the same, but when is the last time an alcoholic robbed someone for a bottle of booze?
No. It is because of the expense of addiction.
Legalize drugs and make them as cheap as alcohol and see the crime rate go down.
The addiction rate will stay the same, but when is the last time an alcoholic robbed someone for a bottle of booze?
12
If people could buy the drugs legally there would be no dealers. I would rather people buy direct from Bayer and get a clean product then have to get who-knows-what from some cartel and dealer. The 'war-on-drugs' is unwinnable. If people want to kill themselves let them. As long as they aren't committing crimes or receiving state benefits, who cares?
17
Or distributors of alcoholic beverages or cigarettes waged shooting wars among themselves over delivery routes, killing policemen and innocent by-standers in the process?
1
IF pot had been legal for the past 50 years think of the income these underground organizations would have lost. We need to get drugs out of the back room and into the light so we can approach the problems of addiction and the cause and effect pain related to it. Increase clinics, programs and decrease criminality. Nothing has changed since paraquat moved the nations youth from pot to coke and that road to personal destruction.
36
If pot had been legal for the past 50 years, think of the income that federal, state, and local governments would have gained.
8
@JoeB
People who use marijuana will continue to grow their own. Any claim of "higher tax revenue" is a farce, because these drug users are not the type of people who pay taxes.
People who use marijuana will continue to grow their own. Any claim of "higher tax revenue" is a farce, because these drug users are not the type of people who pay taxes.
Drug users are annoying. I'm sick and tired of how we romanticize drug use and the drama of getting clean. This is all the more irritating when wealthy people with access to education and opportunity use. I'm sure we're going to start hearing endless tales of woe from rich kids who just "couldn't quit". How about don't start? How about go volunteer someplace, learn how to play music, take a walk, do something else. Your drugs are irritating as hell and you're punishing people all over the world. Knock it off.
24
Preaching commenters are annoying too. So tell me, do you drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes? Do you realise that drinking is physically addictive? Even more so than heroin, actually. Users of heroin do not get hooked upon first use, and some people, if they have enough money, can be addicts their wholes lives (like with booze), and never have a problem functioning. imagine if they didnt have to worry about ending up in prison because they search for good feelings in this painful world, just like drinkers. We would have a much cleaner, and peaceful USA.... but you dont really want that, now do you?
3
Rich kids are not getting addicted out of boredom or privilege. You have no clue why rich kids start taking drugs. I've known many wealthy urban kids who fall into drugs in an alarmingly similar way that urban poor kids do. Neglect! Many fantastically wealthy parents are leaving their children alone: they grow up in no-patent households, too. Self-involved parents abandon their kids for markedly different reasons than do economically struggling parents. But rich kids are abandoned, too! They are left without caregivers. But they have a driver and car at their disposal and plenty of cash. These terribly lonely kids sit home alone, feeling utterly unloved despite their cushy digs: of course they drink and do drugs. No one is watching these kids either and because they're wealthy they fall through the cracks, too. Children are children and wealth does not inoculate any child from rudderless lives. Your comment is tantamount to saying there's no excuse for entrenched depression: just get off your backside and exercise! Lastly, poor kids may not have the luxury for private guitar lessons but all kids can volunteer or take a walk. Coming home to an empty house is an equal opportunity cause for a trip to drugs. Oh...often these "privileged kids" have their own soul-crushing burdens from unrealistic expectations from parents as well as from people who equate wealth as a panacea against all that ails the world.
2
A powerful article, and the accompanying video is an acute document of our past on this matter.
What are we to do? Why does the US, more than any other country, seek out these things, and fall prey to them?
The US is a strange country. Every country, has to live with similar facts of life when it comes to the idea of disease. But in the US, we are so very accustomed to thinking of notions such as a "cancer" not only literally, but figuratively, as social conditions we must live with. Plagues, scourges, cancers in society, are things we accept. Our normal. Is that rational?
I have no answers. But it does seem to me, the US is strange, and seems to almost willfully aid in the construction of sicknesses in us. These sicknesses are many; the war on drugs is one of its chapters. Self-destruction made more self-destructive at our hands.
We should not accept cancers. But we are so used, by decades of how we have lived, to think it normal. I wonder what it would take to turn us in a different direction?
What are we to do? Why does the US, more than any other country, seek out these things, and fall prey to them?
The US is a strange country. Every country, has to live with similar facts of life when it comes to the idea of disease. But in the US, we are so very accustomed to thinking of notions such as a "cancer" not only literally, but figuratively, as social conditions we must live with. Plagues, scourges, cancers in society, are things we accept. Our normal. Is that rational?
I have no answers. But it does seem to me, the US is strange, and seems to almost willfully aid in the construction of sicknesses in us. These sicknesses are many; the war on drugs is one of its chapters. Self-destruction made more self-destructive at our hands.
We should not accept cancers. But we are so used, by decades of how we have lived, to think it normal. I wonder what it would take to turn us in a different direction?
2
It sickening to fully realize how Nixon's 'war' incarcerated such numbers of primarily young black men, ruining lives, families. Nixon was such a bigot personally, cf his tapes calling blacks and Jews horrid names, but even in the East India war where he despised the Indians (Kissinger as well).
What's worse is there have always been so many just like him, then and now.
That's a bigger scourge than heroin in that racism affects every person of color in the US.
Now whites using heroin, we ask why. It's said that speed freaks want to feel supergood, heroin users don't want to feel at all. That's profoundly sad, whatever color the user is, and an indictment of our society--the kind of capitalism that values profit over humans every time, reliably producing despair.
What's worse is there have always been so many just like him, then and now.
That's a bigger scourge than heroin in that racism affects every person of color in the US.
Now whites using heroin, we ask why. It's said that speed freaks want to feel supergood, heroin users don't want to feel at all. That's profoundly sad, whatever color the user is, and an indictment of our society--the kind of capitalism that values profit over humans every time, reliably producing despair.
9
We pay massive amounts of money to Afghani warlords to get their cooperation who grow poppies and we ignore their business .
11
Aren't people engaging in any abusive behavior seeking comfort in that behavior? If so and if we don't address the underlying pain, then any course we take will likely only shift them between "abusive comfort" alternatives otherwise available.
5
Our government has to get on the drug companies and medical community for prescribing (and over-prescribing) opioids for pain relief. Their use hasto be curtailed. Obviously, it is too dangerous for too many people.
8
Will you curtail their use for everyone? Or merely for the small percentage of the population for whom the use of opiods has been shown to be too dangerous, e.g. for the people who are now being sent to prison, if and when they are found out? The use of alcohol and nicotine is also obviously too dangerous for too many people. Will you get on the brewers, wine-makers, distillers, tobacco farmers, and tobacco companies, too?
3
Not really. I have used Vicodin when needed and never wanted to keep taking it. Some people fall prey to the attraction of narcotics, but for many others, these drugs serve the purpose for which they are designed. It really makes no sense to make pain relief inaccessible for those who really need it. A rational decriminalization, with treatment available for those who experience problems is ultimately the only solution to these problems. After all these years, it is evident that the path this country chose years ago is an unending disaster. How can anyone not see this in 2015?
3
It has become a much more difficult enterprise to get pharmacies to fill legitimate prescriptions than it is to obtain heroin. The nightmare of legal, legitimate routes for obtaining legally and necesary prescribed medication has created a market for heroin as an "escape route " when pharmacies (at the behest of governmental controls) start torturing those who need but cannot get medication. And chiropractors and fresh air and Advil and meditation and so on are not going to relieve pain severe enough to require narcotics.
3
The Moynihan quote is a classic. But never discount the power of some moralizing demagogue to convince people to lock'm up for a joint or two.
6
This is hardly news. Did the Times just catch on to white suburban and rural people on dope?
4
"This is hardly news"to marieka, apparently. That isn't necessarily true of every reader of The Times, especially when you take into consideration that this essay is not a news article.
2
So perhaps we should plan for another type of society: the Users and those who support them. How are taxpayers going to bear the heavy financial burden of drug users' revolving door detox, hospitalization, joblessness, ill-kempt children and the rest of the collateral damage from drugs? There may come a day when smokers, drug users, gun owners and junk food addicts are made to pay a premium on their health insurance, just as bad drivers pay a premium on their car insurance. Fair is fair.
5
"How are taxpayers going to bear the heavy financial burden of drug users' revolving door detox, hospitalization, joblessness, ill-kempt children and the rest of the collateral damage from drugs?"
That is an unreasonable question. Why, in the same way that we now bear the heavy financial burden of the war on drugs and the costs of incarceration. Do you not understand that the "collateral damage" is a consequence of the *war* on drugs that costs people their jobs and breaks up families by sending people to prison and not a consequence of the mere use of drugs?
Or is it your thought that the fact that the use of certain drugs is a crime is the only thing that keeps everyone in the United States - except you - from turning on and tuning out, thereby destroying this country's moral fiber??
That is an unreasonable question. Why, in the same way that we now bear the heavy financial burden of the war on drugs and the costs of incarceration. Do you not understand that the "collateral damage" is a consequence of the *war* on drugs that costs people their jobs and breaks up families by sending people to prison and not a consequence of the mere use of drugs?
Or is it your thought that the fact that the use of certain drugs is a crime is the only thing that keeps everyone in the United States - except you - from turning on and tuning out, thereby destroying this country's moral fiber??
9
I know the Times's narrative is that our approach to heroin use had previously been negligent and/or overly punitive, because it was primarily used by minorities, and that these approaches are being revisited now that middle-class white people are using it.
The problem is that it isn't true.
https://libcom.org/library/5-working-class-heroin-use-1950-1970
"The development is an important one to record, for we have become accustomed to thinking of heroin use as primarily an inner-city black problem. (Wald et al. 1972), when in fact this has been a rather short-lived (1950-60) feature of the more stable class phenomenon - as short lived, for example as the Jewish heroin problem (1910-20)."
While it is true that white women comprise a higher number of users than has previously been the case, white people have always comprised a significant proportion of heroin users in America. The shift has been in the economic, rather than ethnic, demographics.
This is very easy to confirm, via multiple credible, rigorous sources. So why mispresent the matter? What's gained? For whom? Rhetorical questions, of course.
The problem is that it isn't true.
https://libcom.org/library/5-working-class-heroin-use-1950-1970
"The development is an important one to record, for we have become accustomed to thinking of heroin use as primarily an inner-city black problem. (Wald et al. 1972), when in fact this has been a rather short-lived (1950-60) feature of the more stable class phenomenon - as short lived, for example as the Jewish heroin problem (1910-20)."
While it is true that white women comprise a higher number of users than has previously been the case, white people have always comprised a significant proportion of heroin users in America. The shift has been in the economic, rather than ethnic, demographics.
This is very easy to confirm, via multiple credible, rigorous sources. So why mispresent the matter? What's gained? For whom? Rhetorical questions, of course.
11
"a rather short-lived (1950-60) feature of the more stable class phenomenon - as short lived, for example as the Jewish heroin problem (1910-20)."
So, for you, the use of the adjective, "short-lived," is irrelevant, at best, and simply meaningless, at worst? Hence, this article is, for all practical purposes, a lie? Is that your point?
So, for you, the use of the adjective, "short-lived," is irrelevant, at best, and simply meaningless, at worst? Hence, this article is, for all practical purposes, a lie? Is that your point?
1
Lamont, for me, the fact that heroin use among inner-city African-Americans peaked circa 1960, while use by whites has remained steady at ~30% of users since the 1940s, indicates that the premise of this article is objectively false, in several regards.
As noted, the economic status of the white folks has changed, somewhat, and white women have in fact become more prominent users. This may be a significant driver of changing attitudes towards narcotic addiction; however, according to the narratives which the Times currently sells, white women are not history's bad guys, so that obvious correlation - which is actually objectively demonstrable - will not be followed up on.
As noted, the economic status of the white folks has changed, somewhat, and white women have in fact become more prominent users. This may be a significant driver of changing attitudes towards narcotic addiction; however, according to the narratives which the Times currently sells, white women are not history's bad guys, so that obvious correlation - which is actually objectively demonstrable - will not be followed up on.
In 2000, Myanmar was the world's leading producer of heroin, and there was no heroin epidemic in the US.
Afghanistan had produced practically no heroin in 2000, because of bad weather and Taliban opposition to cultivation.
But then, the Taliban leaders met with the Shrub in Texas, then 9/11, and the occupation of Afghanistan by NATO troops, coupled with billions of dollars spent building up transportation and irrigation infrastructure, and voila: Afghanistan became the world's leading producer of heroin, producing over 6 trillion dollars in heroin to date.
Organized crime's number one product benefited enormously from the centralization of its production center in Afghanistan.
Organized crime also benefited from the re-direction of law enforcement's attention on "terrorists" instead of members of organized crime.
And yet, no one questions, that organized crime connected waste haulers cleared the majority of evidence/debris from the WTC in less than 24 hours, placed it on ships to China for recycling, or that two planes did not knock down three towers at the WTC, or that there was no NTSB investigation of the plane crashes on 9/11 as is required by law.
Wake up people.
The crimes of 9/11 still need to be investigated and prosecuted. We have spent over 15 trillion dollars in taxpayer dollars on the 14 years wars in Iraq and Afghanistan......without understanding who all the responsible parties were for the acts and omissions leading up to 9/11.
Afghanistan had produced practically no heroin in 2000, because of bad weather and Taliban opposition to cultivation.
But then, the Taliban leaders met with the Shrub in Texas, then 9/11, and the occupation of Afghanistan by NATO troops, coupled with billions of dollars spent building up transportation and irrigation infrastructure, and voila: Afghanistan became the world's leading producer of heroin, producing over 6 trillion dollars in heroin to date.
Organized crime's number one product benefited enormously from the centralization of its production center in Afghanistan.
Organized crime also benefited from the re-direction of law enforcement's attention on "terrorists" instead of members of organized crime.
And yet, no one questions, that organized crime connected waste haulers cleared the majority of evidence/debris from the WTC in less than 24 hours, placed it on ships to China for recycling, or that two planes did not knock down three towers at the WTC, or that there was no NTSB investigation of the plane crashes on 9/11 as is required by law.
Wake up people.
The crimes of 9/11 still need to be investigated and prosecuted. We have spent over 15 trillion dollars in taxpayer dollars on the 14 years wars in Iraq and Afghanistan......without understanding who all the responsible parties were for the acts and omissions leading up to 9/11.
17
While I sympathize with your point of view, your facts are paranoid fantasy. Pakistan and Afghanistan were major opium sources for decades. Mexico is where a new source was established thanks to the DEA's activities and 'diversification' encouraged by Iran/Contra. The WTC fantasies are just that. Al Qaeda was a right wing Republican encouraged perversion known as "Charlie's War'' and "Freedom Fighters" under Reagan. Sometimes the truth is bad enough. As for China buying the scrap back in 2002-3 - that's true. Part of that had to do with the asbestos clinging to the remainder scrap and no on wanting to have to pass inspection. But, the major reason was that most of the re-smelting moved to China and India. But, there was a major congressional inquiry into 9/11 - let's give the conspiracy theories a break - the truth is incriminating enough. Bush was president. We attacked Iraq - the wrong country. We closed our eyes to Pakistan and the Pashtuns and the opium trade. We gave the Bin Ladens and Saudis free passage when the rest of the nation was in lock down. Again, the facts are bad enough.
4
So, the content of Mr. Haberman's essay has not engaged your attention?
The primary source of heroin in the United States is currently Mexico. Not having to ship the heroin half-way around the world is one ofr the factors affecting the price.
The primary source of heroin in the United States is currently Mexico. Not having to ship the heroin half-way around the world is one ofr the factors affecting the price.
1
No, you don't understand the Taleban's relationship to poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. In 2000, the Taleban did indeed reduce poppy cultivation, but only because the global market was flooded. The price of opium and its derivatives was therefore falling, and the Taleban drove the price back up by withholding production for a year. Never underestimate how thoroughly disgusting the Taleban is. Narcotics are a major source of funding for them.
I believe there is a direct correlation with the rise in heroine addiction, availability and the US presence in Afghanistan.
16
According to DEA statistics, over 90% of all opiates now enter the U.S through our border with Mexico. This is no longer Gene Hackman's "French Connection."
It is cheaper for a rural kid to get high on a hit of heroin than it is to buy a 6-pack of beer. That points to a "supply" abundance, which in turn has lowered prices and increased demand.
In the 1960s heroin use was limited by fear of using a needle. Now heroin is refined so purely, kids "snort" free samples until the dealer has a new addict base which a few weeks later no longer fears the needle.
Heroin has devasted the small towns of Appalachia. And with a recidivist rate of nearly 98%, rehab is in essence a waste of money. You have to stop the first time user from ever trying the drug.
This is an epidemic which must be stopped. And that starts with destroying the poppy fields south of our border. The war on drugs has entered a new era with much higher stakes.
It is cheaper for a rural kid to get high on a hit of heroin than it is to buy a 6-pack of beer. That points to a "supply" abundance, which in turn has lowered prices and increased demand.
In the 1960s heroin use was limited by fear of using a needle. Now heroin is refined so purely, kids "snort" free samples until the dealer has a new addict base which a few weeks later no longer fears the needle.
Heroin has devasted the small towns of Appalachia. And with a recidivist rate of nearly 98%, rehab is in essence a waste of money. You have to stop the first time user from ever trying the drug.
This is an epidemic which must be stopped. And that starts with destroying the poppy fields south of our border. The war on drugs has entered a new era with much higher stakes.
14
Actually, I was the manager of a clinic treating the drug addicted during the 1960s under the Rockefeller Institute program and I can tell you that intravenous heroin use using needles was rampant in black neighborhoods by young people, some whites; we did not have a lot of older people in the clinic because if they did not overdose on heroin, they died of hepatitis.
Quaaludes were the drug of choice for young white people.
Quaaludes were the drug of choice for young white people.
1
Why is drug addiction only a human crisis when it involves middle and upper middle class white kids? When it is dominated by Black, Hispanic and other minority groups- the 'crisis' is framed as a Criminal crisis, that is, War On Drugs.
85
"But compassion is the ascendant spirit. One reflection of this is a spate of state laws enabling rel"
Compassion had no where to go but up when one considers the derision and hatred heaped upon crack addicts. The fact that they were primarily black made the scorn easily shared all across society. While some folks like to dismiss racial characterizations, it's hard to miss in this instance. The racism extends to legal or medical drugs as well. When a friends wife recently was diagnosed with cancer, she was referred to a doctor by a white co- worker who lauded the doctor's care and compassion. When the disease progressed to it's final stages, her husband asked about pain medicine only to be told by the doctor that he didn't give liquid morphine for patients home care not knowing the wife's friend said he had given her the exact same liquid morphine.
Compassion had no where to go but up when one considers the derision and hatred heaped upon crack addicts. The fact that they were primarily black made the scorn easily shared all across society. While some folks like to dismiss racial characterizations, it's hard to miss in this instance. The racism extends to legal or medical drugs as well. When a friends wife recently was diagnosed with cancer, she was referred to a doctor by a white co- worker who lauded the doctor's care and compassion. When the disease progressed to it's final stages, her husband asked about pain medicine only to be told by the doctor that he didn't give liquid morphine for patients home care not knowing the wife's friend said he had given her the exact same liquid morphine.
9
How long between the two patients? The DEA is always cracking down on prescription pain killers, to the point that it is hard for even long term users to get them. We're talking about people that would commit suicide their pain is so great. It's always easier to go after law-abiding citizens and harassing doctors.
3
There is a book called, "Chasing the Scream" by Johann Hari. He claims the war on drugs goes back 100 years. It is an interesting book covering all sides of drug use/abuse and the argument for legalizing all drugs which he does not support. No one mentions the problems that are caused by alcohol. Legalizing and controlling drugs is a way to avoid heroin overdose and turning people into criminals. There is a very strange system of profit from drug use: big dealers make money, the police are able to confiscate property and use for their departments, the privatization of prisons (most people in jail are black men related to drugs) has added another profit avenue and an incentive for the police to be arresting people. We have already seen numerous states legalize marijuana in one way or another and certainly there needs to be education and control if drugs are legalized. Portugal has legalized drugs and the UK supplies opoids to addicts who maintain jobs and families.
8
For every rummy eyed junkie,
On the street,
Ask them were they started,
And sure as day turns to night,
He will say,
It started from a cheap bottle of wine.
Alcohol, the true gateway drug.
On the street,
Ask them were they started,
And sure as day turns to night,
He will say,
It started from a cheap bottle of wine.
Alcohol, the true gateway drug.
4
The identification of drugs as a 'race problem' and the targeting of black and drugs goes back more than one hundred years. Thousands of white people were addicted to morphine an opium as well, but it was treated as a 'disease' and they were placed in 'sanitariums.' Not much different than the tone being taken now. But coming off of Prohibition- drugs were cast as a 'black issue' - meaning whites went to the hospital, and blacks to jail. And not a whole lot different than all the suggestions contained in this article. It's an old song.
4
Sorry Clyde your addict numbers make no sense. 44000 overdose deaths from an addict population of 330,000 means in less than ten years there won't be any addicts. The US war on drugs would be comical if it wasn't so evil. Next to the military industrial complex welfare system we have the DEA and the Criminal handling welfare system. Just feed them money and watch them grow. Politicians love this farce. They play the drug card to stay in office which means they get to keep wetting their beaks. What they don't tell you is that it's how they hide a puritanical socialism from very dumb Americans. If you want to fix this, then vote for the guys who promises to legalize these drugs. Conservatives always talk about free will and less government but they, more than any, know how to milk us.
21
The 44,000 deaths represent all poisoning deaths, intentional or unintentional, and in 2013, heroin deaths (around 8000) accounted for a little less 20% of those. But the number of deaths from heroin has increased five-fold from 2001 to 2013. Don't know the numbers, but not every poisoning death involves an addict either. Since new addicts are "born" every day, we won't be running out of them any time soon.
2
I completely agree with your sentiments on our failed disastrous drug war, but if you read the article a bit more carefully, it cites 8257 heroin overdoses which is about 2.5 percent of the claimed number of addicts. That's a more credible figure given that heroin has a very low lethal/effective dose ratio: about 5:1 if I recall correctly. It's also worth noting that most fatalities involve other drugs, typically alcohol, consumed along with the heroin.
"Nearly 44,000 Americans a year — 120 a day — now die of drug overdoses. Neither traffic accidents nor gun violence, each claiming 30,000-plus lives a year, causes so much ruination."
I don't own a gun, have never owned a gun and don't plan to own a gun. But why do people put so much faith in gun legislation to stem gun deaths when drug legislation has done nothing to stem drug deaths?
I don't own a gun, have never owned a gun and don't plan to own a gun. But why do people put so much faith in gun legislation to stem gun deaths when drug legislation has done nothing to stem drug deaths?
6
"But why do people put so much faith in gun legislation to stem gun deaths when drug legislation has done nothing to stem drug deaths?"
To the unthinking, that probably appears to be a sensible question. But, you see, you're comparing apples with oranges. All the legislation governing the use of narcotics and cannabis criminalizes every aspect of the possession and use of these drugs. No such legislation criminalizes every aspect of the possession and use of fire-arms and not even the most-driven, the most-ardent advocates of gun-control have proposed that any such legislation be passed.
No one has ever proposed legislation to make the mere sale of a gun and its concomitant purchase criminal acts in and of themselves. In some states, however, the mere sale and its concomitant purchase of a hash-pipe in which a person could intend to smoke only tobacco, are criminal acts in and of themselves.
Indeed, the fact that anything having to do with the possession and/or use of opioids is a criminal act is one of the reasons that these laws do nothing to stem drug deaths. Overdose on alcohol and your drinking buddies don't hesitate to rush you to the emergency room. Overdose on an opiod and your buds have some serious explaining to do, if they care enough about you to take a chance on going to prison in order to save your life.
That's why your question is unreasonable.
To the unthinking, that probably appears to be a sensible question. But, you see, you're comparing apples with oranges. All the legislation governing the use of narcotics and cannabis criminalizes every aspect of the possession and use of these drugs. No such legislation criminalizes every aspect of the possession and use of fire-arms and not even the most-driven, the most-ardent advocates of gun-control have proposed that any such legislation be passed.
No one has ever proposed legislation to make the mere sale of a gun and its concomitant purchase criminal acts in and of themselves. In some states, however, the mere sale and its concomitant purchase of a hash-pipe in which a person could intend to smoke only tobacco, are criminal acts in and of themselves.
Indeed, the fact that anything having to do with the possession and/or use of opioids is a criminal act is one of the reasons that these laws do nothing to stem drug deaths. Overdose on alcohol and your drinking buddies don't hesitate to rush you to the emergency room. Overdose on an opiod and your buds have some serious explaining to do, if they care enough about you to take a chance on going to prison in order to save your life.
That's why your question is unreasonable.
1
As a criminal lawyer, it has never been my experience that criminal enforcement was less than vigorous, targeting all Schedule I (heroin and marijuana) and Schedule II (cocaine and "crack") controlled substance offenders. But the enforcement model has largely failed us. Having prosecuted and imprisoned many on the "supply side", we now need to focus on the demand side. Vigorous, graphic education of our kids and young adults--not just by uncomfortable "health" teachers but by competent, experienced substance-abuse experts--about heroin use and its dire consequences is critical. Parents, who need to be home more, to be parents, have a good deal to learn too, lest they first discover a child's heroin problem in the hospital ER, in court or in the morgue. They need to step-up and get involved, parenting their kids. We have no time to waste. But we can beat this scourge.
8
We have a society that markets and pushes opiods at the dentist, doctor, and clinic. Major pharmaceutical companies profit. Then, when the population of addicts is established we have nice cheap heroin from Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as Mexico and Central America. This saga goes back to the Harrison Act. The War on Drugs was just the modern incarnation of an old scam. Once again, a Republican scam. Back in the day when white people were junkies they were 'jazz musicians,' 'artists,' and 'degenerates' now that they are just blue collar disenfranchised children of Rural Republican Bigots, it's being seen in a different light. Well, OK better late than never.
3
It's a myth that you can defeat this scourge by lowering demand. The supply of heroin is so abundant that the price of a heroin "high" is lower than a cheap quart of beer.
We need to destroy the poppy fields in South America to lower the supply and price the first time user out of the market. Those poppy fields (the NYT recently ran an article showing children tending poppy crops) are a graver danger to America than anything ISIS can throw our way.
We need to destroy the poppy fields in South America to lower the supply and price the first time user out of the market. Those poppy fields (the NYT recently ran an article showing children tending poppy crops) are a graver danger to America than anything ISIS can throw our way.
I'm sorry for anybody on this horrible drug. Nobody deserves that type of pain. The families of these people don't deserve the pain of seeing an addicted loved one suffer and quite possibly die. But white working class and white suburban America had it decent enough at one point in America. The saw the lessons of a better way and reaped the material benefits of the Roosevelt/Truman New Deal years. But when black folks asked for a piece of the pie, much of white America turned to Wallace, Nixon & Reagan. We're all paying for those ballot box decisions. These folks so often voted to hurt themselves so long as it hurt others as well that they did not like. They still often do. Now their adult children are paying a price of severely diminished opportunity and increased drug abuse. When will this segment of the nation accept their share of responsibility for our current economic distress and when will they choose kindness over anger?
67
".......at least a few.....will return to crime." What a brilliant quote. At least a few police will be killers.....at least a few members of congress will break laws....at least a few articles in the NYT will embarrass the NYT. It is an endless "At least a few truths." Amounting to nothing !
6
One god thing about decriminalization and legalization of these drugs is that it generates tax revenue (through legal sales) that can be used for drug education or to help addicts who want to quit.
2
I'm 25 from a semi-rural area and have seen this happen to a few people.
The general escalation was the same: popping pills from cabinets of their parents and those stolen from cabinets during house parties. first it's eating one pill, then 3, then snorting it, then crush it onto tin foil and smoke it, then heroin smoked, then I.V. I had a friend in high school who was caught with a stolen assault rifle an 1/4 pound of heroin and will likely be in prison long past any high school reunions.
The reality is, for most of the people I knew who spiraled out of control, they had bleak and boring futures. Low wages, no advancement, limited opportunities for personal growth, and sadly, they weren't really set up to do anything better. by 18-19 they hit their peak and there wasn't much else to do but get high.
Prison does little, drug treatment does something, but this problem is reflective of a decaying social fabric and fraying low income white communities.
The general escalation was the same: popping pills from cabinets of their parents and those stolen from cabinets during house parties. first it's eating one pill, then 3, then snorting it, then crush it onto tin foil and smoke it, then heroin smoked, then I.V. I had a friend in high school who was caught with a stolen assault rifle an 1/4 pound of heroin and will likely be in prison long past any high school reunions.
The reality is, for most of the people I knew who spiraled out of control, they had bleak and boring futures. Low wages, no advancement, limited opportunities for personal growth, and sadly, they weren't really set up to do anything better. by 18-19 they hit their peak and there wasn't much else to do but get high.
Prison does little, drug treatment does something, but this problem is reflective of a decaying social fabric and fraying low income white communities.
121
Eh. I knew heiresses and Ivy Leaguers and managers who got hooked on Heroin. Hopelessness may contribute but it isn't really the determining factor.
1
Heroin use among young people was huge in Thatcher's Eingland precisely for the reasons you mentioned.
4
Not for the wealthy, in any case.
For some time in the past few years as news of the resurgence of Heroin appeared, I theorized that it was a Taliban/Italiaban assault on America.
As reported many times, much of the world's Heroin originates in the fields of Afghanistan and traditionally, it was smuggled by organized crime of many groups.
Drug law enforcement against users is pointless and perpetual. It will never solve the problem. The sources and distribution of the drugs is where the law has to concentrate. I don't mean the street corner dealers. I mean the smugglers and their means of smuggling.
Summarizing, I think the current uptick in Heroin supplies is a Terrorists undertaking.
As reported many times, much of the world's Heroin originates in the fields of Afghanistan and traditionally, it was smuggled by organized crime of many groups.
Drug law enforcement against users is pointless and perpetual. It will never solve the problem. The sources and distribution of the drugs is where the law has to concentrate. I don't mean the street corner dealers. I mean the smugglers and their means of smuggling.
Summarizing, I think the current uptick in Heroin supplies is a Terrorists undertaking.
8
It is. Drugs have long been a tactic for hitting America from the inside. Only problem is, most of the heroin comes from Mexico, although Bin Laden had the idea to do this.
1
No, heroin addiction is not treated as a disease. Tobacco addiction is treated as a medical problem. Heroin addiction is illegal and we jail users. Big difference. Portugal treats it as a disease. Look it up.
5
Most of the world's heroin supply comes from Afghanistan.
The profits fund terrorists and local drug lords.
I know it is a touchy subject but burn the poppy fields and give a stipend to the farmers.
Getting rid of this scourge requires getting rid of the source.
The profits fund terrorists and local drug lords.
I know it is a touchy subject but burn the poppy fields and give a stipend to the farmers.
Getting rid of this scourge requires getting rid of the source.
5
That already happened in Colombia and Peru is now the leading supplier. From only watching TV, solutions are easy.
2
This is is news from nowhere...same problem, different demographic. When blacks and Hispanics were dropping dead on the street with children as collateral damage, there was apathy followed by pale policy. Society should always care.
So why did the NY Times address this subject twice?
So why did the NY Times address this subject twice?
4
"Is it purely a coincidence that the pendulum swung from punishment to caring at the same time that heroin abuse became a crisis largely affecting whites, not blacks? Perhaps, although many would doubt it." Oh course many would doubt it, because it isn't a coincidence- Clyde.
4
For me, this is all about people trying to kill themselves. I'd decriminalize the stuff, make it as scarce as possible and concentrate on why people are wanting to suicide themselves.
7
"decriminalize the stuff, make it as scarce as possible"
In other words, *don't* decriminalize it, since the fact is that opioids have already been made as scarce as possible by the laws criminalizing their sale and possession.
In other words, *don't* decriminalize it, since the fact is that opioids have already been made as scarce as possible by the laws criminalizing their sale and possession.
I have witnessed the "war on drugs" from its very inception. It is, to me, more than a bit ironic that the most corrupt president in 100 years (Richard M. Nixon) was the individual most responsible for this terrible policy. I watched first hand as drug experimentation went from being a short lived "right of passage" which I happily, if briefly, participated in during the 70's, to a draconian aplication of unashamedly racist laws that destroyed the lives of far too many young people.
The stain of drug criminalization will be with us long after our society finally recognises drug use as largely a phase on the path to maturity, and addiction as a regrettable illnesses that should be medically treated. Incarcerating drug users makes about as much sense as locking up cancer victims. The worst aspect is the way the war on drugs has created an entire segment of society who are forced to become criminals (in some cases violent criminals) because the stain of a drug conviction acts as a permanent impediment to entering society. As a small business owner, I have gone out of my way to employ non-violent drug offenders, and have never regretted that decision. Nothing is as satisfying as correcting a gross miscarriage of justice.
The stain of drug criminalization will be with us long after our society finally recognises drug use as largely a phase on the path to maturity, and addiction as a regrettable illnesses that should be medically treated. Incarcerating drug users makes about as much sense as locking up cancer victims. The worst aspect is the way the war on drugs has created an entire segment of society who are forced to become criminals (in some cases violent criminals) because the stain of a drug conviction acts as a permanent impediment to entering society. As a small business owner, I have gone out of my way to employ non-violent drug offenders, and have never regretted that decision. Nothing is as satisfying as correcting a gross miscarriage of justice.
53
As has been repeatedly stressed by the NYT and other publications, this is purely a doctor induced epidemic. But also, American's search for instant gratification or amilioration of pain, which is something that all previous generations had to live with, coupled with the proliferation of "pain management centers" which did nothing more than prescribe opioids and the TV advertising phenomenon of drugs, directly to people, not found in any other country in the world, where big capitol is not as powerful as in the US, created the perfect storm that we are finding ourselves in.
You would never hear doctors suggesting to back pain sufferers to visit a chiropractor, where the benefits are well proven, but instead wrote a prescription. which did nothing than mask the pain for a little while
You would never hear doctors suggesting to back pain sufferers to visit a chiropractor, where the benefits are well proven, but instead wrote a prescription. which did nothing than mask the pain for a little while
13
I have yet to see a doctor recommend narcotics over therapy or chiropractic care. But our society does have an insatiable desire for escapist drugs and an intolerance to pain.
3
The people who take these drugs for pain relief are not the ones who got addicted. And they do far more than mask the pain for a little while, for those with chronic, severe pain they are irreplaceable.
3
I can tell you that doctors do not favor black people with pain medications as they do white people ever after black people have similar pain issues as white people; white coats can mask a lot of biases.
It seems that every generation has to see first hand what hard drugs do before rejecting them. More people I know have died of Heroin addiction than any other drug and in the end, it is neither love and kindness nor law enforcement that saves those who survive, it is hitting bottom. Being jailed briefly is often the best ting that can happen to an addict, far more effective than the inadequate and not very successful voluntary drug program.
The solution to Heroin addiction is commitment to mandatory long-term testing and supervision. The drug addict who relapsed would be put into a locked treatment facility, and this would continue until he stayed clean. But most people who make these decisions are clueless, having never been close enough to addicts to understand the dynamics of the problem, just how unfree the addict really is. Arguably, the inability to understand the power of addiction is behind the fact that so many get addicted to Heroin in the first place.
The solution to Heroin addiction is commitment to mandatory long-term testing and supervision. The drug addict who relapsed would be put into a locked treatment facility, and this would continue until he stayed clean. But most people who make these decisions are clueless, having never been close enough to addicts to understand the dynamics of the problem, just how unfree the addict really is. Arguably, the inability to understand the power of addiction is behind the fact that so many get addicted to Heroin in the first place.
3
There are times when I despair, and this is one of them. You cannot get people to understand. And so much unnecessary pain and suffering as a result. I guess I shouldn't expect more of a species that is melting its own planet.
Now people care because the users are white. If they were still black, this would not be on the front page of the NYTs and the junkies would still be in jail with no treatment at all!
42
Wrong. I know you want to make this about race, but does K2 ring a bell? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/nyregion/k2-a-potent-drug-casts-a-shad...
6
This has everything to do with race.
3
I am sympathetic to everyone who has a drug addiction of ay sort. Get treatment and counselling. My other concern is why do some American youth resort to drugs at all? As a youth living in the row homes of Southwest Philadelphia in the 1970s, I too knew the temptation and scourge of marijuana, alcohol and worse. But many mates of mine still rose above it and did not succumb to its addiction. We grew out of it and had the opportunity to rise above its lure and become productive citizens. Southwest Philadelphia was a working class neighborhood on a good day. We shared imperfect family live: wife beating, unemployment, addictions of all sorts with parents, infidelity, strained finances, single parent households, etc. We were street wise kids growing up fast, too fast. How could today be worse in America for teens and addiction than 1975?
5
George, I wonder if some kids today feel even more hopeless that the ones who tried the pain killing drugs back in 1975? I think the world is a much poorer and uglier place, particularly for the average person.
2
"Typically, they were young people who initially got hooked on OxyContin, Percocet or other widely prescribed pain relievers belonging to a class of drugs known as opioids."
So heroin addiction is the effect, and need for painkillers is the cause. You only need to look at kids coming off a school bus, their posture distorted by their backpacks, to realize that these kids have back pain. Backpacks have been the default carrying system for thirty years. We need to find an alternative.
So heroin addiction is the effect, and need for painkillers is the cause. You only need to look at kids coming off a school bus, their posture distorted by their backpacks, to realize that these kids have back pain. Backpacks have been the default carrying system for thirty years. We need to find an alternative.
5
@Andreas
If you think backpacks are the cause of drug addiction, I have a bridge to sell you...
If you think backpacks are the cause of drug addiction, I have a bridge to sell you...
11
Andreas, Sarcasm and satire are sometimes difficult to perceive on boards like this.
Thanks, Nancy--I saw the sarcasm. But I know that kids have pain and get painkillers, as the quote indicated. Why are they in pain?
This is the second story that I have seen about this change in the way the nation treats drug offenders. While I applaud the change I have to say that as a black person living in the US seeing this change is a bitter pill indeed.
100
Don't blame you.
10
The drug wars have hurt children most of all, who get caught in the line of fire, are trafficked or turned into mules or lose a parent to prison. The UN's big summit in 2016 will pivot on the issue of decriminalization
http://passblue.com/2015/11/20/the-drug-war-a-dangerous-trap-for-poor-ch...
http://passblue.com/2015/11/20/the-drug-war-a-dangerous-trap-for-poor-ch...
5
So when can we accept defeat in this war?
Prohibition does not work.
Prohibition does not work.
33
@Matthew
Actually, prohibition did reduce the number of deaths from alcohol:
"alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.
Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.
Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.
Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation's 20,000 homicides."
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-suc...
The data is clear: prohibition saved lives and reduced harm from alcohol. The lesson is that if drugs are legalized, we will have more drug related deaths.
Too bad liberals don't care enough about facts to use them to shape policy...
Actually, prohibition did reduce the number of deaths from alcohol:
"alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.
Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.
Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.
Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation's 20,000 homicides."
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-suc...
The data is clear: prohibition saved lives and reduced harm from alcohol. The lesson is that if drugs are legalized, we will have more drug related deaths.
Too bad liberals don't care enough about facts to use them to shape policy...
4
As surgres notes - prohibition works. We just don't like it. There really can't be any doubt that legalizing will increase addiction. That said, it may still be better for society - that is yet to be seen.
1
Yes, the data is clear, and it is only common sense that avoiding toxic substances (most drugs including alcohol) is the wisest choice.
However, people don't behave that way. They never have and they never will.
Your data does not include all the 'costs' of enforcing prohibition. A lot of people are starting to think that that cost is too high.
However, people don't behave that way. They never have and they never will.
Your data does not include all the 'costs' of enforcing prohibition. A lot of people are starting to think that that cost is too high.
No, we are not going to "win" the war on drugs. I was a part of this "war" for 30 plus years and there is no question in my mind the problem is far greater than ever before. The drugs, including marijuana, are much more potent and easier to obtain. I've known countless hundreds of young people who abused drugs. I've also known many more who, outside of perhaps trying pot a few times, would not touch anything more potent if you gave it to them. And they went on to lead successful lives. Perhaps what we have working here is a form of the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest. That people who are strong enough to avoid drugs, and dangerous behavior, are destined to live better and longer lives. Those who are weaker, who succumb to drugs, are more destined to live unproductive and shorter lives. With this idea in mind it might not be unreasonable to consider some form of legalization. Most likely, however, we will continue as we are, perhaps with less people incarcerated, but with a high loss of life (and cost to society). 40 plus years, how time flies.
12
i know people who have smoked pot for 50 years and it hasnt hurt them a bit in any way
not that i know this guy, but willie nelson has been smoking pot nearly 70 years, and not only does he seem coherent, it hasnt hurt his voice one bit
lumping pot w those other drugs is wrong
not that i know this guy, but willie nelson has been smoking pot nearly 70 years, and not only does he seem coherent, it hasnt hurt his voice one bit
lumping pot w those other drugs is wrong
8
It is very reasonable to extend the "survival of the fittest" from the individual, the family, the community and finally to our country. I believe heroin has made a comeback because it is relatively cheap and also the crackdown on Rx's for Oxycontin, etc.
Locking up non violent addicts is not the answer but, neither is the rehab facility empire.
I'm sure terrorists recognize that drugs are very profitable and at the same time
can severely damage a country with drugs
Locking up non violent addicts is not the answer but, neither is the rehab facility empire.
I'm sure terrorists recognize that drugs are very profitable and at the same time
can severely damage a country with drugs
1
Willie Nelson looks like he's been rode hard and put up wet..... If kids knew how habitual drug use ruins your looks maybe they wouldn't start.
Honestly, I am terribly sorry for the victims of heroin abuse and their families. But in the rush to protect addicts from pain killers, two things have happened: there are more heroin addicts, and ill people suffering from real pain are vastly underserved. I know it's boring to talk about illness (I know this from personal experience) but the vibe I'm getting from society on the subject of intractable pain is either indifference or open hostility. Unless you die suddenly, you will likely know my pain someday. And then what will you do?
44
Absolutely. The only thing this crackdown is doing is making life hard for the sick, and forcing the idiot drug abusers to use Heroin, a far more dangerous drug, instead.
7
I believe you, as you have nothing to lose or gain in this forum other than the truth. Unfortunately, when self-reporting pain (and there is no other alternative) plus access to the actual narcotics is in play, your good words could be coming out of the mouth of a deceitful diverter. We need a more professional, standardized and adequately funded approach to this issue. The underpayment of primary care doctors coupled with our medical system's mantra that "the customer is always right" is in large part the reason we now have a heroin epidemic. This is the magic of the market, the invisible hand, at work! Direct to consumer advertising plus our culture's attitudes about burden also play a major part. Specialized and well-funded attention to this tricky issue is the way forward.
8
Bluegreen: I know the feeling. However the message has been for sometime: "Better 99 people suffer pain,than one loser gets stoned."
4
A large percentage of prescription drugs are taken to deal with the adverse effects of previously-taken drugs.
A perfect example is statins (for so-called high cholesterol). One fourth of Americans over 40 are on statins. Of those, one quarter report muscle pain. For that pain, opiates are prescribed. (Just track the growth of statin drugs and opiates.)
A huge number of people start with prescribed opiates and then turn to the less expensive heroin.
We need to put illegal drug dealers in jail--at least the ones that work for Big Pharma. They get caught, pain huge fines for criminal acts, but net out making vast profit.
These corporations kill more people than heroin dealers. Google "fines paid by pharmaceutical companies" and you'll be shocked. Do the crime, pay the fine: over and over and over.
Statinvictims.weebly.com