your little obsession with me is getting the best of you. try not to get so wound up that you end up putting up silly call out ops.
And here:
<snip>
It’s certainly true that there can be regional spikes, even if national usage rates are flat. But according to Vermont’s department of health, in 2012, there were just nine deaths classified as “heroin involved” (a category that doesn’t mean heroin was the sole or even the principal cause of death). Taking the governor at his word, that means there were fewer than 18 deaths last year in Vermont in which heroin was a factor. (2013 data were not available.)
Those deaths are sad, but in a state with 626,000 residents, they should not be driving major decisions about law enforcement, medical resources and health policy. As the Vermont department of health reports, “mortality due to drugs in Vermont has not changed greatly over the past nine years … these data do not suggest that deaths from any one specific type of drug is increasing or decreasing over the span of multiple years.” The 2013 Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey reports that just 2% of high school students say they have ever tried heroin, down from 3% in 2011. If Vermont is at the forefront of a “major comeback of heroin in the U.S.” (as the Los Angeles Times puts it), we all need to take a few deep breaths.
<snip>
http://ideas.time.com/2014/02/06/philip-seymour-hoffman-heroin-crisis/
Also, everyone in the Vermont politics know, is aware of that Shumlin wanted some big money grants to fight drug use. It's a competitive environment. He's already gotten on $10 million grant since his speech.
So yeah, like most states Vermont has a heroin problem- nevermind that the depth of that problem has been pretty much unchanged, both in VT and the US as a whole, over the past 10 years
= new reply since forum marked as read