This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You don't need the dependent clause. We can just do the math (economics). Many moons ago, at the old old old place, I did an estimate, ignoring any effect of removing criminal penalties, ignoring any effect of branding/marketing/whathaveyou, ignoring any cultural or other developments which could change the elasticities, of how usage of marijuana might change in response to the change in price that was observed. Let's just say that anyone who thinks that usage of drugs is going to go down (or even stay flat) in response to legalization is getting high on their own supply. Marginal Revolution just referred to Portugal. The Bloody Atlantic is almost going after Oregon. It was trendy to think otherwise for a while (I believed it when I was a kid), but like most silly lefty trends, at some point the need to shut out the data and embrace cognitive dissonance becomes too difficult.
The question isn't whether drug use will go down; it's whether ODs will go down. I suspect they would; if you know how much you're getting you're not going to OD because your usual hit is 10x the potency.
Of course if you legalized hard drugs the way pot has been legalized in NY or NJ that might not work, but that's because government can screw anything up. You also can't just decriminalize possession (like Oregon did); you have to legalize production and sales.
This line of thinking is tempting as well, that it's just product uncertainty. There may be some factor, but I'm skeptical that it would be the overwhelming factor that a lot of people think. One could easily talk about two movies from this image. In one movie, fentanyl is primarily about product uncertainty, and that has driven a rise in deaths. In another movie, fentanyl is just way more potent and way more dangerous in general, so of course it's going to be higher. But hell, there are still quite a few prescription opioid deaths there; those are chugging along, even though they don't have the same product uncertainty problem. Instead, they mostly fit into the ordering just fine in terms of inherent danger of the substance, regardless of product uncertainty.
Even alcohol is still chugging along, causing deaths, even though there's basically no product uncertainty there. People still try to cram as much as they can into their bodies, just to see if they can and to see if it feels "super awesome, yo". They still party and try different shit, not actually paying all that much attention to what someone is pouring for them or what pill was handed to them. Certainly not carefully looking up the risk statistics of mixing substances and consulting a dosing chart or whatever. Nah, it's, "GET DAT SHIT IN ME AND LET'S GET SUPER HIGH!"
Maybe I'll try putting it this way... the belief that it's just about product uncertainty smells to me a lot like one of Rob Henderson's luxury beliefs. Sure, you may be a rich upper class person who can manage to make casual cocaine holiday work in your life, so long as there isn't product uncertainty in your cocaine, but for many many other people, life just isn't like that. Intense addiction, the need to try always-increasing quantities, and frankly low intelligence/conscientiousness is just going to lead to deaths mostly in proportion to how inherently dangerous the substances are. Product uncertainty can play a role, but a more minor one.
Finally, even if acute ODs do go down a little, what is the cost in terms of long-term mortality? During alcohol prohibition, the government was literally poisoning alcohol, and yet the health benefits in terms of long-term mortality and such were much more significant than the acute effects of their literal, intentional poisoning.
Overdose deaths will certainly keep "chugging along" even without product uncertainty (or inconsistency). Some number will be suicides, some will be chasing a greater high that tolerance has taken away. But I think the best explanation for the increase in deaths is the uncertainty/inconsistency. (I distinguish the two because an inconsistent but known product could be safe in theory, but as you say addicts aren't going to do the math).
As far as I know though, except simply in absolute amount of substance, fentanyl isn't more dangerous than heroin. Fentanyl's therapeutic index -- its ratio of lethal dose to effective dose -- is 400 compared to morphine's 70. I haven't been able to find heroin's TI (it's not prescribed in the US; I would expect UK data but perhaps they use a different term), but it's likely closer to morphine's. It's possible the euphoric dose is (relative to fatal dose) much higher than that of heroin, or that it has a larger tolerance effect, but I know of no evidence for etiher those conjectures. Instead, it seems it's just that the small absolute amounts of the substance are much harder (for both technical and non-technical reasons) for the illegal pharmaceuticals industry to control. The legitimate pharmaceuticals industry has no such problem; it can produce consistent doses even with the far more potent (100x stronger than fentanyl) carfentanil, though there's worker safety problems there.
I think we agree here, but disagree on how inherently dangerous the substances are. Note that "the need to try always-increasing quantities" is part of the inherent danger; some drugs cause more tolerance than others, and sometimes the (acute) lethal dose changes with tolerance.
I think TI alone isn't the right metric to look at. Wiki would put cocaine and alcohol as similar (15 and 10, respectively), even worse than morphine. Rather than it being only a manufacturing concern, I think there's a significant consumability concern, probably with factors of tolerance/euphoric dose/need-to-try-more as you mention, as well as the culture around consumption. Like, you still have to try pretty darn hard to physically consume enough alcohol before your body starts rejecting it (or build up enough of a tolerance). "I'm already drunk as hell, but I want to push to even higher levels.... oops, now I'm asleep," seems to be somewhat of a limiting factor. "I'm already high as hell, but can you imagine popping one or two more before dozing off?" ...takes about five seconds. And that doesn't even account for mixing drugs. Been drinking half the night, just took a hit of whatever, now you're not thinking straight, just thinking about how desperately your body wants to get suuuuuper high right now. You're probably not going to be rationally counting out your pills or whatever according to a dosing chart (for values of "you" that include far less intelligent/conscientious classes of people than you, particularly).
Alcohol is safer (at least in the short term) for various reasons, like the dose one can survive goes up with tolerance, and the difficulty of getting a fatal dose into you without working at it (though college students regularly manage). But I don't think those kinds of differences exist between the commonly-abused opioids. I'm not saying fentanyl would be as safe as alcohol if the dose was controlled, I'm saying it would probably be at least as safe as heroin. And that the massive increase in OD deaths that coincides with the introduction of fentanyl is primarily due to the inconsistency, not the inherent danger.
Also in the alcohol case, I suspect if instead of the common packaging for serious abusers being bum wine or some sort of standard-proof cheap liquor (which are easily distinguishable from each other), it was whatever the addict could get ranging between 5% and 90% alcohol, plus perhaps some isopropyl alcohol mixed in, and the addict couldn't immediately tell the difference by the taste/burn, we'd have a lot more overdoses.
I maintain that "I can imagine a product being adulterated by bad things" is not sufficient reasoning for population rates. One data point that would have to be explained in the chart I linked is the prevalence of prescription opioid deaths. Why aren't other illegal substances, which are presumably adulterated with rat poison, also off the charts in comparison?
My point isn't about adulteration with "bad things", my point was about uncertainty of dosage. I mentioned isopropyl alcohol because it might be considered analogous to fentanyl; it's a stronger alcohol than ethanol in some ways but not toxic in the way methanol is.
Really, the bigger problem for my theory of uncertainty of dosage caused by the introduction of illicit fentanyl into the recreational opiate trade being the main reason for the increase in overdose deaths is the fact that cocaine and meth went up (though not as much) at the same time. As far as I know nothing changed pharmacologically there, so your "inherent danger" theory can't explain it either.
Fentanyl is a colourless white powder and sometimes used to cut cocaine and meth by unscrupulous dealers. Terrible idea, but it will make people feel more fucked up... not to mention make a nice contribution to overdose death statistics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Most definitely agreed. And now with xylazine, you've got straight methanol or rat poison or something in 1/a few hundred or so? of these bottles of "booze".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link