Sunday, July 21, 2013

Heroin Scare in Northern New England

Who the hell is doing heroin? Heroin is a wicked fahkin hahd drug to beat. The NY Times reported that heroin is making a "comeback" and that deaths are rising at an alarming rate. I don't buy this for a minute. The drugs real jump was a decade ago, and the scare is small compared to other dysfunctional issues. This is some nice, overblown bullshit, and the article manages to side step a bunch of news worthy items.

1. If this is a comeback, what was the prior problem and how was it solved?
2. 21 heroin overdose deaths equals their murder count for the year. Is murder a problem in Maine? Nope. At 1.2 million people, 21 deaths is minor, and the examples they show or discuss are all centered on Portland, yet the article discusses heroin reaching quaint fishing villages on the coast. Need some proof.
3. Why is the heroin so 'cheap'? Looking at the numbers ($30 bag), if a bag of M&Ms costs 99 cents, then heroin is most likely cheaper per injection than a bag of M&Ms.
3a. How is the heroin making its way up from Massachusetts? Maine, NH, Vermont are all small areas with low populations where an outsider would be easy to spot.
3b. What is the distribution network like for heroin? Can we get a rundown of details on the network or dealer type? I see a mention of a dealer ring in Mass busted, but nothing else, and rural New England is pretty "small".
4. Afghanistan produces 87% of the world's heroin with gigantic increases since the Taliban was toppled. How is it coming to the west?
4a. How could the Taliban, without the sophisticated equipment, wipe out heroin production but the US military can't?
5. Why are Mainers, Vermonters and folks in NH resorting to heroin use, considering everyone knows how addictive it is?

Interesting passage:

One reason for the rise in heroin use is the restrictions on doctors in prescribing painkillers. The tightened supply of pain pills, and physical changes that made them harder to crush and snort for a quick high, have diverted many users to heroin, which is much cheaper and easier to get.

The reason for use is restriction on another drug of the same drug family. It is not just supply and drug options, but why are these individuals using heroin now? There is no discussion of the why behind it all. I am 100% certain this article from a Bangor, Maine newspaper was a feeder for the NY Times piece, but check out an older Bangor article on how heroin admissions to treatment centers skyrocket after 2001, and have plateaued (hmm, after 2001 heroin use exploded). Oxycodone has been the recent riser, but that's not the evil heroin scare, yet the Bangor article focuses on heroin. Once again, why are people using a drug with a well established track record (no pun intended) of killing?

Discussing why would destroy the shining, America is always progressing lie. Those self-satisfied SWPLs and 50 story condo liberals need to keep thinking all is well because now gays can marry and we have the Internet. These heroin users are in safely blue states. When it was just teens in the greater Boston area doing heroin, New England liberals could argue it was middle and upper-middle class teens switching from expensive oxy pills to cheaper heroin because they "didn't undahstand any bettah". Rural adults using heroin is different. The Times doesn't want to ask why. They don't dare ponder that the rural towns that lost forestry, logging and paper jobs to environmentalism scare propaganda, lost manufacturing jobs to outsourcing, and were destroyed by the social engineering of liberal family law and welfare changes would resort to chasing the dragon.

No comments: