7 comments

[ 0.28 ms ] story [ 22.2 ms ] thread
> "Once prescription opioids became an evident crisis, the government took steps to restrict the supply, raising the price. Yet opioid consumption and overdoses went up. Explain that Mr. Chicago economist!"

First, comparing whites and blacks is misleading, you'd want to compare wealthy vs. poor consumers of the drug. Second, lumping 'opiods' together makes little sense when fentanyl is so different in activity-per-gram, and cost-of-production relative to oxy, heroin, and morphine. Third, overdoses are often related to opiate addicts using drugs of varying purity, which is what is found on illegal markets (plus other confounders like suicide attempts, recovering addicts who've lost tolerance falling off the wagon, etc.).

Just more evidence that Chicago School Economics is just artful propaganda financed by oligarchs to promote further accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few.

The pdf described why consumption and overdoses went up after 2011 when the government took steps to restrict the supply of prescription opioids.

The price of illicit opioids was decreasing at the same time the cost of prescription opioids was increasing. Illicit opioids are a substitution product for prescription opioids for many consumers, so they adjusted their consumption to a more dangerous but cheaper product to fit budgetary constraints.

Did you actually listen to the presentation? They explicitly addressed each of these points (except the bit about the confounding variables, admittedly).
There are also overdoses related to people quitting cold turkey (voluntary or not) where the the withdrawal compels them to take higher dosages.
In the frontpage footnote the author (who is himself a prof at Chicago) acknowledges all of the Chicago that went into the paper. The blogger is both Hoover and an exChicago prof. Pretty sure that phrasing is just backhanded compliments amongst friends and fellow conspirators.
(comment deleted)