
In Colorado, opioid deaths fall following marijuana legalization - o_nate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/16/legal-marijuana-is-saving-lives-in-colorado-study-finds/
======
sparrish
There's no evidence that this was due to legalizing marijuana. It's more
likely due to first responder's greater access to naloxone.

"In April 2015, Colorado passed a new law, Senate Bill 15-053, expanding
access to the life- saving drug naloxone, which is used to reverse overdoses
to narcotic drugs, such as certain prescription medications and heroin. ... An
individual at risk of overdose."

~~~
rmetzler
While this is true, there are quite a few stories, where heroine users write
about becoming clean with the use of cannabis. Just search
[https://www.reddit.com/r/trees](https://www.reddit.com/r/trees) and see for
yourself if you doubt that.

Also, if you have the numbers of calls to ambulance, you might see a drop
there too. But maybe that's also not enough evidence for you.

~~~
Sacho
No, it's not. It's very dangerous to draw correlations like these(i.e. see all
the "crime going down"/"crime going up" explanations) because of the huge
potential for noise; it's not like we only take one societal decision per year
to be able to measure its actual effects.

------
xupybd
Comparing the impacts of recreational marijuana laws on opioid deaths seems
tricky to me. While there may be correlations I'm not sure there is enough to
infer causation.

I'd say they'd want to focus more on the effects of the arrest rates going
down. I think that is where you are going to see the biggest positive changes.

That said I think we still need to see marijuanna as a health danger. Much
like smoking tobacco, long term irritation of your lungs is not a good thing.
I hear a lot of people calling marijuanna a cure all and remember my
grandmother telling me how she was told to start smoking as a cure to her
anxiety. Not the same, but this was something she told me as I was watching
her die slowly from a lifetime of smoking.

~~~
icebraining
I agree that smoking in general is probably harmful; marijuana can be
vaporized, though, which seems like a good alternative.

One thing that worries me is that, at least around here, teenagers and young
adults will often stretch the marijuana they can afford by mixing it with
tobacco (from cigarettes). That's another reason for legalization: you get to
actually impose rules on sellers, like giving away bags of more healthy filler
herbs. Try doing that with the street dealer!

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Or it could be they aren't stretching and simply taking lessons from other
parts of the world, in which marijuana is usually mixed with tobacco or a
herbal smoke blend. This is in part because it burns better and more
completely and not really due to wanting to stretch their supply.

That said, there is no reason to force folks into giving away healthier filler
herbs. Tax tobacco more, fine, but folks can buy their own fillers. And
honestly, without testing the safety of the fillers, there isn't a real way to
know how the safety compares to tobacco, especially if folks aren't using
tobacco daily or regularly.

~~~
icebraining
_Or it could be they aren 't stretching and simply taking lessons from other
parts of the world, in which marijuana is usually mixed with tobacco or a
herbal smoke blend. This is in part because it burns better and more
completely and not really due to wanting to stretch their supply._

Well, yes, my friends and the other people in their social groups could be
lying to me for some mysterious reason, but barring further evidence, I'm
going to believe them. It's true that tobacco burns better, but the general
agreement is that they would smoke pure marijuana if they could.

 _That said, there is no reason to force folks into giving away healthier
filler herbs. Tax tobacco more, fine, but folks can buy their own fillers._

Fair enough. Just having it available at the shop, even if people had to buy
them, would be a great improvement. Currently it's not easy to find around
here.

 _And honestly, without testing the safety of the fillers, there isn 't a real
way to know how the safety compares to tobacco, especially if folks aren't
using tobacco daily or regularly._

Right, so we should test them.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
_Well, yes, my friends and the other people in their social groups could be
lying to me for some mysterious reason, but barring further evidence, I 'm
going to believe them. It's true that tobacco burns better, but the general
agreement is that they would smoke pure marijuana if they could_

It doesn't mean _your friends_ are lying. Sure, some folks could do that. My
circle surely never mixed the two - we were more likely to mix pot and cheap
alcohol to make the pot last a bit longer. The other point does exist in
different pot cultures, just like some folks use slightly different tools to
smoke.

~~~
icebraining
Right, hence my initial "at least around here" :)

------
al2o3cr
Agree with others in this thread: it's a tough correlation to demonstrate
reliably.

HOWEVER, keep in mind that the prior for large parts of the country's
leadership is still "OMG WEED IS A GATEWAY TO OPIODS" drug-warrior nonsense.
This data certainly makes that interpretation less plausible.

~~~
baldfat
> This data certainly makes that interpretation less plausible.

I still think that because it is possible that people will use weed instead of
heron that it makes "nonsense" that people that start using one drug for
personal pleasure won't use other drugs for personal pleasure.

------
benevol
What's interesting is the fact that the opioid crisis is a result of a couple
of ultra-rich guys wanting to be even richer. Trump appears to be surrounded
by people who are willing to sacrifice public health for their private
excessive wealth. [0]

It would be nice if common people understood why their health care system
makes fun of them (and why cheap and powerful substances such as psilocybin,
MDMA, LSD are actively being blocked from receiving the required research
funding).

[0] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-41643080](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41643080)

~~~
kolbe
Trump was the one who socialized payments to drug companies? I thought that
was GWB (part D) and Obama (ACA)?

~~~
soundwave106
The current "headline" story being referred to here centers around drug
companies deliberately lobbying Congress to ensure that the DEA's ability to
suspend suspicious opioid orders was weakened (the "Ensuring Patient Access
and Effective Drug Enforcement Act"). The Washington Post and 60 Minutes broke
the story --
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/dea-
drug-industry-congress/)

The story concerns legislation and lobbying between 2014 and 2016, eg,
legislation passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Barack Obama. Joseph
Rannazzisi, who used to run the DEA's diversion control before "retiring" due
to conflict over this very issue, seems to be the big driving force in the
reporting.

It does seem that Mr. Rannazzisi riled Congress and pharma companies with his
characterizations and rather aggressive stance (for instance, in the article,
Mr. Rannazzisi characterized the main difference between pharma execs and
heroin / cocaine dealers is that they "didn’t have a class ring on their
finger from a prestigious university"). From my viewpoint, though, Mr.
Rannazzisi's views are quite justified.

To be fair: there is another side to the story, as mentioned in older articles
on this. ( [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/opioid-dea-
ad...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/opioid-dea-
addiction.html) ). Some balance does need to exist between people who
legitimately need opioids for pain management. Still, the article suggests
that there is far too cozy of a relationship between pharmaceutical companies
and Congress. The fact that the response to this article seems to be a lot of
backpedaling, nominee withdrawals, and "no comments" suggests to me there's a
huge amount of truth in it.

------
gravypod
That looks more like noise than something I'd be willing to bet on. Previous
years, within that same graph exhibit similar trends to what the highlighted
"downward" portion shows.

~~~
elf_code
Sources please?

 _edit_

Sorry, I'm asking about the "previous years similar trends".

~~~
hydrox24
I believe gravypod is referring to previous years in the graph that starts the
article. For instance, look at the 2008-2012 period. There is a definite
downward trend.[0]

[0]:
[https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/...](https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/recreational_opiates.png)

~~~
gravypod
Yes, exactly. To prove a correlation, in my opinion, one would need....

    
    
        1. More smoothed/averaged dataset (centered rolling average ~4 months?)
        2. Explain the other extreme dips in this graph (2005, 2007, 2011)
        3. Plot similar data from other states (with and without legal marijuana)
        4. Investigate other causes (see sparrish's comment)

------
nprecup
That graph is very misleading. I don't have access to the published paper
which may be accurate, but the article doesn't mention the reduction in opioid
deaths from 2008-2010, which appears to be similar to 2014-2016. Also, the
title of the graph states the timeline through 2015, but the x axis suggests
there is data up to 2016?

~~~
mirajshah
Here is the link to the paper:
[http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017....](http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304059)

------
Animats
Probably unrelated to marijuana. See [1]. In Colorado, opioid overdose deaths
decreased 6% in 2016. But heroin overdose deaths went up 22%. This followed a
state effort to cut down on opioid prescriptions. The number of high-dose
opioid prescriptions for more than 30 days was cut in half from 2015 to 2016.

Overview of heroin boom in Colorado: [2]

[1]
[https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Opioid%...](https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Opioid%20Use%20in%20Colorado%20-%20March%202017.pdf)

[2] [https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/heroin-in-
co...](https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/heroin-in-colorado-
final-april-2017.pdf)

------
jwilliams
Like many of these stories, it's a bit shallow - that chart is interesting -
but as others have pointed out it's pretty noisy.

However, you can line it up against national data[1] it's really bucking the
trend. You also find that opioid prescriptions are at least stable or
declining in Colorado. Again, against the national trend that's significant.

Equally, you see spikes in Heroin deaths - so picture is a lot more complex
than that chart.

[1] [https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-
statistics/o...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-
statistics/overdose-death-rates)

~~~
heroprotagonist
I wonder how that heroin stat will compare over a longer term. From what I
understand, a common suggestion is that overprescription of opiods leads to
abuse. Then removal of the prescription, tolerance gains, or financial
considerations push the user to heroin. And once a user is hooked on that, I
think introducing marijuana as an alternative is not going to have as much
impact. But if reducing number of opiod prescriptions leads to fewer heroin
users, I would expect there to be a measurable impact at some point over a
longer term, at least in comparison to national trend.

------
cnewey
In the article's main image, cited directly from the paper in question
([https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/...](https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2017/10/recreational_opiates.png)),
there doesn't really appear to be much of a correlation. Looking at the high
variance in the opioid death data (because there are - fortunately - so few
samples), so I'm not really certain if one can extrapolate a trend so soon
after the legislation was enacted. The data simply appears to be too noisy.
Even the paper states that the upper limit of its 95% confidence interval is a
net reduction in deaths by a whopping... _0.03 per month_.

I've said this before, but; by all means, we should embrace the (clearly very
real) medical value of this plant by allocating funding and legal frameworks
to research it properly. Lots of current cannabis research is plagued by bad
experimental methodology, statistically insignificant conclusions,
extrapolation of non-existent trends, and broad hand-wavey statements that
aren't really backed up by facts, and it's a shame because it cheapens the
value of a _genuinely_ promising medical treatment that offers hope for people
suffering from a litany of conditions (myself included).

------
dingo_bat
Someone needs to study the effects of weed smoke on the lungs. That's the most
common way to consume cannabis and I have a feeling it harms the lungs similar
to the effects of smoking cigarettes.

~~~
KGIII
I think it's safe to say that lighting stuff on fire and inhaling the smoke is
bad for you, regardless of the substance.

Note, I do smoke pot and cigars. I'm pretty sure both are bad for me.

~~~
learc83
I'm sure smoking anything is harmful to some extent, but tobacco is particular
harmful. For instance, it causes mouth cancer just by chewing on it.

------
PatientTrader
Correlation does not equal causation. This is Yellow Journalism at its finest.
The researchers even stated that their "results are preliminary" and not
final, but of course the media runs with everything.

------
irritant
anyone read this? it argues the fent was pushed because of lower marijuana
sales (by drug lords) (due to legalizing mj)

[http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a46918/heroin-mexico-
el...](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a46918/heroin-mexico-el-chapo-
cartels-don-winslow/)

"Okay, I'm going to say it: The heroin epidemic was caused by the legalization
of marijuana."

------
elf_code
The -most important- subject about Marijuana nowadays, is about being arrested
by smoking a joint. I do think.

It's a great thing that we have authorities, but we chase for a better concept
for what is 'legal'.

So, while the "opioid deaths" may not have "fall following marijuana
legalization" (In Colorado), the world does have great news about the
legalization itself.

------
JulianMorrison
In the period 2009 to 2011, deaths went down at least as much. Beware straight
line trends.

------
mxuribe
State/Fed. government: Let's make recreational marijuana legal!

Citizens: Awesome! We all feel relaxed, and those of us dealing with pain feel
much better, and we're not dying from over-doses; yay! ...But, uh-oh, a few
more car fatalities...what to do?

State/Fed. government: Let's build hypertube all over the state!

Citizens: Unsafe drivers - including drinkers AND smokers - simply take the
hypertube home; fatalities have taken a nosedive yay! Second benefit:
individual and state costs typically associated with maintaining cars and
roads for cars (to support long work commutes) goes down, and overall traffic
congestion is diminished; yay! ...But uh-oh, our healthcare costs are still
pretty high, since now the likes of Pfizer, Merck, etc. are legally producing
marijuana, and not cheaply, what to do?

State/Fed. government: With the infrastructure funds now more narrowly focused
on supporting efforts such as hypertube, re-allocate (as appropriate and
legal) the remaining, unused funds to help bring down health care
costs...Either through government tax breaks (just plain giving this unused
money back to citizens) for citizens to pay their healthcare
insurance...OR...to buy their own marijuana at retail...OR...use these
remaining, unused funds to subsidize programs like ACA.

Citizens: Yay! ...But uh-oh, now that marijuana is legal there are less people
being put into jails...and now the jail lobby is whining, what to do?

State/Fed. government: Invite the people who might otherwise be sent to prison
(or who have been freed from prison after being unfairly jailed for minor
amounts of weed) and have them work as construction workers building the
country's hypertube network. A likely side-effect is that the private
companies running the jails will surely convert into hypertube
construction/management companies, but hey jobs, right!?!

Citizens: Yay! Long-term problems - while not solved yet - are on the
mend...but, uh-oh, it appears while sending our satellits to other planets, we
disrupted the hybernation of some war-like aliens, and they're bent on
attacking us with their advanced technology, strategically planning to strike
the most powerful nations on earth first! What to do?

State/Fed. government: ... ... ...

Citizens: Hello? Hello!?! Did you hear our pleas about the pending alien
attack? Hello? Is there anyone there in the government offices? where the
hellz did they all go???? somebody help us; these guns we have are worthless
against these aliens! Heeeeeelllpp!!! ... ... ...

Narrator: Apologies for the levity on serious matters. My whole point is to
remember that things don't exist in isolation...and maybe there will always be
good and bad side-effects that get triggered from one major legislation
change. Nevertheless, the country has lived through Prohibition, and there are
expected patterns that likely emerge. So, i say, marijuana should definitely
be legalized, though let's have a plan to be ready for any unexpected fallout,
should they manifest. Cheers!

------
elvirs
oh god just enough with the propoganda already. only 0.1% of marijuanna
smokers actually need it as a medicine, everyboyd else is simply a pothead.
stop praising the thing like its a fucking elixir sent to save the humanity

~~~
hourislate
I don't smoke or drink but what is your opinion about Alcohol drinkers are
they all drunks? What about Opiate users are they all pill poppers?

Marijuana has been used for millennia as medicine why all the hate? Let it
help the sick people and let the others enjoy it's other aspects. No one will
force a joint into your mouth. You will be safe...

~~~
agreewiththis
>Marijuana has been used for millennia as medicine why all the hate?

What "hate?" I read the whole thread and I cannot fathom anything even close
to anything that could be considered "hate?"

What I read was an extremely mild annoyance at how potheads have developed
something extremely similar to a religious cult where their favorite (and my
favorite) recreational drug must always be praised and its minuscule benefits
must always be exaggerated and paired with a ridiculous and frankly comical
pretense at "oppression" because it's not technically legal (although it is de
facto legal for virtually everyone reading this website and most like it.)

~~~
3131s
Try selling pounds of it and tell me that it's only "technically" illegal. Or
try being non-white, in which case your chances of being arrested for even
personal-use amounts go way up. Or an ex-con failing their piss test on
probation and going back to jail, or a manual laborer denied work-related
injury insurance claims because they smoked a joint on the weekend. I know
many people fucked over by the legal system over this drug that you seem to
think is not actively prohibited.

