The Global Fentanyl Plague

hawkdon said:
The 'war on drugs' will not stop until and unless people
stop using drugs....no demand = no need for drugs;.
Click to expand...
And yet both prescription and OTC drugs are a huge industry in the USA. We are bombarded with ads for 'new, improved' drug treatments for various ailments that often have side effect as problematic as the symptoms of the illness and in some cases the side effects are the same as some of the symptoms of the ailments--so tell me again advertiser about how 'effective' it is? If your symptoms persist they can tell you it's now side effect not the illness. What is more they can and often do prescribe more drugs to alleviate the annoying side effects of the first.
 

Nathan said:
That's not going to happen, just as the 'war on prostitution' is not succeeding as hoped...
Click to expand...
The irony is that in the 'war on Drugs' going after the the producers and suppliers, is more effective than jailing the users but going after the customers would be more effective if one wanted to end prostitution. Neither is likely to happen. Tho in places where prostitution is legal and regulated---not only does spread of STD's take a down turn but the incident of other crimes related to, precipitated by the illegality of the primary crime.
 
hawkdon said:
The 'war on drugs' will not stop until and unless people
stop using drugs....no demand = no need for drugs;.
Click to expand...
...and they won't stop so long as states like mine, Oregon, have decriminalized "personal possession" amounts of virtually all drugs, including heroin, fentanyl, meth, crack cocaine, etc.

Yes. True. Max penalty, if applied, is $100 fine that can be waived if the user calls a hotline for a drug treatment referral; they don't have to complete treatment, just call. Otherwise, the fine will likely not be collected but will be carried on their record.

Within a space of about 8 years, PDX had gone from a place as described in Portlandia to place much more like Manhattan island as described in Escape from New York,
 
feywon said:
The irony is that in the 'war on Drugs' going after the the producers and suppliers, is more effective than jailing the users but going after the customers would be more effective if one wanted to end prostitution. Neither is likely to happen. Tho in places where prostitution is legal and regulated---not only does spread of STD's take a down turn but the incident of other crimes related to, precipitated by the illegality of the primary crime.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're implying with this part:

Tho in places where prostitution is legal and regulated---not only does spread of STD's take a down turn but the incident of other crimes related to, precipitated by the illegality of the primary crime.

This may be true for prostitution, but not for the homeless/drug phenomenon. The users, homeless in this example, still must buy the drug, yet have no income source, so property crimes and sometimes irrational assaults, go way up, in spite of the fact that for the last two years here in Oregon (Portland) possession amounts of all drugs (meth, fentanyl, heroin, etc.) are decriminalized. This means no potential prison time to interrupt the habit.

I see no evidence of turf wars, as I did in the crack phase of the late 80s/early 90s. Just the increase in property crime and assaults. I think you could eliminate much of the property crime if the government supplied the drugs, free of charge, but the assaults would likely remain substantial.

Not kidding. It's B-A-D here...
 
BTW, Fentanyl like many drugs now sold used illicitly was first developed (1959) and used as an anesthetic, Apparently it was relatively safely used (despite it's strength, more than heroin or morphine) for several decades.
i think i've talked elsewhere on SF about my own brush (felt more like a collision) with fentanyl. In the late 90s a dentist wanted to administer it for an oral surgery. Because i had for several years been developing intolerances and allergies with the most severe reactions being chemicals (even inhaling some things unintentionally could cause severe headaches and 'wooziness'--such as walking into a store or medical facility when they'd just scrubbed everything down with bleach or other harsh cleansers) so i balked rather than talk substitutes immediately he insisted i get an allergy test (he thought he'd be vindicated obviously).

Such tests are done by administering/injecting a minute amount at first but then increasing it slightly usually if you're not allergic you can have the whole course (several doses moving up to the amount that would be used medically) without incident. Well by 3rd dose--i had severe reaction--my upper arm swelled up to the size of a Bocci Ball, turned black and blue and hurt like the dickens. Dentist was miffed. Said i'd have to 'make do' with just Novocain. Big deal! The procedure hurt less than my arm had.
 
 
There will be no cure that can be administered from without, however.

We've got a collision of historical trends, maybe.

We might, for the sake of discussion, start with the idea that humanity has always been attracted to intoxicants. They are liberating, in a sense.

Once mankind discovered *how* to obtain/make intoxicants, and this knowledge generally proliferated, there was no going back. The genie was out of the bottle, Pandora's box as open. There would *always* be a demand.

Everything was pretty much OK, and remained stable so long as the potency of the intoxicants was limited to fermentation or direct harvest (there may be exceptions to this, however). The first inkling of future sociological problem was the advent and dissemination of distillation technology. This upped potency, and whatever relatively minor level of societal problem over-consumption of fermented intoxicants had, was exacerbated the exiting level.

This re-stabilized again, though at a higher level of societal problem. But industrialized society became adapted to it, so OK.

Then via chemical advances, either highly refined intoxicants (morphine, heroin, cocaine), or completely synthetic ones (fentanyl, oxycodone, etc.) greatly upped the potency, and further impacted societal stability.

That's the supply side of the current equation. The demand side changed, too.

The demand has always existed at a certain level, by this I mean that the majority of humans were likely to indulge, and this was physically limited by the effect of the drug, itself, when aligned with the need to obtain a subsistence. This is to say that the intoxicant must not impede the individual's ability to obtain food/shelter, enough to survive, or they'd simply die, and if the drug itself was inimical to health, the drug, itself would kill you.

So this provided a physical limit to abuse for millennia: if your use of it either killed you outright, or impacted your ability to obtain food shelter sufficient to survive, you were wrung out of society one way or another. There were also societal values that were brought to bear. In societies like pre-industrial Japan, for example, great social shame would accrue to the perpetually intoxicated, and also to their family, and this, combined with limited surplus, tended to put an effective cap on individual intoxication.

Bear in mind that surplus is essential to prolonged abuse: the abuser obtains subsistence either from relatives who have a bit "extra", or from society in general, thru organized public, relief. Or, failing these, by theft of good that can be fairly easily replaced by those from whom they were stolen. If the items were not easily replaceable, the society would likely kill the offenders regularly, because the thefts would threaten their own (general society's) lives.

But as population increased in many developed polities, and this was due to unprecedented surpluses, many individuals who were genetically uncomfortable with density, began to "self-medicate" (boy, what a euphemism, huh?) to escape the stress.

Combine this, with the stupendous potency of modern opioids, e.g, and their relative cheap availability, and the surpluses that enable subsistance for those who do not provide fully for themselves made available by relief organizations or theft, and add no legal penalty for use, and you have Portland, OR, circa 2020.
 
We are being invaded at the southern border by many countries. We are not at this time being directly attacked with weapons or a declared army. Instead China has indirectly been at war with us for sometime. They use the Cartels as there weapon of attack and become a cash cow to politicians we elect. Fentanyl and other drugs are part of this war, along with hacking, Tik Tok and trafficking people. Covid was made in a lab that produces technology for chemical weapons. They are currently flying covid infected people all over the world again. Terrorist from all over the world have pretty much walked across the border along with others that have various other infectious diseases. Countries south of us have emptied out there jails and sent their convicts north to us emptying their prisons of the worst criminals. Mexico is extremely happy that the wall was stopped being built, the people crossing their borders head directly to ours and with our border open it presents no immigrant issue for Mexico but does give them revenue increasing their GDP. The CDC has become infective with the public health otherwise they would have shut the border down for just not only covid but other infectious diseases. But then the border wasn't really closed. As the this invasion happens people are flown and bused all over our country. So not only drugs, people trafficking, terrorist, gang violence, homelessness and all kinds of burdens will be place on our country but unimmunized people will spread diseases that haven't been seen in this country in decades. sSo keep your kids up on their shots. If you think I'm going to end this with an answer I'm not. Simply, it's all of us that have brought this to the border. Say what you may but it is the truth...
 
Creek Pirate said:
We are being invaded at the southern border by many countries. We are not at this time being directly attacked with weapons or a declared army. Instead China has indirectly been at war with us for sometime. They use the Cartels as there weapon of attack and become a cash cow to politicians we elect. Fentanyl and other drugs are part of this war, along with hacking, Tik Tok and trafficking people. Covid was made in a lab that produces technology for chemical weapons. They are currently flying covid infected people all over the world again. Terrorist from all over the world have pretty much walked across the border along with others that have various other infectious diseases. Countries south of us have emptied out there jails and sent their convicts north to us emptying their prisons of the worst criminals. Mexico is extremely happy that the wall was stopped being built, the people crossing their borders head directly to ours and with our border open it presents no immigrant issue for Mexico but does give them revenue increasing their GDP. The CDC has become infective with the public health otherwise they would have shut the border down for just not only covid but other infectious diseases. But then the border wasn't really closed. As the this invasion happens people are flown and bused all over our country. So not only drugs, people trafficking, terrorist, gang violence, homelessness and all kinds of burdens will be place on our country but unimmunized people will spread diseases that haven't been seen in this country in decades. sSo keep your kids up on their shots. If you think I'm going to end this with an answer I'm not. Simply, it's all of us that have brought this to the border. Say what you may but it is the truth...
Click to expand...
In my opinion, the border is an issue, but not the major issue.

Mexico is, for drugs, simply the cheapest source due to lax or venal enforcement that is more pervasive than here in the US.

Without it, the price would be higher. Without criminal penalties for use/possession, all that would mean is more theft/robbery.
 
Nathan said:
In some locales, from time to time. Again, it's all about the money, if the local police are on the take, then the effort is just 'token'.
Click to expand...
Actually the cops love dealers. Especially when arresting them all possessions are seized as "Proceeds from criminal enterprise"

Then the cops turn around and sell the drugs.
 
Sawfish said:
In my opinion, the border is an issue, but not the major issue.

Mexico is, for drugs, simply the cheapest source due to lax or venal enforcement that is more pervasive than here in the US.

Without it, the price would be higher. Without criminal penalties for use/possession, all that would mean is more theft/robbery.
Click to expand...
I see the border as a major issue, but if your implying that the issue is those that are controlling the border on both sides of the border, then I agree, they are the major issue. The reason Mexico is capitalizing on drugs is because the US pays well. Simply, if people didn't buy it then it wouldn't exist as a major problem. Until that changes it will always cross the border. With Marijuana, our Government and the tobacco & liquor industries want to capitalize on it, so the cost and potency all rose as greed took hold. The tobacco & liquor industries like addictive products to sell. This intern allows Marijuana still to be a a black market product. Seems to me that if the government back in the 70's would have allowed every household to buy and grow 6 plants, the stuff would be dirt cheap ( Doesn't mean that personal sale should not be illegal, grow it or do without.) and never have gotten to the potency that it has now. Back then it just wasn't as dangerous to your body as it is today. People argue that point on potency and dangerous but it is just true.

What I can't understand is how people can afford the stuff if your not rich or some kind of rock star....
 
Creek Pirate said:
I see the border as a major issue, but if your implying that the issue is those that are controlling the border on both sides of the border, then I agree, they are the major issue. The reason Mexico is capitalizing on drugs is because the US pays well. Simply, if people didn't buy it then it wouldn't exist as a major problem. Until that changes it will always cross the border. With Marijuana, our Government and the tobacco & liquor industries want to capitalize on it, so the cost and potency all rose as greed took hold. The tobacco & liquor industries like addictive products to sell. This intern allows Marijuana still to be a a black market product. Seems to me that if the government back in the 70's would have allowed every household to buy and grow 6 plants, the stuff would be dirt cheap ( Doesn't mean that personal sale should not be illegal, grow it or do without.) and never have gotten to the potency that it has now. Back then it just wasn't as dangerous to your body as it is today. People argue that point on potency and dangerous but it is just true.

What I can't understand is how people can afford the stuff if your not rich or some kind of rock star....
Click to expand...
There are periodic sales of it here in OR. The prices seem to me to be fairly cheap.

This is a higher-end store:

https://nectar.store/store/portland-alberta/

I can remember paying $10 for a "lid" (1 ounce? maybe less) of mostly stems and leaves, few buds. This was late 60s, at college.
 
Sawfish said:
There are periodic sales of it here in OR. The prices seem to me to be fairly cheap.

This is a higher-end store:

https://nectar.store/store/portland-alberta/

I can remember paying $10 for a "lid" (1 ounce? maybe less) of mostly stems and leaves, few buds. This was late 60s, at college.
Click to expand...
Just think if you could grow your own 6 organic untreated plants, cheaper it would be. See I can remember, growing up in the 60' & 70's, people grew there own in the woods and in the basement. It would have been better to do it this way. As far as Marijuana, this would have gutted the black market to real addicts.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top