Heroin use up dramatically; Low prices, high purity drive `epidemic'

Boston Herald ^ | Dec 18, 2002 | Michael Lasalandra

[MrLeRoy]

Low prices and increased purity have caused heroin use to skyrocket in Massachusetts, with a new study showing the drug is the No. 1 reason for admissions to treatment programs and hospital detox units as well as overdose deaths.

"This is a drug epidemic permeating every corner of our commonwealth, and as a society, we need to aggressively fight to end the human suffering," said Dr. Howard Koh, commissioner of the Department of Public Health, which issued the report yesterday.

"Heroin deaths are suffocating our society," he said.

The DPH report showed heroin is the most common drug for which people in the state are seeking substance abuse treatment, with 37 percent of those entering treatment last year saying it was for heroin addiction.

In fiscal year 2002, which ended June 30, some 42 percent of the people entering state-supported substance abuse treatment programs reported using heroin within the past year, compared with 19 percent in 1992.

And 60 percent of the people entering detox programs reported using heroin within the past year, the same percentage as for alcohol.

"Heroin use has increased dramatically over the past 10 years," said Teresa Anderson of the agency's Bureau of Substance Abuse Services.

Since 1996, rates of opioid-related hospitalizations soared 74 percent, including a 230 percent rise among those in the 15-24 age group and a 150 percent jump among those aged 45-54.

The highest rates were among men aged 25-44, however.

Opioids include heroin, codeine, morphine and oxycodone.

Fatal heroin overdoses jumped 156 percent from 1990 to 1998 and another 10 percent between 1999 and 2000, the report said. Fatality rates were highest for those aged 35-44.

Deborah Klein Walker, associate commissioner for programs and prevention, cited lower prices and increased purity as reasons why heroin use is soaring.

"Heroin use has continued to rise over the last few years," said Daniel Mumbauer, president of the Highpoint Treatment Center in Plymouth and New Bedford.

"More than half of all folks admitted to inpatient units for detox, their drug of choice is heroin," he said.

"It's cheap and accessible," he said.

A bag of heroin now costs only about $4, Mumbauer said.

"It's cheaper than a six-pack of beer," he said.

That makes it attractive to younger people, he noted.

And the fact that the heroin these days is very pure allows people to get high from snorting it instead of shooting it - at least at first.

That's another reason why younger people are willing to try it, Mumbauer said.

In the end, however, "intravenous is still the most popular way of getting high from heroin," he said.

Intravenous use of drugs is linked to transmission of HIV and hepatitis C, Klein Walker said.

State police Sgt. Al Zani of the Essex County Drug Task Force in Lynn said a bag of heroin that cost $20 in the 1970s now costs $4 - and the purity is up from about 5 percent to anywhere from 30 to 80 percent.

"We're seeing the consequences," he said. "You're seeing teenagers doing it. You see a lot of high school students."

DPH officials said they hope to use the report to improve programs aimed at prevention and treatment.

"Treatment works," Koh said.

[PJ-Comix]

Okay maybe the price is down but how does one even take that first shot of Heroin? I mean you have to inject that stuff plus most folks know it is almost impossible to kick the heroin habit. No glamorous lifestyle waiting for you in the future there. Only some miserable "shooting gallery" where you spend your last few bucks to shoot up. The whole notion of using heroin is depressing to even think about so how does one become so clueless as to get hooked on the stuff in the first place?

p.s. I've heard that heroin use is VERY widespread in Britain.

[tpaine]

I've had a lot of disagreements with JR myself.

But you either support the basics of our free republic, -- the principles of our constitution, or you don't.
Again, imo, JR said it best:

"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere.
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

[MrLeRoy]

Why do you ask,

In order to find out.

are you going to call me a statist?

Only if your reply supports that categorization.

[Liberal Classic]

The reason I ask is often times supporting any laws at all on this topic earns the moniker.

[tpaine]

Monty22:
I do understand that that is the argument. I am on the side that says the cost/benefits of having the drug laws are much better than those of not having them, that's all.


Sure, please understand that I am not in favor of having no drug laws at all. That's why I called it a "drug regulation" policy instead of "drug legalization" as an alternative to the "drug prohibition."
137 -LC-


And constituionally, this is exactly the system we *should* have.
The states have the power to reasonably regulate the public use & sale of most any item or substance.
But, -- they must not violate individual rights in doing so.
This is a fairly simple constitutional principle, but it seems to be very hard for some to accept. -- Why?

[dennisw]

Execute all heroin pushers.
God damn the pusher man.





THE PUSHER
Words and music by Hoyt Axton

You know I've smoked a lot of grass
O' Lord, I've popped a lot of pills
But I never touched nothin'
That my spirit could kill
You know, I've seen a lot of people walkin' 'round
With tombstones in their eyes
But the pusher don't care
Ah, if you live or if you die

God damn, The Pusher
God damn, I say The Pusher
I said God damn, God damn The Pusher man

You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
With the love grass in his hand
Oh but the pusher is a monster
Good God, he's not a natural man
The dealer for a nickel
Lord, will sell you lots of sweet dreams
Ah, but the pusher ruin your body
Lord, he'll leave your, he'll leave your mind to scream

God damn, The Pusher
God damn, God damn the Pusher
I said God damn, God, God damn The Pusher man

Well, now if I were the president of this land
You know, I'd declare total war on The Pusher man
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

God damn The Pusher
Gad damn The Pusher
I said God damn, God damn The Pusher man

[dennisw]

Do you ever post here about anything besides drug legalization? How sick is this? LOL. And you aren't any Catholic as far as drugs go. You are just a typical ego tripping, godless, soulless libertarian when it comes to heroin, crack, coke, meth and other vile hard drugs. You don't give a crap about those who are addicted to them because you are the only one you care about. In typical uber intellectual libertarian fashion you think you can live apart from the greater society.

[Joe Bonforte]

So, the break point is 20,000 deaths per year? Any activity which causes more is bad, and any activity that causes less is OK and should be legal?

I'm trying to figure out the reason you posted these numbers.

I'm going to assume you're not trying to be intentionally obtuse, but that's hard since this topic has been debated many times.

We don't have to decide how many deaths are acceptable to see clearly that alcohol and tobacco cause far more deaths than illegal drugs. So if someone thinks hard drugs should be illegal, how can they then think it's OK for alcohol and tobacco to be legal when they cause so many deaths?

No person who believes pot, cocaine, and heroin should be illegal because of their bad effects has ever come up with a coherent answer to that question. The attempts talk often about drugs being "evil", as if a substance can by itself commit evil acts. Why isn't tobacco evil if 400,000 people in the US die each year because of it?

I don't have to ask those questions of myself, because I believe they all should be legal. I don't like any of those numbers of deaths. But I realize that the alternatives are worse. Prohibition of alcohol did not work, prohibition of drugs is not working now, and you'd be hard put to find anyone who thinks prohibition of tobacco would work. In all cases, prohibition is a cure far worse than the disease.

And death is the only criterion? Not long-term illness, family break-up, moral degeneration, infringement of rights? Just death.

Death is certainly not the only criterion, but it's a convenient proxy for all the rest of the stuff you mentioned because it's easily measurable. And if family break-up is a particular concern of yours, how do feel about several hundred thousand families being temporarily or permanently broken up due to non-violent drug offenses? And on the infringement of rights questions, the Drug War takes the trophy hands down.

[tpaine]

Dennis, --- you either support the basics of our free republic, -- the principles of our constitution, or you don't.

Again, imo, JR said it best:

"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago.
The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all. "
Jim Robinson, 5/9/01 #155

"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government.
If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere.
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

[dennisw]

Just execute hard drug dealers and get on with it before these pushers poison more people and kill more people. Naive fools like you and LeRoy are some of the best friends the drug pushers have.

You approach drug pushing and addiction as some kind of intellectual exercise. Get your head out of the libertarian clouds man! You quoting the Constitution is nonsense since drug pushers do business across state lines all the time.

[Monty22]

I'm certianly not going to leave over 1 topic that I'm not even alone in believing in.

Check my posts if you wish, I'm a staunch conservative. The drug issue is not particularly well fitting into the political spectrum. There are people that want cheaper/easier drugs on all sides.

[tpaine]

Who's asking you to leave?

Any comment on #145?

[tpaine]

Just execute hard drug dealers and get on with it before these pushers poison more people and kill more people.

If the states regulated drugs, like they regulate booze, there wouldn't be any pushers, you naive fool.

Naive fools like you and LeRoy are some of the best friends the drug pushers have.

Naive fools like you are the biggest danger our constitution faces, dennis.

You approach drug pushing and addiction as some kind of intellectual exercise.

Nope, I approach the 'war' as a unconstitutional effort, just as JR stated above.

Get your head out of the libertarian clouds man! You quoting the Constitution is nonsense since drug pushers do business across state lines all the time.

So do booze 'pushers'. - And your naive nonsense on constitutional views is noted.

[Monty22]

Well, I am having difficulty tonight coming up with much good answers. The government regulates some stuff, bans others. Hopefully in accordance with what the majority of people want, and with a good moral code behind it.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

No, I don't think making it legal will stop it. I do think the crimes committed related to drugs (which is a large percentage) will drop drastically because there will be no more profit. I also think that money will be freed up so that those who really want treatment can get it. The number of people who would try heroin because it is legalized is very small in my opinion. Just curious, what do you think of the argument that says all guns should be outlawed?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

How much money do we spend on the WOD. Be sure to count the convenience store clerks who are murdered by crack addicts for $25. What is the profit on selling marijuana? From what I've heard, it is 18,000%.

Drugs have been illegal for a long time, yet we all know people who've had drug a drug problem. Talking to the woman who was a heroin/crack addict, she told me that she could find drugs pretty much anytime she wanted, no matter where she was. A person who is addicted to drugs should be able to get good treatment, when they want it. They shouldn't be thrown onto the streets to make more room. I think we should ban guns, because then no one will have them anymore, and our murder rate will drop...what do you think of that logic?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I don't think that drug use will go up very much if drugs are legalized. Most people have the sense not to touch serious drugs, legal or not.

[kidd]

But if they are physically addicted to it, do they truly want to buy it?

An interesting question that raises the following questions:

Should the government be empowered to make that decision on their behalf, and to assume that in all such cases the answer is "no"?

Should unaddicted adults be barred from using potentially addictive substances?

If the answers to all the above are "yes," then should that also apply to the addictive substances alcohol and tobacco---and if not, why not?

I have suggested licensing drug usage. In which case it is not up to the government, but rather the user's employer and health insurer to decide if the user can partake in a particular recreational drug and still remain active employees and insurees. Under licensing, only informed and responsible adults would use a particular drug legally. And yes, I believe tobacco and alcohol usage should require a license (but since these two drugs are commonly accepted, such a license may be as commonplace as a driver's license). Nevertheless, licensing won't stop addiction, it just puts the financial burden on the addicts rather than the rest of society.

[Monty22]

I don't think that minimizing gun ownership is a worth cause whatsoever. I do think minimizing drug use is. Major difference for me.

[coloradan]

There's nothing wrong with my logic.

Yes there is. You state legalization would make use go up, but the situation is that legalization isn't present, and use has gone up.

Likewise, the legalization will provide an increase of use that will go through the roof, and then some.

A fact not in evidence.

The article simply links (whether by correlation or causation) the use with lower prices/availability.

And I am linking the lower prices and higher availability with the War On (some) Drugs, which is a fact that is in evidence. The War is a complete, abject failure.

You are making no sense. Are you really saying that a slight increase in use based on slightly lower prices and slightly greater purity will NOT be followed by a great increase in use based on significantly lower prices and an equal increase in purity? That's far from rational. Nice try, though.

You have offered no evidence that use would explode with legalization. Though some people might indeed do drugs who don't presently, if they become legal, but then again many will lose the "forbidden fruit" incentive of trying them if they were legal.