Hacker News Reader

Those stats aren't per capita. That page says 902,000 Americans use heroin annual and 14,000 die. That is a 1.55% fatality rate. And that is strictly overdoses. Any death to which heroin contributed but isn't an overdose isn't counted.

141,000 Americans die from the effects of alcohol each year. That would include factors such as increased heart attacks, etc. It is not merely looking at deaths from delerium tremens or the like.

Nonetheless, 177 million Americans[1] use alcohol annually. That is a 0.079% fatality rate.

So, the [direct + indirect] deaths from alcohol are 19.6x smaller per user than the direct deaths from heroin. I would wager if you included indirect effects, the difference is 100x or more against heroin.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-to...

The per capita number only matter if you believe that legalization would increase the number of heroin addicts. There is no reason to believe that, and any legalization effort should be done to prevent that as much as possible.

I know drug consumption usually go up when legalized, but a regulated heroin market would ideally be under very strict regulation, much stricter then alcohol or weed. It would most likely involve getting a prescription and buying it at a pharmacy. There would probably be strict no advertising and no branding. As well as a strict non-profit requirements for makers and distributes.

>Very true, alcohol is much worse by most metrics

>I've met good people addicted to heroin. They've been through more hell than the rest of us can ever understand, almost entirely because of those times when they couldn't access it. If I could press a button to forever ban them access to any opioid, I'd press that button; they'd get over it in a few months and thank me. But that's impossible. The second best option is to allow them access to a clean, low-cost, prescription of it for the rest of their life.

How can you say both of these things? People who try to act like alcohol is worse than Heroin do more harm than good, but you even seem to understand it is worse with your last paragraph.

Of the hundreds of millions of users of alcohol, surely we don't even have to look up a study to find that the percentage of people who "been through more hell than the rest of us can ever understand, almost entirely because of those times when they couldn't access it" is less than Heroin.

> The second best option is to allow them access to a clean, low-cost, prescription of it for the rest of their life

Meaning after a few times of someone finding black market heroin, they can prove addiction - and then get it for low cost on the taxpayers dime, indefinitely and forever. Even better, the heroin addicts with less restraint about only using their supply will know who to beat and steal from to get more.

I'm not saying addicts are inherently bad people. I am saying heroin users are unlikely to have the self-control to stick to their prescribed amount, every day for the rest of their lives. We all have bad days and need something to make them suck less.

> Very true, alcohol is much worse by most metrics, both in terms of number of addicts, number of deaths/year [1][2] and general damage done to the body. [3][4]. (I'm not trying to be cynical, just stating facts.)

Is this true per capita?

Not per capita, per user of the mentioned substance. And the answer is no, not even close. Ridiculous argument.