Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why aren't fentanyl test strips more widespread? (2021)

healthaffairs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: Why aren't fentanyl test strips more widespread? (2021)

#81

Post by wombatpm »

_jal wrote: post #63
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that's not at all what happened in Portugal (or in other European programs)...? The Portugal narrative hasn't actually been as positive as initially reported by the Cato papers that were based on the first few years following the policy change. More recent data has shown an uptick of lifetime drug use and an increasing trend of drug deaths that doesn't really support the initially successful picture of their…

Do you know of a good source of info? > recent data has shown an uptick of lifetime drug use and an increasing trend of drug deaths Depends on the numbers, of course. But I think that is what folks realistically should have expected. Most societies tolerate the same with alcohol.

Here is an excellent interactive tool for the last 20 years. https://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/appalachian-ove...

Re: Why aren't fentanyl test strips more widespread? (2021)

#82

Post by throwaway0a5e »

guerrilla wrote: post #41
wahern wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real question we should be asking is why can't these poor people get access to proper medicine and treatment? Well, here in San Francisco you can access both relatively easily. But it turns out that people with substance abuse addictions tend not to exhibit strong executive functioning (at least contemporaneously) as compared to the average non-abuser. So when you remove all coercive policies whatsoever (becaus…

> So when you remove all coercive policies whatsoever (because of abstract academic arguments that equivocate all policies short of giving out free drugs and free money and turning a blind eye to dealers), you manifestly end up nurturing a base of hard-core, long-term addicts. Except that's not at all what happened in Portugal (or in other European programs)...?

If you were a junkie looking to earn a quick buck for your next fix and you decided to engage in petty theft how long do you think you'd get away with that kind of behavior in Portugal?

Compare to SF.

There's your answer.

It's not the drugs that's different. It's that one jurisdiction actually gives a crap about making sure the ancillary problems (that are the reason drugs were ever criminalized to begin with) are mitigated.

Re: Why aren't fentanyl test strips more widespread? (2021)

#84

Post by felipellrocha »

guerrilla wrote: post #41
wahern wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real question we should be asking is why can't these poor people get access to proper medicine and treatment? Well, here in San Francisco you can access both relatively easily. But it turns out that people with substance abuse addictions tend not to exhibit strong executive functioning (at least contemporaneously) as compared to the average non-abuser. So when you remove all coercive policies whatsoever (becaus…

> So when you remove all coercive policies whatsoever (because of abstract academic arguments that equivocate all policies short of giving out free drugs and free money and turning a blind eye to dealers), you manifestly end up nurturing a base of hard-core, long-term addicts. Except that's not at all what happened in Portugal (or in other European programs)...?

No post body was provided.

Re: Why aren't fentanyl test strips more widespread? (2021)

#85

Post by heavyset_go »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #51
rjbwork wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decrim without legalization or free supply to addicts doesn't do a lot for the poverty side of things. People are still going to spend every cent they can scrape together on their drug. We could supply the entire country's heroin/fent supply for probably 1/1000 what the average street user is paying for their doses, and we could prevent overdoses since there would be a chemically pure version of the drug with a label…

> We could supply the entire country's heroin/fent supply for probably 1/1000 what the average street user is paying for their doses Nonsense. It's not that cheap to manufacture (under regulated conditions) and distribute opioids like that. 1/1000th of the price? Even the cheapest, most easily manufactured commercial opioid medications aren't coming anywhere near that after decades of optimization the manufacturing p…

Fentanyl is dirt cheap to manufacture, and people on the street are paying tens of thousands of dollars per gram of it, given that a dose for an equivalent amount of heroin can be much lower than a milligram. The actual cost to manufacture that much would be several orders of magnitude less than what it drug users are paying for it.

Re: Why aren't fentanyl test strips more widespread? (2021)

#87

Post by kmos17 »

cowtools wrote: post #80
woodruffw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's consistent with the practice of using "people-first language"[1]. It sounds a little clunky to my ears in a lot of individual instances, but the overarching goal (making it harder to subconsciously dehumanize people) seems reasonable to me. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language

It doesn't seem reasonable to me. In this usage it is normalizing drug use. When you use this terminology, you're implicitly saying "They're a person and they just so happen to be addicted to drugs" as if that drug use doesn't imply anything about the person's character. A drug user is not the same as a disabled person. If you're a drug abuser, I think the words people use to describe you are the least of your proble…

I don’t care either way about the acronym, but drug addiction has nothing to do with character. It is a disease and should be treated as such, and in fact the only proven way to stop drug addiction is through treatment.

Re: Why aren't fentanyl test strips more widespread? (2021)

#88

Post by rjbwork »

freedomben wrote: post #58
grapeskin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free supply won’t really be a solution and I can’t imagine why it would. Would making junk food and soda free food end the obesity epidemic? Making it free will only make that area a hub for people seeking to get high. Portland, Seattle, and SF are already hot spots where people actively come because they know they can get high easily. Making it completely free is just an even bigger invitation. I think one of Americ…

I don't think GP was arguing for free drugs (that would indeed be crazy). I think they were making a point about how our current policy is an intentional choice to drive drug users into poverty by making drugs wildly expensive.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of distributing it totally free of cost, along with needle exchanges, etc. But yeah, I was speaking more about difference between what an addict pays for fentanyl and the actual cost to produce it.

Re: Why aren't fentanyl test strips more widespread? (2021)

#89

Post by JumpCrisscross »

chasd00 wrote: post #69
bigmattystyles wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At best, they're cowards who don't want to face ads that imply they condone drug use; at worst, they simply refuse to make it safer for anyone with a drug problem because they see them as human detritus.

If an addict tested their drugs and the test came back saying “do not take these” do you think an addict is just going to shrug and toss it in the trash? The test strips really do nothing for addicts. It’s not an easy problem.

> do you think an addict is just going to shrug and toss it in the trash?

I assume they'd have a word with their dealer? Or at least adjust the dose?

Re: Why aren't fentanyl test strips more widespread? (2021)

#90

Post by robonerd »

woodruffw wrote: post #16
rayiner wrote: post #5

> people who use drugs (PWUD) New acronym just dropped. :-/

It's consistent with the practice of using "people-first language"[1]. It sounds a little clunky to my ears in a lot of individual instances, but the overarching goal (making it harder to subconsciously dehumanize people) seems reasonable to me. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language

Being clunky is the point. The idea is that clunky phrases are harder to use as slurs, interrupting the euphemism treadmill.
Post reply on HN