A New Survey Suggests Illicit Opioid Use Is Much More Common Than the Government's Numbers Indicate
The survey estimates that 7.5 percent of America adults use illegally produced fentanyl each year, 25 times the rate indicated by a government-sponsored survey.

A new survey of American adults suggests that illicit opioid use in the United States is much more common than the government's numbers indicate. In the survey, conducted via the online platform Respondi in June 2024, 7.5 percent of respondents reported they had used (or might have used) illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) in the previous 12 months, 25 times the rate suggested by the government-sponsored National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).
RAND Corporation economist David Powell and University of Southern California economist Mireille Jacobson, who published their results in JAMA Health Forum on Friday, say the reasons for that huge disparity are unclear. "A number of previous studies also have reported higher rates of illicit opioid use, challenging the accuracy of the federal estimate," a RAND press release notes. A 2014 report by Beau Kilmer and eight other drug policy analysts at RAND, for example, estimated that something like 1.5 million Americans were "chronic heroin users" in 2010, when the NSDUH suggested a total of about 620,000 Americans used heroin.
RAND suggests such disparities "may relate to the way the federal survey asks participants about illicit opioid use." Powell and Jacobson note that "about half of NSDUH surveys are conducted in-person," which may inhibit respondents' candor. The Respondi survey, by contrast, was conducted entirely online, which may have encouraged honesty by enhancing the participants' sense of privacy and making them less likely to shape their answers based on social expectations.
The phrasing of the questions may also help explain the dramatic divergence in estimates. The NSDUH asks, "Have you ever, even once, used illegally made fentanyl?" If the respondent says yes, he is asked, "How long has it been since you last used illegally made fentanyl?"
In the Respondi survey, by contrast, "participants were asked about use of nonprescription opioids within the past 12 months, with heroin and IMF given as examples." They "could respond in 1 of 3 ways: (1) yes, I intentionally used illicit opioids; (2) yes, I may have unintentionally used illicit opioids; or (3) no." Respondents who picked 1 or 2 "were subsequently asked about IMF use within the past 12 months with the following 3 options: (1) yes, I intentionally used illicitly made fentanyl; (2) yes, I may have unintentionally used illicitly made fentanyl; or (3) no."
As Powell and Jacobson concede, the inclusion of unintentional fentanyl use, which they thought was appropriate given the vagaries of the black market drug supply, may have inflated their numbers because "individuals who had used an illicit substance but were unsure whether it contained fentanyl could have selected this response." But nearly 5 percent of the participants reported intentional IMF use, which is still more than 16 times the rate reported by the NSDUH.
In addition to arguing that the NSDUH is subject to underreporting, critics of the survey have long noted that it omits groups, such as jail or prison inmates and people without fixed addresses, in which the prevalence of illegal opioid use is apt to be especially high. Powell and Jacobson's survey did not address that issue. In fact, they note that the participants had to have internet access, which may have affected the sample "in systematic ways." But that bias, they say, "would likely lead us to underestimate illicit opioid use."
The NSDUH sample is much larger than the number of people who participated in the Respondi survey: 67,500 vs. 1,515. Still, the Respondi sample was larger than those routinely used in public opinion polling. Powell and Jacobson note that Respondi has a reputation for "high-quality nationally representative panels."
Overall, 11 percent of respondents reported past-year use of illicit opioids, including fentanyl and heroin. Within that group, about 70 percent said that use was intentional.
The survey also asked participants when they "first used opioids for medical or non-medical purposes." Among the people who reported past-year use of illegally manufactured opioids, 39 percent said their first exposure to opioids involved "prescription opioids prescribed to you," while 36 percent said it involved "prescription opioids that were not prescribed to you."
Although Powell and Jacobson are interested in the potential connection between opioid prescriptions and subsequent illicit use, they note that "we cannot claim that initial exposure caused subsequent illicit opioid use." Any such causal inference would be reckless, since a large share of American adults—one-third over just a two-year period, according to a 2018 survey—have received opioid prescriptions. Still, it is notable that most illicit opioid consumers in this survey had not received such prescriptions prior to using illegal drugs.
The survey asked illegal opioid users to assess their risk of an overdose. Twenty-four percent said an overdose was very likely, while 33 percent thought it was unlikely. As one might expect, the breakdown was different among fentanyl users: about 33 percent and 18 percent, respectively.
According to an estimate by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "synthetic opioids," the category that includes fentanyl, were implicated in about 65,000 U.S. deaths during the year ending in June 2024. "If we conservatively assume no fentanyl use among the 21.5% of the population that is younger than 18 years," Powell and Jacobson say, "the national illicit fentanyl use rate was 5.9%," which "implies an annual overdose death rate of 0.32% among the population using illicit fentanyl."
One implication of the Respondi survey's results, in other words, is that fentanyl use is less dangerous than the NSDUH's numbers suggest. According to the latter survey, 0.2 percent of Americans 12 or older were past-year fentanyl users in 2023. That would make the "annual overdose death rate" within that group something like 9 percent rather than 0.32 percent.
"Overall," Powell and Jacobson write, "17.4% of people reporting fentanyl use thought that it was unlikely that they would overdose from opioid use, implying that most people using IMF recognize the heightened risk of overdose from such consumption. Although speculative, the implied awareness about risk suggests that this population may be receptive to interventions that reduce the likelihood of overdose." Those interventions, they note, include making naloxone, an opioid antagonist that quickly reverses overdoses, "available over the counter" and "distributing fentanyl test strips" to reduce uncertainty about the composition of black market drugs.
Although "polysubstance deaths" are becoming "increasingly common," RAND notes, "illegally manufactured fentanyl remains involved in most overdose deaths. Despite the importance of illicit opioids in the current substance-use landscape, relatively little is known about the prevalence of illicit opioid use."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
25 times the rate suggested by the government-sponsored National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)
And you said Pam Bondi's claim that she saved 25*8* million American's lives was ludicrous.
7.5%? Doesn't pass the smell test. Someone's cherry-picking data, has a different definition of fentanyl, or something, but this just reeks of fraud.
They didn't mention that they limited the survey to tent cities around the country.
No, it proves that something really good just won't please certain
hate-riddled pompous hyporcritical souls.
Praise for blowing up the Reason insistence that drugs should not be curbed or controlled. Mifepristone is killing or hurting many more women and babies than was reported. And now this.
We need to step up the drug war and do it on 3 additional fronts
1) The education front, as with this article.
2) The moral religious front because this must have effects on business, on family, and social welfare.
3) And especially in the international front. Cocaine and heroine always come linked with gangs and rings of multiple illegal and immoral practices.
3) And especially in the international front. Cocaine and heroine always come linked with gangs and rings of multiple illegal and immoral practices.
You recognize the gang (and cartel) problem, but think stepping up the war on drugs will solve that, when the opposite is true.
Jefferson, you have the damn annoying childish habit of just saying shit. At least he thinks and wrote an article. I say he's wrong too but not just because I I I say it.
My comment was a critique of YOUR stupid claim that stepping up the war on drugs somehow solves or doesn't exacerbate the black-market crime problem (gangs and cartels), when all evidence, even going back as far as alcohol prohibition, is to the contrary. I'm not criticizing the article or the writer of the article.
Right, no one has ever tried that before.
If you think this article blows up the libertarian position on drug prohibition, you really don't understand the position. But libertarians aren't normal people, so fair play.
Maybe before ramping up the drug war once again try stop tolerating all the bad behavior and criminality that comes with open drug use on the streets. Legalizing drugs doesn't mean legalizing sleeping on the streets, theft, aggressive and obnoxious behavior, trespassing and shitting on the sidewalk.
Can we get a breakdown of the demographics of people answering that they've gotten and used, specifically, illegally sourced fetanyl? Are we looking at young, old, rich, poor, or even a regional cluster? 1 in 10 sounds like a high estimate of addicts to me. If we believe that stat line it is a major cause for concern and a call for some sort of action.
End the drug war.
^THIS.... Not only is it UN-Constitutional.
How does threatening one with a Gov-Gun shot to the head stop self-destruction?
By making it Gov-Gun-Gods human destruction instead?
"If you don't stop hurting yourself I'm going to shoot you!" /s
Precisely why the founders LIMITED the use of Gov-Guns to area's a 'Gun' could actually be useful.
Wrong tool for the job.
What? And just just anybody go around shooting insulin? Get real!
We ended it Seattle. Results were spectacular!
I was at the VA last month for my first medical visit. I have chronic pain issues that occasionally spike enough to be crippling. All they will give me at this pint is a nerve blocker. Which won’t do much for really severe pain. Apparently I have to go through a’pain clinic’ to receive opiates. Which is ridiculous, because x-rays of my back are pretty goddamned conclusively by themselves.
JS;dr
JS;dr
Good afternoon Sarah Carter. Your mission is to entrap and bust all who stray from the Godly path of taxed and regulated gin and cigarettes--even if it means robbing, jailing and/or shooting the entire population. If you or any of your IMF are caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self destruct in 5 seconds.
7.5 percent of respondents reported they had used (or might have used) illicitly manufactured fentanyl
Did they also report they might have slept with the pollster's mother?
Does that pass the smell test? If you know as few as ten people (your dept at work, your friends, your neighbors), the odds are overwhelming that at least one of them uses illicit fentanyl?
I'd say that calls for a raised eyebrow or two.
This depends a lot on where you work. If you’re working at the rural gas station, I’d say the odds are that most of your ten coworkers are actively using illicit fentanyl per the definition in the survey. For my coworkers, I’d very much doubt any at all are. Be careful about extrapolating from your sphere to the world. There are demographics where this number would be ridiculously high and others where it would be massively low. Is it accurate for the U.S. population as a whole? That’s why you need to run these surveys.
Meanwhile, legitimate users of pain medication like me are subjected to increasingly stupid rules. One of the latest is to force me to keep Narcan in the house. I've used Norco for 20 years and have never gone outside the medical system to get it, yet I'm treated like addict by the medical system.
Like gun control, attempts to control illegal uses only affect those who legally use the product.
Read my comment above regarding the VA.
Gregdn, I'm afraid you think you must be right because the writer is wrong. No, 3 reasons why not
1) It can't just be between controlling and not controlling. There's who defines what is a drug, for example Clintons were and are a disgrace
Published: Aug 23, 1996, 12:00 a.m. MDT
View Comments
Share
By Associated Press
President Clinton declared nicotine an addictive drug and imposed strict limits on tobacco use by minors
Better to say nothing than to call nicotine what you call cocaine and heroin.
2) Even you must admit that a city, county, or state move to stop certain drugs doesn't have to include any wider area. U don't want Fentanyl where I live, Why does that boter YOU ?
3) Drugs keep something of the worst people in the world on a payroll. Go after them, maybe by Trump's use of the military and everybody's happy.
Ahh, yes... the 90s. Back when I was warning that the left who constantly bellyached about "ending the war on drugz!!11!!" were going to be the biggest drug warriors you'd ever see.
Even if this new study overshoots, it still nails the real scandal: the government’s drug use stats are hot garbage. The truth is, way more people are using “hard drugs” than your local DEA-funded awareness poster would ever admit. And they’re not all toothless zombies under a bridge—most don’t even remotely resemble the cartoon addict cooked up to justify surveillance and incarceration. Some of them are your coworkers. Some run startups. Some write objectivist manifestos while novels on Benzedrine. Churchill used meth and ran a whole empire. The more this cracks open, the clearer it gets: the War on Drugs isn’t about public health—it’s about keeping up the fantasy that drug use and moral failure are the same thing. And libertarians should be first in line to burn that fantasy to the ground.
Bullshit.
This post nicely points out some of the problems with self-reported illicit drug use. First, we've been told over and over again by the DEA that the illicit drug market has become so chaotic that users seldom know exactly what they've used. Second, we've been told over and over again that almost any amount of fentanyl can be a fatal dose and that even one use of fentanyl will lead to addiction. The drug warriors will continue to ignore even valid evidence which might refute their persistent scaremongering and expose their chronic incompetence.
By the way, has anyone seen anything about DOGE procrusteanating the DEA, trimming it down to some arbitrary random size? I haven't, but I haven't gone looking for it.