“Believe it or not, as a high school teenager, [heroine] was easier for us to get than alcohol,” he said. “It’s cheaper than anything out there.”That's because alcohol is legal and restricted and heroin is prohibited and unrestricted.
But I guess it's only newsworthy when rich white kids get hooked.
Here's the story in the New York Times.
[from Peter Moskos's Cop in the Hood]
I'm surprised the article made no mention of the supply side of this phenomenon. Since the Taliban was ousted from Afghanistan, record-setting opium yield have been realized nearly every year in that country. The world is now flooded with cheap, high-quality Afghan heroin.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, one of the pieces I read on US crop eradication efforts in the area mentioned that enormous opium stockpiles have built up in certain regions of Afghanistan. So even if we were to eliminate every opium crop in Afghanistan for an entire year -- an impossibility to be sure -- cheap, potent heroin would still be making it into our streets and schools.
That was some of the most lame reporting I've read. Obviously there were serious favors taking place behind the scenes in order to write and publish that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comment Rhayader said, "I'm surprised the article made no mention of the supply side of this phenomenon," except I wouldn't investigate back to the Taliban. There was not one question posed or answer given as to who was dealing to these kids (other kids no doubt) and who was supplying them!
Another finding that casts a serious doubt is the very low price. Clearly there is someone behind this who is trying to make this news. Since when does one supply so much drugs to rich people at a puny cost?! According to the article heroin was not a "loss-leader," they didn't get into heroin on the cheap, then move them to expensive drugs. The kids say they couldn't afford the big pharma pills, so went to less expensive heroin! If in fact this heroin did originate on the other side of the world, wasn't it being sold at a serious loss?! This smells of serious govt. corruption.
I am usually the person in the group who poo-poos conspiracy theories and sticks up for the govt. or whoever is the focus of the conspiracy. But since I've learned of the tip of the iceberg of corruption in govt. due to the War on Drugs, like Iran/Contra and how the U.S. shipped in many tons of cocaine in to Gov. Clinton's state of Arkansas, and other sickening evil hypocrisies perpetrated in this War on Drugs, I have a very easy time believing that some factions in our govt. are behind this.
I feel certain they worked overtime to make this high profile by spreading heroin around in rich neighborhoods like leaves in the fall, where it would be a high profile issue.
except I wouldn't investigate back to the Taliban
ReplyDeleteSince when does one supply so much drugs [sic] to rich people at a puny cost?!
If you're not willing to investigate the actual supply chain, the price increase makes no sense. But what I said in my comment is true: after the takedown of the Afghani Taliban, the world has been flooded with cheap heroin from that country. Look it up, this isn't a marginal theory or something, it's all documented.
Increased supply, lower price. Simple.
"The supply side of this phenomenon" is not about street dealers, it's about global heroin production.
I don't doubt you know more about this than I do.
ReplyDeleteIf you're not willing to investigate the actual supply chain…
I didn't really mean the supply chain didn't need investigating, for sure. Like you said it was glaringly missing from the story. I admit, what I wrote was clumsily phrased.
I guess it would have made more sense if instead of writing, "except I wouldn't investigate back to the Taliban" I'd written, "except I'm more curious about the supply chain working back from the kids who are obtaining it."
I was always under the impression that heroin was one of those high cost drugs that pushers were glad to get people addicted to so their end users would pay a lot of money to get. Perhaps I heard yet another myth, or perhaps it's out dated due to an increase in supply?
But it still sounds fishy to me that so many rich kids are obtaining it, and the prices seem so low, but I admit I have no frame of reference. I mean, if heroin is addictive as people say, then why hook rich kids and charge them less than pills? Something seems fishy and I don't doubt a large supply is a factor, but in this War on Drugs, it seems that nothing is as it seems.
The article lists the price of heroin as $5 - $25 a bag.
ReplyDeleteI live in British Columbia, on the west coast of Canada. We are about as far away from Afghanistan as one can get, but of course there are other source countries for heroin. The street level price for heroin - of unknown purity - is around $20 a point in my city.
A point is a tenth of a gram. A typical street addict might use two or three points a day or more. So the prices in the article do not seem too far fetched.
Also, it makes sense to me that heroin would be cheaper than prescription painkillers. First of all, one pays a premium for something that is guaranteed to be a certain purity and quality. This guarantee is available for opiates that come in pill form but not for illegal, unregulated heroin. Second, although there is a black market for the recreational sale of prescription drugs, their production and initial distribution is regulated and limited to adults with legitimate medical conditions. This too would increase the final black market price as there is limited supply.
Personally, I don't think there is a conspiracy to get rich white kids on heroin. But one difference I do see, based on the article, is that these wealthy teens begin with prescription opiates, whereas young people in poor neighbourhoods might start using heroin right off the bat.
There seems to be a perception amongst these wealthy kids that recreational abuse of prescription narcotics can be more easily controlled than with street drugs; tragically, they are finding out that is not the case.
By the way, LEAP has a good series about prescription drugs on the old blog. I know CAP has already read it but others who are new to the blog can read it here, here and here.
I've had a look at some of Cara Buckley's other articles archived at the Media Awareness Project, but overall I am not sure where she stands on the issue.
I re-read the article and could not find a measurement per cost, just "bag." They say each dose lasts 6 to 8 hours.
ReplyDeleteCoupling that with your information ("street addicts might use two or three points a day or more"), it sounds like the only time they are not on it is when they're asleep. So I guess the bottom line is "street addicts" just stay on it constantly?
Does anyone have any numbers (or guesses) as to how many people use it but aren't addicted to that extent? Do they go by the jargon "functional addicts?"
1/10th gram seems like a small amount, mass-wise that is. For some reason, I guess the term "bag," made me think of a larger amount.
For a while there I was wondering about being able to undercut black market prices, but now that doesn't seem like a big worry.
I re-read the article and could not find a measurement per cost, just "bag." They say each dose lasts 6 to 8 hours.
DeleteHeroin is sold either by weight (grams,"points", ect) or by the individual dose depending on where you live or who you buy from. (a "bag", a small wax or plastic baggie with a "brand name" stamped or printed on it. Heroin bags are sometimes known as stamps, different "brands" have different potencies so by building a brand name users know the good dope from the bad. Of course in the unregulated black market competitors quickly copy a good stamp with inferior product so the actual names keep changing.) Your average bag is probably no more than 5-20mgs of diamorphine plus a lot of cut. similarly a "point" of 100mgs is probably no more than a third pure, so you're getting 30-40mgs of diamorphine.
Does anyone have any numbers (or guesses) as to how many people use it but aren't addicted to that extent? Do they go by the jargon "functional addicts?"
Non-addicted heroin users are known as "chippers". According to surveys, 23% of people who use heroin eventually become dependant. "Functional Addicts" are those who can hold down a job, raise a family and be productive citizens while also maintaining an opiate addiction. Before the Harrison Act in 1914, the majority of addicts were functional addicts. Now you have to have a sympathetic doctor willing to give you a fat script or be independently wealthy to be a high functioning addict (see Rush Limbaugh, whose wealth allowed him to hide his addiction for years).
Coupling that with your information ("street addicts might use two or three points a day or more"), it sounds like the only time they are not on it is when they're asleep. So I guess the bottom line is "street addicts" just stay on it constantly?
Yes people dependant on opiates require a constant level of drug in the blood to avoid withdrawal. However do not mistake this to mean they are necessarily impaired, much like people on opioids for chronic pain heroin users can control their dosage between being in withdrawal, being normal, and being intoxicated.
Hope this helps clear up some confusion,
MP
We are about as far away from Afghanistan as one can get, but of course there are other source countries for heroin.
ReplyDeleteI'd wager that you're still getting it from Afghanistan (or rather your cohabitants are). I've read estimates that as much as 90-95% of the world's heroin is now coming from Afghan poppies. It's easily the country's largest cash crop, and US eradication efforts have pushed farmers toward the arms of various radical muslim groups who promise to protect their fields. Check out this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/world/asia/02afghan.html?_r=1
Money quotes:
Afghanistan in recent years has produced 90 percent of the world’s opium.
And
United Nations officials said this year's decline stemmed largely from a steep drop in the value of opium amid a huge supply glut
And
United Nations officials...reported that perhaps more than 10,000 tons of illegal opium-worth billions of dollars and enough to satisfy at least two years of world demand-is now secretly stockpiled.
(And yes, I'm aware of the irony of using the NYT to confirm information I said was conspicuously absent from a NYT article.)
(FYI, here's another story more directly addressing the issue of falling price)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aAshbP0J.JFE
After thinking a bit more and reading it yet again to find out why I thought it was "low cost" (it was in the NYT article) I'm still curious I guess. If "addicts" take 3 doses per day, at $5/per, then that's not very expensive I'd say, relative to the cost of other items and minimum wage. Although if I found myself coughing up $15-25/day for something I'd be doing some serious introspection.
ReplyDeleteBut 3 doses per day at $25/per, that's what I would call expensive. Obviously not, to someone making $500/day, but to a person on minimum wage, or near it, a $75/day habit is expensive.
Based on the Bloomberg story, it seems we sound as befuddled as ever over there. Trying to "stop terrorism" crushing the Taliban, then Al Qaida then we're trying to smash the poppies to bits, now we're trying nation build, to me it all sounds like our military is addicted to being in a conflict and can't figure out how to spin it to the rest of us to make it sound palatable.
But the only thing that hasn't changed is my notion LEAP is right, legalize & regulate. Clearly we can undercut the black market, drive dealers out of business, dry up the pushers looking to hook new users, and treat the current users in a manner better than we have been.
What's missing from your economic analysis is the degree of physical tolerance that develops with regular opiate use. Heroin is cheap, at first, but tolerance develops rapidly and to a significant degree. Addicts may find themselves using 10 times the amount they started with. That habit that started out at $25/day can end up costing many times that amount.
Deleteto me it all sounds like our military is addicted to being in a conflict and can't figure out how to spin it to the rest of us to make it sound palatable.
ReplyDeleteYeah not just the military, but the government in general. That's a perfect description of the drug war approach right? The answer to a terrible policy is more of it. We'll spin the results after the fact.
And yeah, LEAP is a fantastic organization.