Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday August 18 2015, @09:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the will-it-help-or-hinder? dept.

The White House announced a new Heroin Response Strategy on Monday to combat a "heroin/opioid epidemic" across 15 states in the northeast:

The Office of National Drug Control Policy said it would spend $2.5 million to hire public safety and public health coordinators in five areas in an attempt to focus on the treatment, rather than the punishment, of addicts. The funding — a sliver of the $25.1 billion that the government spends every year to combat drug use — will help create a new "heroin response strategy" aimed at confronting the increase in use of the drug. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that heroin-related deaths had nearly quadrupled between 2002 and 2013.

[...] Once thought of as a drug used only by hard-core addicts, heroin has infiltrated many communities, largely because of its easy availability and its low price, officials said. The problem has become especially severe in New England, where officials have called for a renewed effort to confront it. Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont devoted his entire State of the State Message in January to what he called "a full-blown heroin crisis" in his state. Like the new White House effort, the governor called for a new, treatment-based approach to the drug.

[More after the break...]

Thomas McLellan, President Obama's chief scientist for drug control policy from 2009 to 2012, said $2.5 million "is not close to the financial commitment that is needed" and that use of the opiate-blocker naloxone is a squandered second chance without proper follow-up care. Executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, Ethan Nadelmann, was also dismissive of the announcement:

Nadelmann sees drug policy as existing along a continuum, from "lock'em up, hang'em, pull out their fingernails, Singapore, Saudi Arabia" all the way down to "essentially no controls whatsoever, maybe a little for kids." Unfortunately, he says, American drug policy under Obama is way too close to the hang'em end of the spectrum—and this new heroin program won't change the administration's position much in his eyes. That's because it's a bait-and-switch. It's promoted as a treatment-first program, but the details lean heavily toward enforcement and incarceration. It calls for 15 drug intelligence officers and 15 health policy analysts to collect data on overdoses and trends in heroin trafficking. Everyone will feed the data back to a joint health-law enforcement coordination center, which will distribute the data across state lines. That's great for cops. They need fresher leads on where heroin is coming from, who is moving it, and where it's being purchased. But public health officials don't need to know the intricacies of trafficking in order to respond to an ongoing epidemic.

According to a July 7th report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths nearly quadrupled from 2002 to 2013, with 8,200 deaths in the year 2013. During that period, heroin use increased the most among females (100%), the 18-25 age group (109%), and non-Hispanic whites (114%). Heroin use among households with less than $20,000 of annual income increased 62%, compared to 77% for households with $20,000-$49,999, and 60% for households with $50,000 or more. Tom Frieden, head of the CDC, said that the "epidemic" is growing out of prescription opioid painkiller abuse. He estimates that heroin is available at one-fifth the cost of prescription painkillers.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 18 2015, @11:32PM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 18 2015, @11:32PM (#224666) Journal

    If ALL the impact fell on the user, I'd be with the Pumpernickel.

    Somehow our inability to let someone die by their own hand keeps bringing other people and other costs into debate.

    There may be no good reasons, but there clearly are plenty of reasons why anybody should be shooting up with heroine or smoking crack.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 19 2015, @12:21AM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday August 19 2015, @12:21AM (#224697)

    If ALL the impact fell on the user, I'd be with the Pumpernickel.

    I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about the indirect effects that it may have on others when you do drugs? Because I say that freedom is more than worth it. If you go ice skating or mountain climbing, you could get hurt, and maybe taxpayers would sometimes have to foot the bill. Should we ban everything in existence that has some indirect effect on others and isn't necessary to do? I'm a freedom-minded person, so I do not think so. But apparently others are not and it leads me to question why they are living in countries that supposedly strive to be free.

    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:07AM

      by Francis (5544) on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:07AM (#224757)

      Are you seriously equating pumping your body full of things that are known to be toxic, addictive and otherwise harmful with ice skating and mountain climbing? Those activities are risky, but when done with proper education and preparation are relatively safe. Some people will be injured or killed, but it's a small fraction of the total. With drugs, everybody gets hurt to some extent. You might get lucky the first few times and not notice the damage, but the only way to avoid it in the long term is to avoid doing drugs.

      Also, what you're talking about is anarchy and it never works out well. Think Lord of the Flies. Part of living in society is realizing that there need to be limits to what freedoms we can have.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:05AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:05AM (#224779)

        Are you seriously equating pumping your body full of things that are known to be toxic, addictive and otherwise harmful with ice skating and mountain climbing?

        I'm applying the logic that things should be banned because they can indirectly affect others to other scenarios.

        Also, what you're talking about is anarchy

        If you're going to argue with an imaginary anarchist opponent, you may as well not bother replying to me at all.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:52AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:52AM (#224806) Journal

        Are you seriously equating pumping your body full of things that are known to be toxic, addictive and otherwise harmful with ice skating and mountain climbing? Those activities are risky, but when done with proper education and preparation are relatively safe.

        And the same with "pumping your body full of things". Proper education and preparation (along with standardized doses) does make heroin use relatively safe. Hence, why he's comparing them.

        Also, what you're talking about is anarchy and it never works out well. Think Lord of the Flies. Part of living in society is realizing that there need to be limits to what freedoms we can have.

        So what's the magic criteria that one can't use heroin, but one can mountain climb and binge drink at the same time. I have to agree with the previous poster. You sound more interested in preventing anarchy, whatever that is supposed to mean, than having a free society. One consequence of a free society is that people will (not may) act in ways that you don't like.

        I think alcohol use indicates that one can have widespread drug use without anarchy in the streets.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:31AM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:31AM (#224768) Journal

    Obviously heroin, crack, meth, etc. are not "good" drugs. But would decriminalization of those drugs raise their rates of use? Not necessarily. They are already very marginal compared to cannabis. Cannabis use is at around 7.5%, cocaine is around 1%, and other illicit drugs come in under 1%.

    The worst drugs are used despite the risk of prison or harm to others. Decriminalizing them would make it easier for addicts to get treatment and decrease much of the harm that the Drug War causes. By the time the U.S. switches to a sensible drug policy, we'll have driverless cars zipping around, reducing more potential drug harm...

    Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House [go.com]

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 19 2015, @08:50PM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 19 2015, @08:50PM (#225171) Journal

      But would decriminalization of those drugs raise their rates of use? Not necessarily.

      I think its still an open question. It may not have increased use rates in the few other countries that have decriminalized, or it might have, but it goes unreported.

      I wonder who among US citizens fears those drugs for the effect on the user, vs who fears them for the law enforcement attention they bring.
      I rather suspect arrest and imprisonment still carry a large fear factor.

      Did decriminalization reduce alcohol use rates?
      Alcohol use rates were sky high in the US prior to outlawing alcohol sales. After prohibition ended, US alcohol use took a long time returned to those levels, and in some areas it never did return [osu.edu].

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.