Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Overdose deaths down

Good news, overdose deaths are down for the second straight year. Odd news, fewer drug abuse fatalities means more hard to explain unclassified deaths.
Posted by at

8 comments:

ppatin said...

Double murder in Annapolis.

Wed Jul 01, 10:41:00 AM EDT
Unknown said...

If most of the undetermineds are drug deaths, per the M.E., wouldn't that possibly explain the drop in reported drug overdoses? That's what I was thinking when I read our report today...

-Fenton

Wed Jul 01, 10:49:00 AM EDT
iv1 said...

I don't follow, if undetermine deaths have gone up while overdoses have gone down, and if the ME explains the UD as mostly overdoses, then the two trends seem contradictory.

Wed Jul 01, 11:14:00 AM EDT
Unknown said...

Simple: Since the M.E. is seeing more drug deaths that it classifies as undetermined because it can't be sure, for example, if the drugs were spiked or someone else injected them, then the death is not being classified as a drug overdose, and therefore is not reflected in the drug overdose tally but instead in the undetermined death tally. I have not yet read the IV article so perhaps this issue is addressed in there, but that was my first thought.

-Fenton (Sun reporter - my editor said to make sure I make that clear!)

Wed Jul 01, 11:56:00 AM EDT
buzoncrime said...

Wonder if the two different databases/stats overlap each other? Or are they talking about different bodies?

Are the ME's reputed drug deaths (he just doesn't know if they're accidental or not) included in the number of overdoses?

If not, as seems likely, then has there really been a decrease in overdoses?

Wed Jul 01, 11:57:00 AM EDT
John Galt said...

I'm so very tired of Baltimore City officials touting some 1% reduction in some juked number.

The real question, given that Baltimore has long been a very, very unsafe city, is:

Does it feel qualitatively different (safer) now or is it still recognizably a nasty American inner-city.

It seems very recognizably the same to me.

Wed Jul 01, 03:03:00 PM EDT
Cham said...

"Safety", that's an interesting term. When we speak of safe vs. unsafe what are the definitions of each? Who is to be safe? What is the measure of safe? How do we know if safety is improved?

Inquiring minds wish to know.

Wed Jul 01, 07:13:00 PM EDT
helix said...

I think there's 2 kinds of "safety".

One refers to statistics about incidents for some place or set of behaviors for some population. It is an abstract concept that is extracted from disinterested measurements. To use this information effectively, you have to be willing to interpret things logically and look at the big picture. Many times, the information needed just isn't accessible.

The other notion of safety is entirely subjective. It is the gut feeling the people have about particular places, people and situations. Sometimes, it is all you have to go on, but it is often just plainly wrong.

For instance, I always laugh to myself when suburbanites (hell, neighbors too), complain about some section of town and say-- "oh, I would NEVER walk there it is REALLY DANGEROUS!" Most of the time this statement has NO BASIS in reality. What they're referring to is the level squalor and the fact that there's a strong presence of african americans who happen to be poor.

If I had to list some activities, in order of increasing danger (danger of any type), I would order it like this...

1) Walk down Pennsylvania or North Ave in broad daylight.
2) Go to the Canton Safeway, park at the edge of the lot and walk to the entrance.
2) Drive to White Marsh Mall
3) Go bar hopping in Federal hill, Fells point or power plant till closing time.

Sat Jul 04, 01:19:00 PM EDT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)