Did you know that nearly as many people die of opiate overdose (Heroin, Oxycontin, ect) in Massachusetts each year than US soldiers killed in Iraq combat? (In 2005, which are the latest numbers I found for Mass., 627 people died of “unintentional poisoning”- Orwellian code for drug overdose in 2005, compared to 846 American troops KIA in Iraq.)
More people die of drug overdoses in Massachusetts than car accidents (478). (For the source: Click on the “2005” PDF found below Death reports and go to page 62 of the PDF.)
The opiate problem is not isolated to the stereotypical “urban” areas, and is as likely to be found in an affluent suburban as the inner cities. Children of Police Chief’s, School Superintendents have either died of overdoses or became addicted. Professionals-lawyers, teachers, doctors and many other people of “position” in society have found themselves addicted to the incremental trap of prescription drugs that quickly spiral into shooting heroin. More disturbing, it is leaching into the high schools and colleges in the state (even middle schools)
Tomorrow night (or Tonight, depending when you read this), Monday, March 24th at 9 pm , AE is devoting a one-hour documentary on this silent killer in Massachusetts.
I have a feeling it will be an eye opening experience.
Forgive my skepticism, but with the War on Drugs, it’s best to look past the exciting statistics and see what the real numbers are.
<
p>A quick glance at the PDF you link to says (on page 12) this:
<
p>Now, if we use your numbers, the raw unintentional poisoning figure is 627 (page 62). Apply 73% to that, and we get 458 deaths attributable to narcotics and other hallucinogens. That’s closer to 1/2 of the alarming statistic you provide of US soldiers killed in Iraq combat, not “nearly as many.”
<
p>Maybe “the opiate problem” is a big deal in Massachusetts, but there’s no need to run around screaming with your hands in the air. The more you exaggerate, the less I want to listen.
I think the numbers are underestimated. The poster stated those who died in one instant case from acute opiode (or whatever) poisonning. The chronic users periodically , just die from an unrelated system failure such as stroke and MI. Then you have the folks who die from AIDS, hepatistis and neurological issues and don’t forget the junkies who get sick of being a junky and kill themselves by a means other than OD.
<
p>I had a friend who was a successful stock broker. By all outward appearance quite sucessful other than the fact he was an oxycontin junkie. One day in a panic because he couldn’t get his oxy’s he stuck up a drugstore. He didn’t even get two miles before he got locked up. He did a year and everyone thought he was all set. Not two months later he got grabbed for sticking up five drug stores—not for money—just for oxycontin. This time he got five to ten in Walpole and I still think he is in the can. Lost everything—–for what. While I have some sympathy for addicts, I don’t buy that they just don’t say no. I worked in addictions for five years and got tired of giving junkies methadone and librium/clonidine. When I asked them
“why”, the standard reply is I can’t help myself. I ask them that if they knew that someone had a gun pointed at their head and the hammer would drop when the drug of choice hit their bloodstream—-would they take the drug and 100% reply, “Of course not.” I have always harbored the inclination that drug addicts are suicides that don’t have the balls to use a gun, rope, car or jump. They would much prefer to kill themselves slowly and destroy everyone else around them.
<
p>I’m all in favor of giving diagnosed addicts as much narcotics as they want. Won’t be too long before the greatest percentage of addicts are no longer with us.
<
p>I’m a realist—they don’t care—I don’t care. I’m sick of having my house broken into and destroyed.
Nowhere do I say drug abuse isn’t a problem. I just hate seeing the topic discussed with inaccurate or exaggerated statements.
<
p>The War on Drugs is a waste of time, and one of the reasons it’s a waste of time is that instead of laying out the facts, people like the original poster make exaggerated statements to stir up panic and hysteria. My response was to stop the stirring as best I can. End of story.
<
p>I don’t agree with your comment lower down that in some places drugs aren’t an issue because they use capital punishment. I’m opposed to capital punishment.
<
p>So in some countries they have low drug use because they act like murderers. Some tradeoff.
<
p>In this country we prosecute people for having a joint and throw them in jail. That’s not working so well either.
<
p>If we stop screaming and running around in a panic, we might be able to come up with a solution that works and doesn’t kill anyone or incarcerate the innocent.
See my response below
In addition to the statistical error pointed out by “zadig”, your figures do not account for the fact that many drug overdoses are the result of suicide and/or efforts to inflict “self-harm” (intentionally “overdosing” with the intent of doing harm to oneself – usually to attract attention – without actual suicidal intent). Most of these people would have committed suicide or died committing self-harm through some other method even if the “War on Drugs” were more successful in reducing drug use.
Which makes your comments out of whack…see below.
on our society, and I applaud any efforts to point out the extent of the problem. Without getting too deep into the statistics, I’ll only say that I believe the numbers are under-reported.
<
p>If someone is whacked out on Oxys or any other combination of drugs, and they die in a car crash or fall down the stairs and break their neck, it doesn’t count towards the “poisened” group.
<
p>I can think of many other ways that people with drug addictions die, but the stats are beside the point. If you don’t know of any family that has struggled with smack and/or oxy addictions, you’re in the minority.
<
p>BTW, with all of the returning vets from Iraq & Afghanistan, expect to see more instances of drug addiction as people self medicate to deal with psychological and physical trauma.
Nobody’s arguing that opiates aren’t dangerous, and that they don’t cause societal problems. But that’s no reason to run around like chickens with their heads cut off, either.
<
p>And I don’t know all of the details of the under- or over-reporting of opium-related deaths. I do know that, after you adjust the numbers in the 2005 report, the number of deaths attributed to narcotics-and-other-hallucinogens was fewer than those due to car accidents.
<
p>That doesn’t take into account the damage people do to themselves, their families, and society without killing themselves using narcotics, but then again, the death-by-car-accidents stat doesn’t talk about accidents that “only” cause disabling injuries or thousands of dollars in property damage, either.
<
p>The War on Drugs is prosecuted well out of proportion to the damage done by drug use, and with little regard for such trivial concerns as the U.S. and state constitutions. The cooler we can keep our heads while discussing drugs, the better, I say.
not necessarily in a way to reduce the harm of drug abuse, too.
referring to with the ‘chickens with their heads cut off’, but since you attached it to my comment, maybe you can elaborate for me.
<
p>We can agree that smack and oxycontin addictions are damaging to our society, and I’ll even go out on a limb and say all too pervasive, pick your stats.
<
p>Talking about the levels of drug addiction isn’t the same thing as embracing ‘The War on Drugs’, drug prosecutions, or the effects on “such trivial concerns as the U.S. and state constitutions”.
<
p>Re-reading the original post, I don’t see anywhere FrankSkeffington mentions ‘The War on Drugs’, or drug prosecution at all for that matter. Whether or how drugs should be regulated or drug abuse prosecuted is an interesting subject, but not one that I see him arguing.
<
p>If you think that he overstates the problem of drug abuse, cool, I get it. We disagree.
The chickens comment referred to the all-too-common sense of panic that posts such as the original poster and your own post seem to foster. Using any of the following phrases, for example:
<
p>* “More people die of drug overdoses in Massachusetts than car accidents” [Not true, as I explained in my original response.]
<
p>* “the incremental trap of prescription drugs that quickly spiral into shooting heroin” [The vast majority of users of prescription painkillers do not abuse them, nor do they spiral into anything.]
<
p>* “documentary on this silent killer in Massachusetts” [Not very silent, and not worthy of such melodramatic language.]
<
p>* “Heroin & Oxy addiction are a scourge” [Your phrase, and an exaggeration – a scourge is a calamity, such as famine or epidemic, and opiate abuses simply don’t rise to that level]
<
p>So my reply to you was reacting to your use of the overexcited word “scourge” and the original poster’s hyperbole. I was suggesting we speak a little more calmly about something that’s a problem, but not about to causes society to come crashing down around us.
<
p>As for my references to the War on Drugs, the use of hyperbole I’m pointing out is one of the most over-used (and earliest-used in any conversation) tools in that “War”. Use of this kind of hysteria (yes, I mean you and the original poster) leads directly to the the War on Drugs and its myriad abuses.
<
p>So I have no objection to pointing out that drug abuse is a bad thing. I’d like to stop it wherever possible. But to leap from there to exaggerated claims and inflated rhetoric is not necessary, nor is it helpful.
It’s a documentary pointing out that that a lot of misguided nitwits get involved in narcotics for whatever reason and it has a rather calamitous effect on or society.
<
p>Because some junky hasn’t ransacked your home or air conditioned your cranium doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the near future.
<
p>DARE and the “War on Drugs” has been a relative waste of money. We have this problem because it is tolerated. In Cina and other SE Asian countries the biggest drug that is abused is beatle nut. Why? Because the hang drun traffickers, sellers, distributors. Drug addicts are dealt with harshly.
<
p>USA didn’t have this problem in the scope we now enjoy because during the sixties—drugs became “cool”. Now we pay to the piper.
scourge in describing drug abuse is an ‘over excited word’, and is in fact hysteria. LOL
<
p>Sorry there, I think scourge is a perfectly appropriate word, whether you happen to agree or not.
<
p>But since you are now blaming my use of the word scourge for the ‘War on Drugs’ and it’s associated abuses of civil liberties, I guess I’ll have to take issue with your ‘exaggerated claims and use of inflated rhetoric’ as well.
<
p>Whenever you take a break from your parsing and leaps of logic, feel free to come on over kiss my ass. OK?
<
p>
You can throw a rock from one CVS to the next. We are bombarded with ads for drugs, hey they have a drug for everything. We are a drug culture.
FM radio even has ads to volunteer, sign up for a medical experiment. Big pharma has learned well from the military-industrial complex.
Your most serious charges is I cooked the numbers to exaggerate and create hysteria so I could wave the flag on “The War On Drugs”.
<
p>In fact you have cooked my numbers and distorted my intent. You cite page 12 that says 73% of poisoning deaths are related to narcotics and other hallucinogens. You then take my 627 figure I found on p. 62 and apply the 73% figure. You are totally incorrect. If you go to page 63, you will see the total amount of poisoning deaths is 802 and 73% of that is 585. If you go to page 64, that number is confirmed. Now, on that same page they back out 10 narcotic related deaths because they were “intentional”, but also list 43 “other unspecified drug” deaths as unintentional (i.e. overdose), bring the number to 618.
<
p>I contended the number was 627 and I’m off by 9 (the other nine included alcohol poisoning and “vapors” among others). Your method suggested 458 deaths-off by 160. Now, who is doing the exaggerating?
<
p>Even the most conservative number of 585 drug overdoses far surpasses 478 car accident deaths. But everyday we read about the tragedy of auto accidents-and they are. But we rarely read about the nearly two per day drug overdose deaths in this state. And somehow I’m accused of hysteria?
<
p>The very fact that we are dealing with obtuse definitions of “poisonings” buried in a 149 page government document starkly reveals how little we know about these issues and how bureaucrats want to hide (are unable to present) the truth about a serious health issue.
<
p>Now I understand that you think I’m running “around like chickens with their heads cut off” when I say this is a “serious” health issue. I can’t change your thinking. But clearly we do lose more people to drug overdoes than we do from car accidents, homicides and suicides. That is a fact that you can not change, no matter how you distort the numbers. Yet very few people understand that fact and I don’t think I’m being hysterical pointing that out in a single blog posting. (I’ve been blogging on BMG since the pre-Soap Box days, and folks can count on one hand the amount of times I’ve brought up the subject-and it’s usually in response to something.)
<
p>You also bring up “The War on Drugs” mantra a few of times, apparently tying this ill-conceived and ultimately self-defeating government policy to my post, implying that I’m part of this herd of sheep. You have apparently made up you mind as to what my position on this silly “War on Drugs” so why should I waste my time articulating my thoughts when you’ve proven you will make up numbers to move whatever agenda you have.
<
p>As part of your post you said your motive was to stop the panic and hysteria, even though my use of facts is far more accurate than yours. You attempted to tie me into the “War on Drug” fools, without backing it up with facts. You are full of the very hyperbole that you accuse me of.
All right, I see the confusion, which mostly stems from your original statement:
<
p>
<
p>You gave a value of 627 for unintentional poisoning and said that was code for drug overdose. You were mistaken. Page 12, which you and I both failed to read carefully, says that drug overdoses are included in the total number of poisoning deaths, not restricted to unintentional poisonings as you say above. Therefore, as you’ve pointed out in your correction, drug overdoses are 73% of 802 total poisonings, which comes to 585.
<
p>So my mistake was believing your original statement about which figure included drug overdoses. Thanks for correcting that.
<
p>585 is still not “nearly as many people” as died in Iraq the same year (“846 American troops KIA in Iraq”, according to your figures). So my accusation of hyperbole still stands, and it is still unhelpful, although not by as much.
<
p>My original point still stands. Exaggerating the problem of drug overdoses doesn’t help anyone, when our efforts should be aimed at establishing a more reasonable approach to fighting drug abuse than we have now (as exemplified by the War on Drugs, as I’ve mentioned). Hyperbolic claims only serve to cause panic, which leads to ridiculous drug laws like we have now.
<
p>Thanks for clarifying. Accurate numbers always help.
<
p>
The report states 627 unintentional poisoning deaths–out of 802 poisoning. You inaccurately chopped this number 627 by 27 % and then had the gall to say I’m guilty of distortion and hyperbole?
<
p>Given how little media attention is given to the opiate issue, comparing it to Iraq deaths or car accidents simply puts it into perspective. About 1/1000th of the attention is given to an issue in which the little state of Massachusetts losing about 2/3ths of it’s citizens as the entire country loses in a war zone. Where is the hyperbole in that? Who am I scaring? The media does not cover this story (except on cable once in a while), so whose scaring who.
<
p>Because the state keeps such obtuse stats, it is nearly impossible to nail down the numbers completely. But from what little numbers they provide, my facts are sound and they drive the point home. Sorry that your sensibilities have been upset with the facts.
<
p>(I noticed you dropped your criticism of comparing it to car accidents, because it is completely true what I said; now you have to do a rhetorical retreat and use my war comparison–which is also entirely accurate.)
<
p>Given that you distort the numbers and that you still insist on standing-by your analysis, it’s pretty clear that debating you is like talking to a wall.
<
p>
I’m sticking with the 627 number and not the 585 which you concede is the number (and not your earlier fabricated 457 number). 585 comes from the defined narcotics catagory and if you include “other drugs” you get to 618. The other nine are from alcohol, vapors and one of two esoteric things. Hmm, frankly I think it’s fairly progressive to call alcohol for what it is…a drug. And with people (mostly high schoolers) sniffing aerosol and other vapors, why would those numbers be included. You can quibble on the one’s and two’s, but you can’t quibble on the over all trend these numbers represent..
<
p>It’s Ok to oppose the “War on Drugs” and call it for what it is–BullShit. But you seem to be in denial that the problems are as real and as widespread as it really is. That ain’t scare tactics…just the facts. (And instead of quibbling with my facts…can you present any facts that undermine what I’m stated here?)