Even if we ignore the fact that an overdose is not a suicide, those 90k are right in line with the trend from prior years. 2018 and 2019 were a bit anomalous, but if you look at the CDC data is is quite clear that there is nothing unexpected about that number and if you were in 2015 and guessing what the 2020 numbers would be then 90k would be a safe bet.
> 2018 and 2019 were a bit anomalous, but if you look at the CDC data is is quite clear that there is nothing unexpected about that number and if you were in 2015 and guessing what the 2020 numbers would be then 90k would be a safe bet.
Seems like you're cherry picking data which somewhat supports your hypothesis while ignoring the more recent data which does not.
For those that want to draw their own conclusions, here's the data:
Cherry-picking? There has been steady upward growth year after year except for a single year (2018) that reset the numbers downward. The following year was another rise so, in fact, the most recent data _does_ support the hypothesis. The numbers have been constantly growing and continued growth is not exceptional, that hypothesis misses one year in the past 20.
It was the largest increase because of the large drop in 2018 and small 2019 rise from that low point. Yes, I am saying that the 2020 rise was in line with expectations and any attempt to link it to lockdown will be weak. In five years they will be able to show the graph without years on it and most would guess 2018 as the lockdown year due to the anamoly.
Many overdoses are the result of inconsistent potency. This is trivial to solve by letting addicts get their dope from a licensed pharmacist instead of the sketchy dealer down the block. Another common cause of overdoses is people who lost their tolerance taking a dose that they would have with their previous tolerance.
To attribute every suicide as an overdose is wrong on many levels.
Nobody sets out to overdose. I would agree that most people started taking heroin from a low point, but overdose is not an inevitable consequence nor is it necessarily a short-term outcome. Someone could have started using opioids a decade ago and finally had the numbers (and dangers of recent mixes that added fentanyl) catch up with them.
while there are merits to "harm reduction", none of its proponents think through logical consequences.
you may argue a heroin addict has a right to heroin, but does a pangolin scale juicer have that right also and is the government now responsible for supplying them with safe pangolin scales?
what is the "correct" amount of heroin a person should be able to get from a pharmacy? how much should that cost? what if the "correct" amount for me is just under lethal dose and im essentially comatose between hits? is that society's responsibility to nurture my addiction. why is a single state-issued dose compassionate care, when many addicts need 4 or 5 doses per day to feel good? when i can longer afford the pharmaceutical dose, won't i just go back to street heroin?
if it's blindingly obvious that no state should seek to ensure that a "just-under-lethal-comatose-all-day" type of habit is supported and funded by the state, why would the state think it has some obligation to fund and support any habit at all. people get hooked on gambling and sky-diving too, but no reasonable people think it's the state's responsibility to maintain those.
This is a bit of a straw man. The govt. doesn't need to support all habits. What it needs to do is support a stable and prosperous society.
The drug war can be won, but it will be compassion, empathy, and the invisible hand of the market that wins it. If there's high demand for something illegal, and there's a bunch of negative externalities to the illegal trade, it seems smarter to have some moderated legal trade to put the illegal trade out of business.
A relatively simple plan that isn't perfect but is arguably much better than what we have today would be something like this: if you are a drug addict, you can get a drug test to prove you are hooked, and then get on a free but gently tapered government supply with optional therapy. "Club" drugs that people will generally do sporadically (cocaine, MDMA, shrooms) are sold over the counter with either a positive drug test or a street sample, limited with a personal use quota. The government drugs are all chemically tagged or variants not available on the street, so it will be possible to detect and respond to diversion.
As a drug dealer, this would be a nightmare, since all your best customers will disappear, and you can't even smurf the government supply because your smurfs keep getting caught clean (diverting) and get their supply cut off.
I don't think anyone is entitled to an unlimited supply of their drug of choice from the state. but I do think they are entitled to a relatively safe supply of their poison, free from dangerous cuts (fentanyl, levamisole, etc.) and the threat of violence (from either the state or the seller). if they die, so be it. that was always a possibility.
beyond that, it becomes a cost-benefit analysis for the rest of us. unlike gambling or sky-diving, drugs of abuse are pretty cheap to manufacture. it might be cheaper to just give people drugs than to deal with the constant petty theft perpetrated by addicts. or it might not be, who knows?
Uh we know, it's definitely cheaper. It's the random nature of potency and scoring drugs that contributes to the addiction. If provided cheap high quality heroin an addict will eventually get bored and find a way to transition.
> none of its proponents think through logical consequences.
They do. Can you point me to the page you read about heroin maintenance that didn't include anything about the consequences?
> you may argue a heroin addict has a right to heroin
Nobody has a right to heroin. What people have is a right to life; a right to health; a right to not be harmed by treatment. Current treatment for heroin addiction, especially if it's based on abstinence alone, violates each of these. Heroin substitutes are best, but they're not suitable for everyone and some people are not ready to move onto a substitute. In these cases we should provide legal heroin to maintain the habit. This would preserve this person's rights. Importantly, it would preserve the rights of the people around this person. This person no longer has to steal or sell sex in order to fund their habit.
> but does a pangolin scale juicer
I genuinely have no idea what point you're trying to make with "pangolin scale juice".
> what is the "correct" amount of heroin
Enough to maintain their current use pattern, with the aim to gradually reduce and then switch to a substitute. But with the recognition that just giving people heroin for the rest of their life is better for them and for the rest of society than forcing them to get illicit opioids.
> how much should that cost?
Diamorphine is incredibly cheap. Providing diamorphine in a safe setting is costly - you need a trained, qualified, registered, healthcare professional to monitor patients who are self injecting. You need a building that's insured and cleaned, run by a service that's subject to some form of oversight. But, again, all of this is far cheaper than just leaving addicts to source illicit opioids.
> what if the "correct" amount for me is just under lethal dose and im essentially comatose between hits?
You should probably stop talking about addiction if you're this ignorant.
> is that society's responsibility to nurture my addiction.
You keep saying things like this, and it highlights how you've fundamentally misunderstood the point. We're not "nurturing addiction", we are treating addiction with a safe, effective, evidence-based approach. Why do we give insulin to T1 diabetics? Are we nurturing their diabetes? No, it's fucking stupid to say so. We're treating a chronic health condition.
> why is a single state-issued dose compassionate care, when many addicts need 4 or 5 doses per day to feel good?
Addicts don't take heroin to feel good. They take heroin to avoid feeling bad.
> when i can longer afford the pharmaceutical dose, won't i just go back to street heroin?
Yes, which is one of the reasons
> people get hooked on gambling and sky-diving too, but no reasonable people think it's the state's responsibility to maintain those.
We should be providing addiction services to people who are addicted to gambling. So far the evidence for problem gambling is clear: more gambling is harmful, not helpful. This is the reason we don't recommend subsidising gambling for problem gamblers.