Topic: epidemiology

We focus on the drug, as if someone who uses heroin, for instance, can’t also have a problem with alcohol, or sleeping pills, or methamphetamine, or this new, more potent form of marijuana that’s showing up everywhere.

It’s still just nicotine, after all, even if someone doctored it to smell like creme brulee.

Not Latin American cartels or Afghan warlords, but advocates for opioid treatment of chronic pain, and pharmaceutical firms with a substantial financial interest in selling opioids.

Still, if the epidemic is already 28 years old, then how much more effective would these steps have been if they had been initiated way back when?

…if the ground is now shifting to other drugs, then what are we doing in response to that?

I don’t think there are any health benefits associated with the practice; it’s purely about getting high.

Naturally, high-energy entrepreneurs are attracted to stimulants. At least until they begin to experience the toxicity associated with too much of a good thing.

Once such substances get a foothold in a region, they’re extremely hard to eradicate.

Much of the chronic user’s life is taken up by anxiety, about where future doses will come from.

I thought that blue ribbon commission did a pretty good job with its 60 recommendations, but I haven’t seen much subsequent action, have you?