[HN Gopher] Overdose deaths are falling in America because of a ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Overdose deaths are falling in America because of a 'supply shock':
       study
        
       Author : marojejian
       Score  : 205 points
       Date   : 2026-01-10 19:54 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
        
       | marojejian wrote:
       | archive: https://archive.is/C0Y0G#selection-1303.143-1303.175
       | 
       | this is my best guess for the research cited (paywalled):
       | https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aea6130
       | 
       | If true, the next question is what caused the supply shock?
        
       | Analemma_ wrote:
       | I thought this was already well-established public information?
       | That fentanyl came mostly from China was never in doubt, what
       | people were arguing about was whether this was happening with the
       | tacit approval of the Chinese government. Then in 2023 China
       | cracked down on it, and supplies dried up. Whether that was
       | because it was a big enough issue to get their attention, or it
       | was on purpose and they decided it was no longer serving their
       | interests I suspect we'll never know, but I definitely read
       | multiple articles in 2023 about the fentanyl crackdown in China.
        
         | defrost wrote:
         | Biden era cooperation with China on the issue was at the heart
         | of this.
         | 
         | It wasn't about the direct supply of Fentanyl, or even (by that
         | stage) the direct supply of Fentanyl precursor drugs .. (that
         | gangs used to industrial shed chem lab into Fentanyl) ... this
         | was cutting back and limiting bulk supply of the precursor
         | precursors to shady onselling networks to starve the labs.
         | 
         | Was going well (as per the paper) until US / China relations
         | went in the toilet.
         | 
         | Some of this is covered in _The Hidden Cost of Trump's Trade
         | War on China_ (March 18, 2025) -
         | https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/trump-china-trade...
         | 
         | written by a former deputy assistant secretary for US
         | international narcotics and law enforcement affairs.
         | 
         | ADDENDUM: 20 page PDF of data, graphs, suppleentary material
         | from the _original_ 8th January 2026 Science paper
         | 
         |  _Did the illicit fentanyl trade experience a supply shock?_
         | Kasey Vangelov et al (doi /10.1126/science.aea6130)
         | 
         | here:
         | https://www.science.org/doi/suppl/10.1126/science.aea6130/su...
        
           | alephnerd wrote:
           | Mexico also began enacting extremely heavy handed tariffs
           | against China and other Asian exporters like South Korea,
           | India, and Vietnam in 2023 onwards [0][1][2][3] in order to
           | protect their domestic manufacturing capacity against an
           | export-driven supply shock, which hit Mexico really badly in
           | the 2000s [4].
           | 
           | > Was going well (as per the paper) until US / China
           | relations went in the toilet
           | 
           | Yep, but as long as Mexico continues to enact trade barriers
           | to protect against an Asian export shock, the APIs needed for
           | synthesis will remain difficult for organized crime to
           | acquire.
           | 
           | Already, cartels have begun tariff arbitraging by targeting
           | the CEE and the Balkans as a new base for synthetic opioid
           | operations [5][6][7], especially because Romanian [8] and
           | other CEE gangs had been collaborating with Mexican organized
           | crime on financial and human trafficking crimes _in_ Mexico
           | for over a decade now.
           | 
           | [0] - https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/mexico-imposes-
           | tempo...
           | 
           | [1] - https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/mexico-
           | reinstates-ta...
           | 
           | [2] - https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/mexico-
           | proposes-sign...
           | 
           | [3] - https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/mexico-
           | formalizes-an...
           | 
           | [4] - http://international-economy.com/TIE_Sp03_Rosen.pdf
           | 
           | [5] - https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-
           | press/newsroom/news/larg...
           | 
           | [6] - https://balkaninsight.com/2024/07/24/fentanyl-central-
           | europe...
           | 
           | [7] - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-foreign-
           | policies-of-t...
           | 
           | [8] - https://www.occrp.org/en/project/how-a-crew-of-
           | romanian-crim...
        
             | defrost wrote:
             | That absolutely played a part also.
             | 
             | The biggest takeaway that deserves stressing over and over
             | again is that _Things Take Time_ .. it generally takes 18
             | months and longer to substantially impact global flows.
             | 
             | The work has to be put in early, kept up in practice, and
             | results are often credited to political actors down the
             | road of time.
             | 
             | TTT - Piet Hein - https://www.circlepublications.net/grooks
        
               | alephnerd wrote:
               | Absolutely!
        
           | stevenwoo wrote:
           | Different articles confirming this with multiple approaches
           | and data points
           | 
           | https://www.npr.org/2026/01/08/nx-s1-5661523/biden-made-
           | big-...
           | 
           | https://www.psypost.org/sudden-drop-in-fentanyl-overdose-
           | dea...
        
         | cyberax wrote:
         | No, it was in doubt.
         | 
         | Now fentanyl is produced from readily available precursors in
         | Mexico. In underground labs:
         | https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/29/world/americas/inside-fen...
         | 
         | Fentanyl is so potent that just one lab can easily satisfy all
         | the US demand with it, around 10kg a day. That's also why it's
         | ridiculously hard to fight, one smuggled barrel of pure product
         | can supply the entire US for months.
         | 
         | So no, there is no "supply shock". There's just more free
         | Narcan (naloxone).
        
           | cogman10 wrote:
           | Cocaine death decreases is the hard thing to explain with
           | either theory, supply or naloxone. Fentanyl supply doesn't
           | affect cocaine in any way and naloxone doesn't work on a
           | cocaine OD.
           | 
           | Maybe some percentage of cocaine deaths are misattributed
           | fentanyl deaths?
           | 
           | I also wonder if there's any link to the Oxycontin reforms.
           | Perhaps now that prescription is reigned in, we are seeing a
           | lot fewer oxy->fent cases which has cut back on the deaths.
           | 
           | Or maybe it's actually that the drug dealers have gotten more
           | careful. Drug dealers don't want to kill their clients, so
           | maybe they've been purposefully diluting to make sure they
           | get repeat customers.
        
             | jddj wrote:
             | In Europe the per kg price of cocaine has apparently
             | halved.
             | 
             | If that's the case in the US as well, it could be that as a
             | result there's more cocaine in the cocaine and fewer
             | adulterants.
        
               | mjanx123 wrote:
               | People don't have the money to buy drugs, deaths go down
               | and price as well (albeit slower).
        
               | zdragnar wrote:
               | For addicts, the drug is the last thing they cut back on
               | when money is tight.
        
               | herbst wrote:
               | Prices in Europe went down but quality also went way up,
               | so they "consumer" numbers
        
             | 20after4 wrote:
             | > Perhaps now that prescription is reigned in, we are
             | seeing a lot fewer oxy->fent cases which has cut back on
             | the deaths.
             | 
             | This is definitely part of the story. When your primary
             | source of new addicts is prescription opioids and you cut
             | down on the prescriptions then over time, as people die off
             | from OD, then the OD rate is bound to drop.
             | 
             | The most tragic part of it, to me, is that it's usually the
             | people who got clean who eventually OD. Once they've been
             | clean for a short time then their tolerance for the drug
             | drops drastically, then if they break down and do "just one
             | dose" they make the fatal mistake of thinking they can
             | still handle the same amount they were used to doing
             | before. This exact scenario happened to multiple more or
             | less close acquaintances of mine, even people who were
             | aware of tolerance and should have known better. I'm fairly
             | sure that it's extremely common.
        
               | greygoo222 wrote:
               | This theory predicts a significant decrease in addiction
               | rates. Is there any evidence of that?
        
             | greygoo222 wrote:
             | I believe they're using CDC data, which states:
             | 
             | "Drug overdose deaths may involve multiple drugs;
             | therefore, a single death might be included in more than
             | one category when describing the number of drug overdose
             | deaths involving specific drugs."
             | https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm
             | 
             | Someone who overdosed after taking cocaine contaminated
             | with fentanyl would be counted as a cocaine ODD.
             | 
             | The Oxycontin "reforms" caused the fentanyl crisis to begin
             | with. People often moved onto heroin and fentanyl because
             | pharmaceuticals were no longer accessible. The massive
             | spike in overdose deaths begun after the decline in opioid
             | prescriptions. See the Opioid Prescriptions & Opioid
             | Overdose Deaths graph here
             | https://drugabusestatistics.org/opioid-epidemic/
        
             | cyberax wrote:
             | Pure cocaine overdose deaths are relatively rare. Only
             | around 5% of cocaine deaths involved pure cocaine, it's
             | almost always mixed with something else.
             | 
             | > I also wonder if there's any link to the Oxycontin
             | reforms. Perhaps now that prescription is reigned in, we
             | are seeing a lot fewer oxy->fent cases which has cut back
             | on the deaths.
             | 
             | Prescription pills have been a non-issue for a decade by
             | now.
             | 
             | > Or maybe it's actually that the drug dealers have gotten
             | more careful. Drug dealers don't want to kill their
             | clients, so maybe they've been purposefully diluting to
             | make sure they get repeat customers.
             | 
             | Yup. I think that's exactly it.
             | 
             | The major reason for fentanyl deaths was not unintentional
             | overdose because of poor pill quality. It was way too easy
             | to end up with 1mg instead of 500mcg during pill mixture
             | preparation. So _reducing_ the amount of fentanyl per pill
             | results in a better safety margin. And users can just smoke
             | another pill if one pill was not enough to get high, after
             | all.
             | 
             | And yeah, it's just possible that the more reckless drug
             | users are just dead by now. But to be clear, it's still
             | absolutely horrible. We're still above the 2021 level.
        
           | SilverElfin wrote:
           | So presumably Venezuela is not a factor, as the
           | administration claimed?
        
             | 20after4 wrote:
             | Of course it isn't.
        
             | tehjoker wrote:
             | Trump said it's about the oil himself.
             | 
             | https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/trump-maduro-venezuela-
             | darfur...
        
               | CraigJPerry wrote:
               | Revealed preferences suggest otherwise and that matters
               | because he says a lot of things, often contradictory.
               | 
               | Is it just another Epstein diversion maybe?
               | 
               | Oil story doesn't stack up though:                   -
               | it's heavy sour oil, the tar like substance isn't
               | economically extractable without an almost doubling in
               | barrel price         - cheaper (existing infra) sour
               | supply chain with Canada already meets US shale light
               | sweet oil blending needs for a long time         -
               | decided on maintaining stability of existing Venezuelan
               | regime over supporting regime change
               | 
               | One thing that lines up so far is it does seem to be
               | disproportionately effective at displacing column inches
               | spent on the pending bringing to justice of Epstein
               | entangled elites. Disproportionately because that pursuit
               | of justice seems quite resilient in resisting
               | partisanship breakdown.
        
         | tehjoker wrote:
         | People are always talking about this precusor from China, but I
         | have no idea what this precursor is. Are they chemicals that
         | are useful for lots of things or is it only useful for this?
         | Because if it is the former, then China is just selling regular
         | ass legal chemicals because they are the worlds number 1
         | supplier of manufactured goods.
        
           | defrost wrote:
           | The challenge in international drug operations was not to get
           | China to stop selling bricks to house builders to but get
           | China to cooperate in stopping the sale of bricks to groups
           | that only use bricks to throw through windows and at heads.
        
           | OneDeuxTriSeiGo wrote:
           | Fun fact: The "traditional" way of making it was extracting
           | piperine from black pepper and reacting that with nitric
           | acid. Nowadays it's made in other more industrial scalable
           | ways.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piperidine#List_of_piperidine_.
           | ..
           | 
           | But yes, the same base precursors (and their siblings) are
           | used to manufacture ADHD meds (ritalin/concerta),
           | antidepressants (paxil), insect repellents
           | (picaridin/bayrepel), hair loss medications (rogaine),
           | allergy meds (claritin), anti-psychotics (haldol), anti-
           | diarrhea meds (imodium), and many others. And also PCP.
           | 
           | So it's non-trivial to prevent. The core of the issue is that
           | the one pot Gupta method came about in the 2000s and it made
           | it extremely easy to manufacture fentanyl using these basic
           | building blocks for so much of the pharma industry. Not only
           | just making it easier to source ingredients but it took out
           | all the steps and made the process easy as hell as well.
        
       | mythrwy wrote:
       | "Supply shock" might not be the only, or even primary cause. As
       | far as I know fentanyl is still widely available and inexpensive.
       | 
       | My guess is only a subset of the population is willing to both A)
       | Use a substance like street fentanyl with known lethality. and B)
       | Do so in a risky and unsafe manner (alone, no narcan, shooting
       | instead of smoking, etc. etc.).
       | 
       | That subset of the population has already been decimated to the
       | point we are seeing a decrease, and survivors have become more
       | educated on how to use without dying.
        
         | kayodelycaon wrote:
         | A major factor is Narcan being far more available and usable by
         | people who are not trained.
        
         | DoctorOetker wrote:
         | Is there a graph of the decline in overdoses with time?
         | 
         | Your explanation suggests an exponential decay (ignoring
         | aggravating conditions, like seasonal temperature, violence,
         | ...)
        
           | maxbond wrote:
           | In the article, yes. https://d9258mdc7ql01n.archive.is/C0Y0G/
           | 696eb2f917764f004c5f...
        
         | diego_moita wrote:
         | That seems the most plausible explanation.
         | 
         | The article says something along these lines. Every pandemic
         | has a peak point when people become alarmed, and there is a
         | clear way to avoid contamination.
         | 
         | It happened with AIDS when people began stopping having risky
         | relations. It is only natural that it would also happen in drug
         | addiction when everyone sees its devastating effects.
         | 
         | The same thing might be happening to tobacco and alcohol
         | consumption.
         | 
         | Deaths for lack of vaccines (e.g. measles) will also behave the
         | same way. When people see very explicitly that risky behaviour
         | has consequences, they think twice before doing it.
        
           | 20after4 wrote:
           | > When people see very explicitly that risky behaviour has
           | consequences
           | 
           | With much emphasis on the "very explicitly" part.
           | 
           | It seems to only work that way when it is very explicit and
           | rapid consequences. Abstract consequences far in the future
           | are not very effective at deterring [ entertaining |
           | desirable | fashionable | profitable ] behavior.
        
           | jasonfarnon wrote:
           | "The same thing might be happening to tobacco and alcohol
           | consumption."
           | 
           | I believe the data on smoking was the opposite. Showing
           | people the terrible consequences of smoking (including very
           | graphic images) turns out to have minimal or no effect. There
           | was a large randomized trial in the pacific northwest some
           | decades ago. A lot of people now point to taxes as the main
           | driver in the decrease.
        
         | Aloha wrote:
         | I'm skeptical of that last one.
         | 
         | My dad was a heroin addict, and while he eventually got
         | (mostly) clean, he wryly joked to me once "you know there
         | aren't a ton of old heroin users for a reason"
         | 
         | Using street drugs kills - we can put people on opiates if done
         | in a controlled way, for the rest of their lives, we instead
         | have gone down the road of prohibition, closing off pathways
         | for people to get maintenance dosing of opiates.
        
         | pengaru wrote:
         | Just a different form of supply shock - to the supply of users.
         | 
         | Living in downtown SF for the last two years has made it
         | painfully obvious those using fent on the streets are not long
         | for this world. It'd an inherently self-solving problem, grim
         | but true.
        
           | appplication wrote:
           | There is also a never ending supply of destitute and
           | destined-to-be-destitute in America. The people may change
           | but the problem persists.
        
             | 20after4 wrote:
             | Not all (probably not even most) destitute people become
             | opiate addicts. People become destitute because they are
             | opiate addicts, it's not the other way around.
        
           | dilyevsky wrote:
           | > to the supply of users
           | 
           | I think there is a word for this...
        
         | bsder wrote:
         | > fentanyl powder and pills were losing potency just as
         | overdose deaths were falling
         | 
         | Combined with the already dead, does this not explain things?
         | 
         | Illegal drug suppliers don't make money by killing their
         | customers. Consequently, they finally got control over the
         | potency throughout their supply chain.
         | 
         | Although, I'm more interested in the _standard deviation_ of
         | the potency than the absolute value of the potency. I suspect
         | that is _much_ more correlated with OD deaths.
        
       | dopa42365 wrote:
       | If the cost didn't go up, it can't have been a supply shortage.
       | Even at its US peak, there wasn't much of a "fentanyl epidemic"
       | in Mexico either.
       | 
       | The overprescription of opioids in the US (especially in the
       | past) is hardly a secret.
        
         | conformist wrote:
         | "Even as quality worsens, prices in drug markets are sticky, so
         | the decreasing potency probably meant people were taking less
         | fentanyl."
        
       | lazarus01 wrote:
       | >> Researchers have pondered what could have caused this sudden
       | turnaround, pointing to the end of the covid-19 pandemic or a
       | rise in drug treatment. A new article, published in Science on
       | January 8th, suggests, instead, that a supply shock drove the
       | decrease.
       | 
       | The supply shock sounds right.
       | 
       | I was volunteering at a state run institution, who had an
       | addiction data science team, at the peak of the opioid crisis. I
       | was developing ml models to predict patient dropout early in a 32
       | week program. The data and funding for such research was very
       | scarce and it didn't go anywhere.
       | 
       | Treatment for opioid use disorder with medication is highly
       | effective for 50% - 90% who respond well to treatment. The
       | problem with the bottom 50% was early dropout, due to the lack of
       | dissemination of proper treatment protocols and stigma attached
       | to medication for treatment (methadone). I stopped following the
       | work, I became too sensitive, it was pretty depressing.
       | 
       | The pandemic coupled with the increase in illicit fentanyl was
       | just tragic in what it did to people. I remember reading the DEA
       | research, where the precursor for fentanyl came from china and
       | was manufactured and distributed from mexico. Mexico was also
       | manufacturing high quality meth and displaced most of the meth
       | labs in america, coming with increases in meth overdose during
       | the same period. The fentanyl was so cheap compared to
       | traditional heroin manufacturing.
       | 
       | I'm glad the supply seems to have dried up. It was nuts, what was
       | going on a few years ago.
        
         | 20after4 wrote:
         | I think that many methadone clinics are operating very
         | unethically, to the point I would call it fraudulent. Certainly
         | it's cruel to the patients. They essentially set up the patient
         | to be a lifetime methadone addict. This may be an improvement
         | over getting your fix on the street but it's still addiction
         | dependence and it's expensive (profitable!). I'm unsure if it's
         | just a few or a large fraction of them that operate this way.
         | Maybe my data point is a unique outlier but here's what I saw:
         | 
         | I had a friend who was going through the program in Springfield
         | Missouri, approximately 10 years ago, and the clinic literally
         | increased his dose every week or two. They also had strict
         | controls to make sure the patients actually take the full dose
         | (because otherwise they might sell some of it on the street).
         | So they were left with just 2 options, either drop out of the
         | program and find their fix elsewhere, or accept a gradually
         | increasing dose of methadone, forever. It's a sick program that
         | is set up to make sure patients gradually descend deeper into
         | addiction while they rake in huge profits. It's not really any
         | different from what the drug dealers on the street are doing
         | except that it's even more exploitative and dishonest. The
         | doctors had zero plan for weaning people off of the methadone
         | and some people had been on the program for years, with
         | correspondingly huge doses doled out to them every time they
         | came in. This was 10 years ago, at the time it cost something
         | like $50 per visit, paid by the patient or possibly medicaid.
         | 
         | Edited slightly for clarity.
        
           | deepsun wrote:
           | Well, addiction or not, the main question is what medics call
           | "quality of life" -- whether a patient can life their life to
           | the full potential.
           | 
           | There are millions of people addicted to caffeine, the most
           | popular psychoactive substance in the world, but as it
           | usually doesn't prevent them to live their life and "be a
           | productive member of society", no one cares of treating
           | caffeine addiction, save for religious societies.
           | 
           | My point is -- is methadone addiction "better" than fentanyl
           | in that regard? If yes, than that's ok.
        
             | lazarus01 wrote:
             | Agreed.
             | 
             | Methadone is effective because it comes with lower
             | respiratory fatigue.
             | 
             | If you have a nasty addiction, methadone is the gold
             | standard for treatment. It's really all that's available to
             | ween people down.
             | 
             | There are other medications for maintenance like
             | buprenorphine and naltrexone. But you can't take those if
             | you're in the throws of heavy addiction, you can die.
        
             | 20after4 wrote:
             | My complaint was about the forced increasing of dosage.
             | They literally would not allow the patient to wean off of
             | it. So yes, it might be an improvement over the shit on the
             | street but it's diabolical that they force patients to
             | continually increase their dose rather than gradually
             | decreasing it.
             | 
             | I have no idea if this is common or just this one shady
             | clinic but my data point of 1 still stands. If there is
             | one, then given that this would be very profitable, it's
             | highly likely that there are other clinics with similarly
             | unethical policies.
        
               | antonvs wrote:
               | Was there some stated rationale for the dose increase?
        
               | 20after4 wrote:
               | Not that I'm aware of, it seemed rather arbitrary. The
               | people who had been going to that clinic for a while all
               | had massive doses, almost to a ridiculous degree. My
               | perception was that it was to keep them hopelessly
               | addicted. I was only peripherally involved as it was my
               | friend who was the patient. He was very fortunate to have
               | family with influence in the Mormon church - his family
               | had the church send some local missionaries to help him -
               | and they genuinely did help him escape that terrible
               | situation.
        
               | 20after4 wrote:
               | It's possible my friend wasn't telling me the whole story
               | or just misunderstood the program. I don't think he was
               | actually trying to stay addicted though because after a
               | few weeks on methadone (with increasing doses and doctors
               | telling him that he would always be an addict for life)
               | he decided to take the more extreme route of getting
               | clean by quitting cold turkey. He moved to a different
               | state and cut ties with every possible source he had to
               | acquire the drugs.
        
               | XorNot wrote:
               | Did it work? Is he clean?
        
               | 20after4 wrote:
               | Yes it worked.
        
               | antonvs wrote:
               | This is certainly possible, but it sounds more like what
               | AA tells its clients. Doctors are less likely to say
               | things like this, because it can have consequences for
               | them.
               | 
               | Going cold turkey like you're saying he did is fine if
               | (1) it doesn't kill you and (2) you're able to do it. For
               | many people, it's just not very practical.
               | 
               | I don't think it's a good idea to demonize medical
               | professionals for doing their jobs to the best of their
               | abilities in the face of enormous challenges. That's the
               | kind of thing that the conspiracy theorist and anti-
               | science Robert F. Kennedy Jr. does, and it's not helping
               | the US in any way at all.
        
               | idiotsecant wrote:
               | And yet, you're comfortable accusing the people _trying
               | to cure addicts_ of some diabolical plot to ensnare them
               | into permeant addiction in order to make money off them
               | forever. Maybe next time you 'll think before you
               | propagate nonsense.
        
               | antonvs wrote:
               | To answer my own question: what you described sounds like
               | part of the standard recommended protocol, and it seems
               | likely your friend misunderstood or misrepresented that.
               | 
               | I'll explain with liberal quotes from the document linked
               | below. Dosages start out low to avoid risk to the
               | patient, because "the most common reason for death or
               | non-fatal overdose from methadone treatment is overly
               | aggressive prescribing/dose-titration during the first
               | two weeks of treatment."
               | 
               | Because of this, "methadone induction and titration MUST
               | be approached slowly and cautiously. It may take several
               | weeks to address opioid withdrawal effectively. It is
               | important to be upfront with patients about this
               | requirement and to discuss ways to cope with ongoing
               | withdrawal and cravings, to maintain engagement in
               | treatment."
               | 
               | The dose increase is described in the following
               | paragraph:
               | 
               | "...methadone can be initiated without the prerequisite
               | presence of opioid withdrawal. This may be preferential
               | for some patients. The patient's dose should be titrated
               | with a "start low and go slow" approach, based on regular
               | clinical assessment, until initial dose stability is
               | reached - see specific recommendations below. A stable
               | dose is achieved when opioid withdrawal is eliminated or
               | adequately suppressed for 24 hours to allow patients to
               | further engage in ongoing medical and psychosocial
               | treatment. The ultimate goal is to work toward clinical
               | stability."
               | 
               | In other words, for patients who are continuing to take
               | other opioids, the methadone dose is increased over time
               | to make it easier for the patient to reduce that other
               | intake. Dosage is based on interviews with the patient.
               | 
               | Addicts are very good at subconsciously coming up with
               | rationales for remaining addicted. It's much more likely
               | that your friend found himself in that trap, than that he
               | was going to an unethical clinic trying to keep him
               | addicted "forever". That would be a major violation of
               | the law and breach of medical ethics, and would be likely
               | to come to the attention of regulators if it was a
               | recurring pattern.
               | 
               | https://cpsm.mb.ca/assets/PrescribingPracticesProgram/Rec
               | omm...
        
               | patmorgan23 wrote:
               | > They literally would not allow the patient to wean off
               | of it
               | 
               | If true that clinic needs to be reported. Patients have a
               | right to taper down and exit treatment.
               | 
               | When a patient enters treatment at an OTP (Methadone
               | clinic) they start with a small initial dose that is
               | increased over the initial 30-60 days of treatment. Some
               | clinics do this somewhat aggressively because they are
               | trying to get the patient up to a "protective" dose.
               | Methadone blocks the 'euphoric' effects of other opioids
               | and protects patients who may still be taking other
               | substance outside of their prescribed treatment program
               | from overdose. Getting to a protective dose faster ends
               | up saving patients lives.
               | 
               | So that maybe why the clinic was firm about trying to
               | increase you friends dose.
               | 
               | OTPs are also required to offer counseling, the idea
               | being methodone is used to address the physical aspects
               | of addiction, and counseling is use to address the
               | psychological/emotional side of addiction. Help patients
               | build coping skills, figuring out what their triggers
               | are, and find ways to stay out of those situations, etc.
               | Some patients are instrested in that and eventually
               | getting off of Methadone, some aren't. Some clinics
               | provide really great counseling, some don't. The "dose
               | and go" clinics are definitely a problem in the industry.
               | 
               | https://www.samhsa.gov/substance-
               | use/treatment/options/metha...
        
               | vladvasiliu wrote:
               | > Methadone blocks the 'euphoric' effects of other
               | opioids and protects patients who may still be taking
               | other substance outside of their prescribed treatment
               | program from overdose. Getting to a protective dose
               | faster ends up saving patients lives.
               | 
               | How does this work? Naively, I'd expect addicts to up the
               | dose of the "other substances" if they can't reach their
               | high. Or does methadone outright "block" the other
               | substances' effects?
        
             | herbst wrote:
             | In Switzerland there is state grown heroin because it
             | should be even less quality of life inferencing than most
             | other alternatives. They do this for a long while now and
             | it works, most people have jobs and you couldn't tell they
             | get daily heroin in the best quality you could imagine (for
             | free)
        
             | vixen99 wrote:
             | And no one bothers much about these either: 'A Neglected
             | Link Between the Psychoactive Effects of Dietary
             | Ingredients and Consciousness-Altering Drugs.' https://www.
             | frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10....
        
             | scotty79 wrote:
             | > no one cares of treating caffeine addiction
             | 
             | If people were aware in how many ways caffeine messes up a
             | lot of people there would be. Exhaustion, migranes,
             | anxieties, twitching, insomnia, mental issues to name a
             | few. Most never attributed to caffeine but mysteriously
             | going away after a person manges to kick the habit.
        
             | kakacik wrote:
             | Dude, caffeine ain't no heroin. I drink 2-3 coffees a day
             | and skipping this (ie traveling on vacation, easily for a
             | week or two) does 0 to my body, mind or sleep. I just don't
             | feel the effect at all, I drink it purely for the taste.
             | 
             | There is no human in this world who could say something
             | similar about heroin.
        
           | SkyPuncher wrote:
           | Your argument seems to be missing the fact that methadone
           | clinics are serving people with an existing addiction. They
           | didn't create that addiction, but they can fill the desire
           | created by that addiction in a safe manner.
           | 
           | The ideal situation is the client leverages methadone into a
           | recovery/remission from addiction - but that can be
           | incredibly hard for them to do.
        
             | Lord-Jobo wrote:
             | If someone is addicted to ice cream, and the most effective
             | treatment is to replace that addiction with
             | spinach(scientifically supported), would anyone have this
             | problem? I doubt it. People's knee jerk reaction to any
             | kind of """"drug enabling"""" treatment is infuriating. I
             | know multiple people personally who have had their life
             | saved by methadone. Yes that makes me biased but it also
             | justifies the bias (alongside the many medical
             | professionals advocating for it)
        
         | AndrewKemendo wrote:
         | Even still today there is no reliable place to source black tar
         | or China White or any of the traditional opium derivatives
         | without having a fentanyl cut.
        
           | t-3 wrote:
           | Isn't this more because the supply of poppy was cut off when
           | the US pulled out of Afghanistan? Users want the good stuff,
           | dealers buy the cheap and available stuff and pretend it's
           | real.
        
             | metalman wrote:
             | poppy/opium/heroin production has shifted to myanmar, but
             | there has been less production, and the synthetics are much
             | cheaper ,so that reduces profitability for poppy
             | Afganistan, have set up addiction centers, where addicts
             | are put, but it's cold turkey. Opium poppy production is
             | bieng eradicated in Afganistan ,and penaltiys for drug
             | smugglers and dealers will escalate, but a quick search
             | shows the increadable synicism of the western press who are
             | spinning it as "hardship for Afganinstans farmers"
        
               | lukan wrote:
               | "hardship for Afganinstans farmers"
               | 
               | Isn't it hardship when people with guns come to you and
               | burn your fields?
        
               | metalman wrote:
               | ok, lets talk about Palestine ,if thats what you want.
        
               | HPsquared wrote:
               | I wonder how this compares to the common western
               | situation of livestock culls. Presumably there is
               | compensation in some cases and not in others (poppy
               | cultivation being illegal). I suppose it's at opposite
               | ends of a scale.
        
               | t-3 wrote:
               | Oh, woe is me, the government burned down my illegal drug
               | manufacturing operation! Where is the justice?!
        
         | greygoo222 wrote:
         | The initial spike in overdose deaths were largely caused by
         | government crackdowns on pharma drugs.
        
           | monero-xmr wrote:
           | You can live with a sustained opioid addiction permanently
           | without major issues. That's the entire basis of methadone
           | clinics - controlled dispersement of opioids at a level that
           | solves cravings and allows the addict to be functional. It is
           | very sad we don't allow pharmaceutical grade opioids to be
           | given to addicts in a controlled way, it would eliminate the
           | purity variance that causes overdoses, and prevent the poison
           | mixed in to increase street profits from destroying bodies
           | (tranq, etc)
        
             | specproc wrote:
             | Methadone is available in the UK, on the NHS. I know at
             | least one person who has been on it for decades.
             | 
             | https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/methadone/
        
             | herbst wrote:
             | In Switzerland they can get actual, state grown, heroin.
             | Clean heroin is one of the least problematic substances
             | appearantly, less problematic and more "everyday friendly"
             | than Methadon even.
             | 
             | And you don't SEE any issues like in the US (or UK) around
             | here at all.
        
               | monero-xmr wrote:
               | Imagine you are sitting in a room. Your child is in front
               | of you. A scary man sits next to them. The man says:
               | 
               | "Your child is a drug addict. They are addicted to
               | opioids. I am the devil, without any care in the world
               | other than making money. The choice is yours. Would you
               | rather they inject clean heroin made by a pharmaceutical
               | company in your country, or banish them forever as street
               | addicts slavishly doing what it takes to score their
               | fix?"
               | 
               | When facing the devil I'm voting for my tax dollars to
               | give them clean heroin made by my country. That is what
               | every parent wants when faced with an addicted child
        
               | lolive wrote:
               | I switched from my Twitter addiction to a Bluesky
               | addiction. Still scrolling to death, but now my opinion
               | is mine again. #dontDoGrok
        
               | znpy wrote:
               | That's a fake dichotomy btw, a sadly very common logical
               | fallacy.
               | 
               | You (wrongly) assume there's no way out of an addiction,
               | for example.
        
               | acessoproibido wrote:
               | Its definitely easier to beat addiction if you aren't
               | living on the street, selling everything you have and are
               | injecting one of the most horrible shit substances but
               | instead you are using a clean, safe alternative that is
               | provided by the state together with prevention programs
               | (which is usually the model for this) - how is it a false
               | dichotomy?
               | 
               | Or are you someone who assumes you just need to "use
               | willpower" and "stop" being an addict? I assure you its
               | not so easy with opiates.
        
               | imtringued wrote:
               | Usually the fastest and most effective way out of an
               | addiction is medication assisted treatment, which means
               | having a doctor control your dosage with a clean supply
               | of the drug or a less addictive substitute that targets
               | the same receptors.
        
               | solumunus wrote:
               | They never made such an assumption.
        
               | Tom1380 wrote:
               | I live in Zurich. I spent 5 minutes waiting at a bus stop
               | in Langstrasse and I was offered cocaine and marijuana by
               | a thug
        
               | herbst wrote:
               | Sounds like you have easy options for some common drugs.
               | Not a bad thing perse and sounds like they didn't offer
               | any opioids
        
               | fennecbutt wrote:
               | Lmao as a kiwi living in UK it's definitely a bad thing.
               | Can't go on a night out in London without half dozen
               | dudes trying to sell you coke. Same dudes who are waiting
               | in alleys waiting to mug people when they get the chance.
               | 
               | If you ever see >1 person just standing around and not
               | walking somewhere in London early in the morning just
               | stay the fuck away from them. And if they start heading
               | your way, run.
        
               | herbst wrote:
               | I know how annoying this can be, especially in some
               | countries this behaviour is often directly associated
               | with criminality. Here in Switzerland dealers are often
               | (not always) just that, they make enough to not bother
               | with anything else. They don't look like "dirty" junkies,
               | they don't bother stealing from tourists, they basically
               | don't look for any extra attention when the business is
               | rolling anyway.
        
               | scotty79 wrote:
               | When I was in Amsterdam people were offering hard drugs
               | on the street but "no, thank you" was perfectly
               | sufficient response
        
               | herbst wrote:
               | This. Same in Switzerland. Feels different in for example
               | Prague, Vienna, ...
        
               | seanmcdirmid wrote:
               | Survival bias: the police would come down on them on hard
               | if they were scene as disrupting social order. They have
               | to not look dirty to survive, Swiss police are no joke.
        
               | alimw wrote:
               | You've only told us that you're scared of being mugged by
               | dealers! That doesn't even count as anecdotal evidence
               | that it's likely.
        
               | comice wrote:
               | The comment was about heroin. Were you offered heroin?
               | 
               | Is cocaine and marijuana available from the government
               | too? If not, what relevance is your comment?
               | 
               | Was this the first and only time you were waiting at a
               | bus stop in Switzerland? If so, perhaps a notable story,
               | if not then we'll need more information to conclude how
               | bad this thug problem really is in Switzerland.
        
               | zhdc1 wrote:
               | Langstrasse is as close to a red-light district as you'll
               | find in Zurich.
               | 
               | It's gotten a lot better over the last couple of years,
               | but stating that you were offered drugs there is like
               | being offended that you walked past a casino in Vegas.
        
               | johnisgood wrote:
               | The problem is definitely with adultered products. Never
               | accept anything from a random "thug".
        
               | zhdc1 wrote:
               | "waiting at a bus stop in Langstrasse" -> what were you
               | expecting?
        
               | jacquesm wrote:
               | Probably a bus?
        
               | Etheryte wrote:
               | If you think cocaine and marijuana are
               | comparable/interchangeable with heroin, you might want to
               | educate yourself on the topic a bit more before trying to
               | make a quip.
        
               | kakacik wrote:
               | Is it too long, too little or what? Red light districts,
               | official or not are _the_ place to get drugs in european
               | towns. Langstrasse is basically an official place for
               | that, at least the most official Zurich has.
        
               | Aurornis wrote:
               | > Clean heroin is one of the least problematic substances
               | appearantly, less problematic and more "everyday
               | friendly" than Methadon even.
               | 
               | Least problematic is too strong of wording. Consistent
               | opioid use will take a large toll on the body and mind. A
               | therapeutic level of dosing could possibly be better than
               | severe chronic pain depending on the situation, but even
               | chronic pain patients have to deal with a range of
               | negatives and side effects that are only tolerable
               | because they're less bad than their severe chronic pain.
               | 
               | Chronic opioid use induces a lot of changes in the body
               | and mind. The initial euphoria isn't sustainable, as
               | everyone knows, but long term use induces even further
               | changes that predispose users to deeper depression and
               | can even begin to augment pain signals.
               | 
               | Opioids are in a class of drugs that are unusually
               | deceptive because users who more or less control their
               | dosing will talk themselves into thinking they can do
               | this forever without real negatives. They can go for
               | years before the cumulative negatives become too obvious
               | to ignore.
               | 
               | For addicts deep in cycles of rehab-relapse extremes,
               | going to a maintenance program and achieving stability is
               | definitely better than continuing the cycle indefinitely.
               | However it comes with a high price relative to sobriety.
               | I think it's important to not downplay the effects of
               | being on opioids for years and years.
        
             | mmooss wrote:
             | > You can live with a sustained opioid addiction
             | permanently without major issues.
             | 
             | To me that seems to say cause of the opiod crisis doesn't
             | exist, which probably isn't what you mean. But what do you
             | mean?
        
               | monero-xmr wrote:
               | The problem is not the opioids themselves as a chemical.
               | They are tolerated well and have minimal side effects.
               | The main issue is that street opioids are of uncertain
               | purity, and cut with toxic chemicals. This causes
               | overdoses when a batch is too strong, and various health
               | issues from the harsh toxins.
               | 
               | A properly managed opioid addiction can be permanent. For
               | a decade millions of Americans were addicted to opioids
               | (OxyContin, Vicodin, etc.) prescribed by doctors. When
               | the state cracked down they were forced to go on the
               | street to get their medicine, which is when the opioid
               | crisis exploded
        
               | Veliladon wrote:
               | And we learned zero from the change after shutting down
               | the Purdues. The electorate just wants to see drug users
               | punished, not treated. Even though treating cheaper, more
               | humane, and has way better outcomes.
        
               | gruez wrote:
               | >When the state cracked down they were forced to go on
               | the street to get their medicine, which is when the
               | opioid crisis exploded.
               | 
               | What's the data corroborating this theory?
        
         | cavisne wrote:
         | Channel 5 did a good piece on "Tranq" which lets China skip the
         | Mexican part of the supply chain as they can mail the finish
         | product straight to the US.
         | 
         | Since the article suggests there must have been a change in
         | china to cause this it seems likely they just moved from
         | fentanyl to tranq.
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=925wmb-4Yr4&t=1623s&pp=ygUPY...
        
           | _DeadFred_ wrote:
           | Lots of people were getting fent analogs straight from China.
           | Which had me wondering. The guys that I knew that
           | ordered/distributed it (ex-marines that had pill addictions
           | after Iraq/Afghanistan) would get different analogs randomly
           | I guess, and would test each batch on themselves. Some were
           | way more sketchy than others, and they ultimate caught a case
           | with a body from a new batch. Could the less deaths be
           | because of the analogs in production at the time?
        
       | idoubtit wrote:
       | The reporter rightly queried other researchers about this
       | article, and all of them were skeptical that a "supply shock"
       | could be the cause, or even the main cause. My own skepticism is
       | because the death rate went down many months before any sign of
       | shortage appeared.
       | 
       | I haven't read the paywalled Science paper, but The Economist
       | extracted a graph which shows that the purity of Fentanyl pills
       | was stable till the first months of 2024, then dropped sharply.
       | The purity of the powder peaked in 2023, then went down in 2024,
       | back to its older levels. They suppose that it proves the supply
       | was short, but another researcher even states that the supply of
       | Fentanyl precursors didn't change until the end of 2024.
       | 
       | Anyway, the epidemic plateaued by the start of 2022, then went
       | down after August 2023; Source
       | https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm
       | 
       | Why did the death rate slow down for one year, then go down many
       | months before any sign of supply changes?
        
         | jfengel wrote:
         | The article says that deaths peaked in mid 2023. Narcan was
         | approved for over the counter use in March 2023.
         | 
         | That suggests a plausible alternative cause.
        
           | SV_BubbleTime wrote:
           | What is your supposition here? That addicts are keeping
           | narcan around just in case? That good friends of addicts are
           | standing by with the spray in case it is needed? That your
           | local opium den had staff with it on hand?
           | 
           | Narcan should be available, but short of a few users that
           | know they need to keep it around, I don't buy that making it
           | available has meant a significant change in total outcomes
           | because of timely deployment.
        
             | swamp_donkey wrote:
             | First responders would carry narcan or equivalent. I am
             | sure it is readily available in areas where people are
             | dying daily from overdoses.
        
             | squigz wrote:
             | Some of those ... absolutely, yes?
             | 
             | You might have got some at a rehab centre, or someone might
             | live with a non-addict friend or partner. Community
             | outreach workers (in cities that have embraced this stuff)
             | might carry some around to administer.
             | 
             | I would be surprised if widespread availability to Narcan
             | didn't decrease ODs.
        
             | fc417fc802 wrote:
             | Yes to all of the above. I knew of addicts who managed to
             | get their hands on it many years ago when it required a
             | prescription. Most weren't that resourceful though.
        
             | patmorgan23 wrote:
             | See as you can buy narcan out of a vending machine now, yes
             | it's wider distribution probably has a downward effect on
             | opioid deaths.
        
       | greygoo222 wrote:
       | The claim that fentanyl death rates are decreasing because
       | fentanyl products are less pure does not make much sense. Even on
       | their provided charts, deaths dropped months before purity did.
       | 
       | The article points to a 50% decrease in purity, which a habitual
       | user would compensate for by taking twice as much. Lower average
       | purity also increases the risk of inconsistent purity, where rare
       | batches are unexpectedly strong and carry high accidental
       | overdose risk. Less pure fentanyl floating around might mean
       | lower chances of unsuspecting non-fentanyl drug users being
       | poisoned with it, but it's hard to see how this could cut into
       | overall overdose cases.
        
         | sheepscreek wrote:
         | > article points to a 50% decrease in purity, which a habitual
         | user would compensate for by taking twice as much
         | 
         | I'll be first to admit I'm generally pretty ignorant on this
         | topic but I've heard a plausible explanation for how Fentanyl
         | is actually used.
         | 
         | A medical professional shared with me that Fentanyl is too
         | potent to be consumed as is. So generally, dealers use it as an
         | additive. They lace other drugs with trace amounts of to make
         | them more addictive. It's the MSG of drugs.
         | 
         | So while ODing on say, drug A is possibly with 5 uses at once.
         | When laced with Fentanyl, a person might OD in just 3 uses
         | (because Fentanyl is much more potent than the actual drug the
         | user bought).
         | 
         | Hence, less Fentanyl = less chance of ODing.
        
           | sneak wrote:
           | Fentanyl isn't too potent to be consumed as-is, but the
           | dosage is very very small. The amount of fentanyl that will
           | kill you is literally invisible. The LD50 appears to be well
           | under 0.01mg/kg (that is, a milligram will kill a 220lb
           | person).
        
           | fc417fc802 wrote:
           | > I've heard a plausible explanation
           | 
           | To be blunt it was total bullshit. Pharmaceuticals have an
           | extremely wide range of dosages. Fentanyl is on the extreme
           | low end, benadryl an adult might take 25 mg or 50 mg, tylenol
           | an adult might take 500 mg, and something like amoxicillin an
           | adult might take as much as 3000 mg for a severe infection.
           | There are standard, extremely reliable ways to prepare pills
           | that contain the correct dosage regardless of the potency of
           | the pure chemical.
           | 
           | Obviously fentanyl (or its precursor) is imported (ie
           | smuggled) in highly pure form in order to minimize the size
           | of the shipment. Obviously it can't be consumed in that form.
           | 
           | The combination of being potent and cheap to smuggle lends
           | itself nicely to cutting other (more expensive) products with
           | it. That's false advertising but it won't typically kill you
           | in and of itself.
           | 
           | When laymen who don't know what they're doing, don't have
           | access to proper facilities, and certainly can't set up
           | proper quality controls process something that potent it's no
           | wonder that things go wrong and people die. If (for example)
           | the same victims had purchased fentanyl from a pharmacy (as
           | opposed to whatever it was they thought they were consuming)
           | they almost certainly would not have had any issues. Almost
           | no one ODs intentionally.
           | 
           | The point is that it's not "fentanyl is toxic so you OD" it's
           | "the person compounding the pill messed up the dosage, you
           | took more than you thought, so you OD". This could happen
           | just as easily with any other drug. The danger here is due to
           | pills not containing the dosage that the consumer believes
           | them to.
        
             | jmalicki wrote:
             | Other drugs aren't dosed in micrograms. It's pretty
             | believable that street labs don't having the precision to
             | get reliable dosing in such small quantities. 50/100mcg is
             | the typical ambulance dosing of fentanyl (where it's often
             | used as the primary painkiller) - so at 500 times smaller
             | than that of benadryl, it would take a reasonably high-end
             | lab (at least by mid-level drug dealer standards) to not
             | wildly mess up the dosing all the time - even if you mixed
             | at larger scales, that still doesn't easily guarantee a
             | uniform blend.
             | 
             | It couldn't happen "just as easily" with any other drug.
        
               | fc417fc802 wrote:
               | That's "pretty believable" but it's also complete
               | bullshit. Why do you feel it necessary to comment in an
               | authoritative manner when you don't know what you're
               | talking about? It's literally spreading misinformation.
               | 
               | The relevant technique is called "serial dilution" and
               | it's regularly practiced in intro level chemistry and
               | molecular biology classes. An otherwise untrained
               | undergrad, using only a pipette and a volumetric flask,
               | can consistently and reliably dilute samples to nanogram
               | per liter levels. The error accumulates as some
               | (exceedingly small) percentage of the target value per
               | dilution step so even after 10 or more steps the error
               | will remain well within manageable range.
               | 
               | The issue is not fentanyl having a power level over 9000
               | or whatever other nonsense. It's people who don't know
               | what they're doing, don't have access to a proper setup,
               | and have no realistic way to implement a proper quality
               | control regime manufacturing pharmaceuticals.
               | 
               | Fentanyl didn't kill all these people. Objectively poor
               | public policy indirectly led to the deaths of those who
               | violated the law just as it did during prohibition.
        
               | herbst wrote:
               | LSD is an even smaller dose and I never heard of
               | extremely strong LSD on the streets. Dealers manage to do
               | their work properly.
        
               | zipy124 wrote:
               | LSD is dropped onto paper in solution though. So to
               | control dose is easy since you can easy halve a dose by
               | doubling the volume of solution. Dosing a powder/crystal
               | is much more difficult, especially if you need to get it
               | back out of solution.
        
               | sva_ wrote:
               | LSD is a powder/crystal (a salt). People just don't
               | consume opioids orally, usually. There's something
               | similar though: skin patches, since (other than LSD)
               | fentanyl can be absorbed through the skin.
        
               | cap11235 wrote:
               | Blotters.
        
               | jmalicki wrote:
               | In context, we're talking about pills cut with fentanyl,
               | in which case it is often consumed orally, mixed in at a
               | very small concentration compared to the other
               | ingredients.
               | 
               | Powedered drugs like cocaine mixed with fentanyl are even
               | more horrible, since there is absolutely nothing to keep
               | the concentration of fentanyl homogeneous throughout as
               | it is handled.
        
               | herbst wrote:
               | Fentanyl can be dropped onto a paper. As others said LSD
               | is a salt, something will also dissolve fenta.
        
             | 15155 wrote:
             | Why do you think fentanyl is typically distributed in patch
             | form (transdermal delivery) or highly dilute injection in a
             | hospital setting?
        
         | topspin wrote:
         | It makes a great deal of sense.
         | 
         | > deaths dropped months before purity did
         | 
         | That's a plausible lag: credible purity figures are not sourced
         | from Mexican drug cartels. They come from laboratories at the
         | end of a long chain of custody complicated by legal
         | machinations, dealing with contraband having no provenance
         | beyond its date of seizure. That it takes only "months" to wend
         | its way though the byzantine and corrupt legal system, and the
         | bankers hours academic process of laboratory professionals, is
         | actually admirable.
         | 
         | > which a habitual user would compensate for by taking twice as
         | much
         | 
         | Habitual users are operating in a market, seeking value. They
         | _cannot afford_ to simply double their spend, and I 'll give
         | you one guess as to how quickly purity drops are reflected by
         | price drops in the narcotics business, because that's all a
         | person of sound mind should need.
         | 
         | No, when the purity dropped, users paid the same and got less,
         | and died less. Believe me, I understand why this finding is
         | unwelcome: it serves to put arrows in the "drug war" quiver,
         | and that is anathema, in my mind as well. But knee-jerk
         | thinking, ultimately, isn't helpful. Further, I have complete
         | faith that the ability of drug dealers and drug users of
         | America to produce disturbing body counts will not be
         | diminished for long.
        
           | john-h-k wrote:
           | > They come from laboratories at the end of a long chain of
           | custody complicated by legal machinations, dealing with
           | contraband having no provenance beyond its date of seizure.
           | That it takes only "months" to wend its way though the
           | byzantine and corrupt legal system, and the bankers hours
           | academic process of laboratory professionals, is actually
           | admirable.
           | 
           | But... this relies on the idea that the purity numbers are
           | based on "time of test" not "date of seizure". This seems
           | like a pretty obvious thing they would have accounted for. Do
           | you have any evidence that the published data for purity
           | levels is delayed by several months?
        
             | topspin wrote:
             | > this relies on the idea that the purity numbers are based
             | on "time of test" not "date of seizure"
             | 
             | No, the idea doesn't rely on "time of test" vs "date of
             | seizure". There is no real provenance for any of this.
             | There is no auditable trail for when any given batch of
             | narcotics was manufactured, when it appeared in the US, how
             | long it took to disseminate to domestic dealers, when it
             | may have been further cut by domestic dealers, when it was
             | sold, and when it was actually used. Even the seizure dates
             | are dubious, given haphazard and inconsistent law
             | enforcement handling and record keeping. There are also
             | sampling biases, because some legal jurisdictions and law
             | enforcement organizations are more or less cooperative than
             | others.
             | 
             | All I claimed was that a delay was plausible. I am not
             | obligated to become a narcotics market researcher in
             | defense of my modest claim, and given the nature of all
             | this, no amount of such effort is likely to be sufficient
             | for you in any case.
        
       | awakeasleep wrote:
       | What happened to the theory that the deaths were decreasing
       | because we burned through our buffer of people susceptible to
       | deaths of despair? That always seemed reasonable to me.
        
         | quixoticelixer- wrote:
         | well if you read to the end of the article you might find out.
        
         | GrowingSideways wrote:
         | Surely as time goes on and wealth inequality increases, the
         | number of people "susceptible" to deaths of despair will only
         | increase.
         | 
         | But this attitude smells an awful lot like the stupid person's
         | eugenics. Let's not cater to it.
        
           | xvector wrote:
           | Wealth inequality doesn't cause this kind of despair. We have
           | the greatest wealth inequality in history, but also the
           | objectively best quality of life in history by most metrics
           | (extreme poverty, hunger, starvation, death from disease,
           | infant mortality...)
           | 
           | It does not matter to me if Elon Musk makes another billion
           | dollars if I am making more as well. That does not cause
           | "despair" to a well adjusted person.
           | 
           | Extreme poverty on the other hand (which has been decreasing)
           | does cause these deaths. When people have nowhere left to go
           | and no hope, they to turn to drugs.
           | 
           | Mental illness is another cause. I wonder if we should have
           | gotten rid of asylums.
        
             | seabrookmx wrote:
             | Surely you mean extreme poverty has been decreasing as a
             | percentage of population, not in real numbers?
        
               | xvector wrote:
               | Yes of course.
        
             | nathan_compton wrote:
             | If bothers me if he spends that money exerting an outsized
             | influence on my political institutions, though. Wealth
             | inequality isn't really about wealth so much as _power_. I
             | really don 't care if Musk or anyone else lives more
             | comfortably than me, but I do care if they have more than
             | one figurative vote in how my society functions.
        
               | cryptonector wrote:
               | But that does not address whether the wealth inequality
               | in question causes _despair_ (it almost certainly does
               | not).
        
               | GrowingSideways wrote:
               | What makes you think wealth inequality doesn't cause
               | despair? Despair strikes me as the expected and desired
               | effect.
        
             | GrowingSideways wrote:
             | What do you mean by "objectively"? This smells like pinker-
             | esque spinelesness. Like a "you can buy a smartphone if you
             | ignore the world is dying" tone.
             | 
             | Yes, you can buy a smartphone. But most of what makes us
             | care for each other has died. Why not kill yourself today,
             | Sisyphus? There are fewer reasons than ever.
        
           | whimsicalism wrote:
           | I feel like actual material wealth matters much more than
           | relative wealth or inequality for this metric.
        
             | GrowingSideways wrote:
             | Eh. Most costs that matter scale to relative wealth, and
             | the cost scales accordingly, and we have more homeless
             | people than any rich country on earth, and we have no
             | community worth a damn--we have snap, medicaid, and section
             | 8, and our kind neighbors are rabid to end them all. This
             | is, in most ways, the worst country on earth to be poor in.
             | If i were poor in cincinnati suburbs I'd kill myself too.
             | 
             | Perhaps there's another place where poverty is a greater
             | curse, though. But I would rather be poor in Burundi or
             | Haiti than Ohio--at least I can sleep outside without dying
             | and my neighbor won't fucking shoot me for existing. But
             | this is what i get for living in the us, the place with the
             | most evil people to have ever lived.
        
       | AngryData wrote:
       | I would postulate that people learning how to more safely handle
       | and dose fentanyl would be the biggest reason for ODs to drop.
        
         | defrost wrote:
         | How would you explain the increase in hospitalisation,
         | Emergency Services deployments, and fentanyl drug purity in Q1
         | 2025 then?
         | 
         | Sudden unlearning of aquired knowledge seems unlikely.
         | 
         | See: Figure 1 graph set page 4 -
         | https://www.science.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.112...
        
           | AngryData wrote:
           | Changes in purity, especially when unknown to users, is going
           | to affect hospitalizations and such no doubt, but the people
           | using it also adapt to the purity of a drug over a longer
           | timespan.
           | 
           | Even if people wanted to its not like they can all just bring
           | a sample of their old heroin and a sample of their stronger
           | high fentanyl laced heroin and test their purity and
           | calculate dosages. Which is part of the problem of the war on
           | drugs, many methods of harm mitigation and recovery are
           | barred from users and 90% of their drug information is based
           | on hearsay or personal experience.
        
             | defrost wrote:
             | > part of the problem of the war on drugs, many methods of
             | harm mitigation and recovery are barred from users
             | 
             | That is a problem for the US, sure. Australia, where I
             | live, has supervised shooting galleries and more of an
             | addiction as health issue approach.
             | 
             | That said, if you had a chance to look at the US graphs
             | linked above - there was a plateau period of high deaths in
             | the US of some three and half years showing no much
             | evidence of users learning to "safely handle and dose
             | fentanyl" followed by a sharp decrease in deaths that
             | corresponds more with a change in policy than an increase
             | in user knowledge.
             | 
             | I would suggest this may be a somewhat more complex and
             | multivariate issue than your initial upthread postulate
             | acknowledges.
        
       | Tiktaalik wrote:
       | British Columbia declared the toxic drug crisis an epidemic in
       | 2016, with the amount of deaths amounting to 6-7 a day through
       | this period until now.
       | 
       | The article's theory is compelling but given the incredible
       | amount of deaths, thousands upon thousands of deaths in BC alone,
       | I wonder if the rate of death is declining simply because we're
       | running out of people to kill with our indifference.
        
         | hattmall wrote:
         | Killing addicts more quickly than creating new ones would
         | indeed eventually lead to a decrease in drug related deaths. I
         | would really believe this because I know of multiple people
         | that died from ODs in a fairly short window 4-5 years and that
         | spans a range of about 12 years of people. As in to say
         | everyone I know age 24-36 about half of those people that were
         | opiate users died from about 2019-2023 due to fent. All of them
         | that I know the details of were from fake pills too, so very
         | much related to fentanyl.
        
           | gleenn wrote:
           | Long term you couldn't kill more than existed, asymptotically
           | the maximum number of ODs per unit time would be exactly
           | equal to the number created, impossible to be more.
        
             | cryptonector wrote:
             | By allowing fentanyl to kill so many so fast we might be
             | (almost certainly are) selecting for those who are less
             | susceptible for whatever reason (less susceptible to
             | addition, less susceptible to even beginning to go down
             | that road, more surrounded by loved ones willing to act,
             | more biologically resistant to the killing effects of ODs,
             | etc.).
        
         | fc417fc802 wrote:
         | > running out of people to kill with our indifference.
         | 
         | I wouldn't call it indifference. It's the drug policies that
         | we've very intentionally adopted in the west that result in
         | people purchasing from the black market. It's about as
         | indifferent as the deaths due to denatured alcohol poisoning
         | during prohibition when the additive was silently switched.
        
           | mmooss wrote:
           | We know these policies result in mass deaths; we know other
           | policies result in many fewer deaths; we choose the former
           | policies.
           | 
           | I think that is partly because enough people consider those
           | addicted to drugs to be subhuman - enough don't care much
           | what happens to the addicted people. IMHO in that's because
           | we a large political movement encourages indifference to
           | those different from us, whether the difference is race,
           | politics, gender/sexuality, nationality, or anything else.
        
           | whimsicalism wrote:
           | What policies? Not legalizing heroin or other opioids?
           | 
           | I am not convinced we can claim what you think with any level
           | of confidence.
        
         | paganel wrote:
         | The article does allude to that as possibility towards the end,
         | even though it's not included in the paper on which its primary
         | focus is.
        
       | diogenescynic wrote:
       | And when supply catches up, overdoses will spike because addicts
       | tolerance will have decreased.
        
       | wtcactus wrote:
       | So, statistics clearly show that limiting drugs supply actually
       | works, unlike what the hard left has been saying to us (backed by
       | social "sciences") since the 2000s?
       | 
       | If we just listened to common sense instead of these people,
       | society would be saved from a lot of pain.
        
       | lazyeye wrote:
       | Perhaps the closure of the southern border a year ago might have
       | played some role in this.
        
         | zzrrt wrote:
         | I wonder if Trump pardoning multiple drug dealers will also
         | help. MAGA doctors must have figured out that drugs from
         | political allies or "donors" are doubleplusgood for Americans.
         | /s
        
         | cm2012 wrote:
         | 2025 is not even in the dataset so no
        
       | bdauvergne wrote:
       | Maybe they completely reversed the causality, it's a demand shock
       | not a supply shock. There are less users because they died, and
       | they died pretty fast compared to previous opioid users. As
       | demand diminished there was over supply and to maintain their
       | margins provider had to lower the supply. QED.
       | 
       | As it's a pretty simple hypothesis to test and that it was not
       | maybe imply that the conclusion is politically motivated. Supply-
       | shock imply that something was done and it worked, but that the
       | problem solved itself is not as palatable for someone politically
       | motivated like an administration.
        
         | cryptonector wrote:
         | > As it's a pretty simple hypothesis to test
         | 
         | How would one test it?
        
       | jimnotgym wrote:
       | This suggests to me that the government could reduce this even
       | further by simply outcompeting with illegal sources.
       | 
       | One problem mentioned was that other drugs were being laced with
       | fentanyl. Simply supply a licensed, guaranteed clean version
       | through a legal source at a lower price?
       | 
       | Then people who want actual fentanyl, supply that in the same way
       | too.
        
         | whimsicalism wrote:
         | And how do you know this wouldn't result in significantly
         | expanding the number/frequency of drug consumers?
        
           | jimnotgym wrote:
           | Coffee is legal in my country, but I don't drink it. Alcohol
           | is legal, but I drink it infrequently and in moderation. I
           | can get codeine over the counter, but I don't take it every
           | day.
        
             | whimsicalism wrote:
             | i don't find this a compelling argument and i think it
             | undermines the case for the policy you are proposing.
        
       | jimnotgym wrote:
       | Could this effect actually be more of a customer service effect?
       | 
       | Drug dealers were lacing things with fentanyl to make them more
       | addictive. They were putting too much in and killing people by
       | accident. This was bad for business in 3 ways
       | 
       | 1) they could have saved money by using less fentanyl
       | 
       | 2) they were killing their customers, as well as reducing the
       | customer base this has a reputational risk.
       | 
       | 3) They were attracting too much public interest in their
       | activities
       | 
       | Therefore they found that they make more money by putting less
       | in.
       | 
       | Not a drug expert, don't live in US, never took fentanyl. I just
       | picked these 'facts' out of the comments. Before anyone says,
       | 'you don't know what to you are talking about' in the sweet way
       | that has crept into hn, I really don't, and don't claim to.
        
         | christina97 wrote:
         | The problem with fentanyl is not that people are putting in too
         | much. It's that it's extremely potent so it's too easy to
         | accidentally put too much in.
        
           | hobom wrote:
           | So the problem IS that people are putting in too much (even
           | if accidentally) ?
        
             | 15155 wrote:
             | The problem is that the typical delivery mechanism for this
             | drug is a highly-dilute injection or transdermal patch -
             | not 'geometric' dilution into pills in Jose's basement with
             | questionable fillers.
             | 
             | The substance is too potent per physical unit of weight and
             | volume to be conveniently dosed through other means.
        
       | saidnooneever wrote:
       | maybe all the addicts are running out? know it sounds like a
       | troll but with very high death rates on newer drugs... is it
       | really a crazy idea?
        
       | topranks wrote:
       | I wonder if the eradication of the heroin supply from Afghanistan
       | following the Taliban takeover has had an effect?
       | 
       | Possibly re-directed some of the fentanyl to other markets where
       | addicts could no longer get heroin? Thus reducing supply
       | elsewhere?
        
         | ciropantera wrote:
         | At least in Europe the heroin gap was mostly filled with crack
         | from Latin America.
        
       | phtrivier wrote:
       | How good is overdose _deaths_ as an indicator of the epidemic of
       | drug consumption ?
       | 
       | My point being : killing your customer en masse is bad business
       | practice in the long run. (Or even in the medium run.)
       | 
       | So, the drug dealer's best interest is to reduce the potency of
       | the drug, therefore limiting the overdoses but keeping the
       | customers alive, and willing to get the next dose.
       | 
       | If it happens when the prices are high, and you're able to cut
       | your product and see it with a higher margin, it's even more
       | value for the sharehol... Sorry, wrong analogy.
       | 
       | Anyway, is the number of people _using_ fentanyl also going down
       | ? Where are the quarterly sales number published ? What's the
       | trend ? When is the IPO ?
        
         | asah wrote:
         | Drug trade participants don't consider the long run.
        
           | bitmasher9 wrote:
           | Some drug trade participants do consider the long term.
           | Specifically production and bulk transportation benefits from
           | large long term investments.
        
       | simianparrot wrote:
       | Gee I wonder why. Maybe controlling your borders actually helps
       | prevent illicit goods from entering your country? Crazy take I
       | know, can't be true because it's the T man that's behind it
        
         | _bohm wrote:
         | The reasons stated in the article have nothing to do with
         | border enforcement, and observed supply shock started before
         | 2024. The most recent year of data mentioned in the article
         | ended in April 2025. But by all means, if you have information
         | these researchers don't, feel free to share it here.
        
         | seanalltogether wrote:
         | This has been talked about lately, the drop has nothing to do
         | with trump. The data in this chart goes up to Oct 2024, several
         | months before trumps took office.
         | 
         | https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jaman...
        
           | sigwinch wrote:
           | Right, these are Biden's policies. Biden was superior on
           | border and immigration issues.
        
             | lostlogin wrote:
             | Yeah, he never got anyone shot in the face.
        
           | simianparrot wrote:
           | That's good then the situation ought to be even better now.
        
         | mb7733 wrote:
         | > Canada has a similar opioid epidemic but a different supply
         | chain, largely skipping over Mexico. Because Canada saw similar
         | falls in fentanyl strength, the researchers hypothesise that
         | the supply shock was caused by something changing in China.
        
       | newsclues wrote:
       | It's nice when the government has a leader committed to keeping
       | drugs out of the country
        
         | croes wrote:
         | It started 2023. who was the leader back then?
        
         | srean wrote:
         | And offer presidential pardons to those who sell it inside,
         | illegally
        
           | sigwinch wrote:
           | I can't tell if GP is wry about Biden, or committing Type I
           | error over Trump.
           | 
           | But yes today the questions are about how we treat
           | politically-connected smugglers. What are the odds on a
           | Justin Salsburey pardon?
        
       | cramcgrab wrote:
       | Stop taking drugs, get out and enjoy life. It's really pretty
       | simple. Most of society works that way.
        
         | grantith wrote:
         | Black & white thinking is easy. Nuance is hard though and might
         | even lead to empathy.
        
         | realo wrote:
         | Some drugs, like opioids, create a physical addiction. Their
         | body cannot function without the chemicals.
         | 
         | Saying "Stop taking the drug" to those people is equivalent to
         | saying "Stop eating". The body cannot physically function then.
         | 
         | Nicotine is also a chemical that induces a physical addiction.
         | 
         | Surprisingly, THC (marijuana) does not, apparently... Someone
         | can stop cold with no physical issues, only psychological ones.
        
       | hwguy45 wrote:
       | The kneejerk explanation would be the more strict border and law
       | enforcement under the current administration. But the chart peaks
       | in Dec 2023 and drops in 2024, so it cannot be that.
       | 
       | Perhaps, then, it was Kamala Harris' success as border czar under
       | Biden.
        
       | _fat_santa wrote:
       | Enshittification sucks but turns out a very certain type of
       | enshittification is actually good for society.
        
       | indrora wrote:
       | Discussion by an author on the paper:
       | https://unrollnow.com/status/2009340857909170395
       | 
       | Original:
       | https://x.com/KeithNHumphreys/status/2009340857909170395
        
       | amai wrote:
       | tldr; "China began warning chemical/pharma companies, closing
       | down websites & tightening chemical controls in 2023. It is
       | likely if not certain that China's actions disrupted the fentanyl
       | trade in both the US and Canada"
       | 
       | https://unrollnow.com/status/2009340857909170395
        
       | znnajdla wrote:
       | That example of "shrinkflation" sounds like plain old fraud to
       | me. Having a dimple at the bottom of a peanut butter container so
       | it looks like it has more than it does should be illegal fraud,
       | plain and simple.
        
         | whimsicalism wrote:
         | the containers say how much volume they have and usually are
         | sold with a unit price as well. seems like a much simpler and
         | general solution than defining some legal shape of jars
        
           | yatopifo wrote:
           | The real issue is that those dimples prevent you from getting
           | the last bit. I also find it very annoying that in Canada
           | quantity is often reported in ounces. Aside from the troy
           | ounce, i have absolutely no idea how much an ounce is and
           | whether it measures volume or mass. The only reason we still
           | have ounces is because of trade with the US. Since no
           | Canadian should be buying US made stuff, we should just ban
           | most non metric units at this point.
        
             | whimsicalism wrote:
             | moral Canadians should probably also refrain from
             | participating in any American-run website like HN
        
           | nathan_compton wrote:
           | I don't know - its very easy to buy what looks like the same
           | jar and find it has less. The consumer should not be expected
           | to be some fucking food detective, constantly working to make
           | sure that they aren't being ripped off. Packaging should be
           | simple enough that the volume presented to the purchaser is
           | the actual volume.
        
             | whimsicalism wrote:
             | unit costs should be larger on the label. as large as the
             | standard price
        
       | cmiles8 wrote:
       | tl;dr blowing up boats in the Caribbean and other aggressive
       | actions, while controversial, has probably done more to address
       | the drug pandemic than other things tried.
        
       | mrkramer wrote:
       | From what I've seen homeless people overdose the most with
       | fentanyl and homelessness level increased during COVID so they
       | were the ones overdosing. Also everybody knows by now that one
       | pill can kill you so that's good enough deterrent.
       | 
       | The opioid epidemic was caused by COVID pandemic and its
       | devastating economic effects and also by cheapness of the
       | fentanyl pills which were going as low as $1 a pop on the
       | streets.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-01-11 23:01 UTC)