Talk:Heroin chic

Notes from a psychologist

Would agree with previous author. This should also have eating disorders implicated into it. Ezeva (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Rewrite

Strange that this article that starts with a fashion style does no tmention any photograpers or fashion magazines but a lot of music references I think this article needs a massive rewrite but I am not the man to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.99.174.144 (talk) 14:24, 2021 April 2 (UTC)

Examples

They seem to be poor choices. E.g. Denise Richards does not seem to have any darkness under her eyes. Am I just a dumb guy who can't tell? Feel like there are better examples ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.190 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Heroin insufflation and purity

There was a claim with refrence that heroin's purity grew and this caused easier insufflation. This claim is persistant, however; a review of the sources reveals that: a) there is no evidence other than parroted claims that literaly form a circular chain of refrences that occasionaly deadend to someon ewho said such without citation, and b) that it makes no sense since heroin bioavailability is similar via insufflation and IV injection and area under the curve and peak plasma levels (corrected for morphine production) are also similar.

The metrics for IV vs insufflation are so similar it defies logic to claim that purity had anything to do with the drug's administration prefrence. http://books.google.com/books?id=AUTWJwn8uOwC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=insufflated+heroin+bioavailability&source=web&ots=PR-qR5UAwQ&sig=hunwsXKn0wMA6inGEcXZkrQgpuE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

Anyways, the source cited previously, as usual, gave no citation to any evidence, experimental, testimonial, analytical, nothing, demonstrating its accuracy or source. I removed that claim and replaced it with the well-documented claim that heroin became more potent and that more people began snorting it.

Personally I think its clear that as heroin grew in popularity more people began using it. Since most people don't like injecting htemselves for no reason, and the internet grew, people realized there was not a great deal of reasons to inject and instead insufflated. Additionaly, the rise of powdery dry heroin made snorting easier then with tar forms which generally require disolution and snorting of the supernatent liquid. I don't have sources for these guesses so I simply ignored them, but I wanted to explain the change and provide evidence the authority cited's claim is senseless and reveal that investigation demonstrates the snorting related to purity trend was entirely made up. Just a case of correleation leading to improved causation and nothing more. Dea reports of "OMG teens are using heroin and snorting it... and its different cuz its more pure now!!!11" probably facilitated this.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While it wouldn't necessarily be out of place, I've never known "dark red lipstick" to be characteristic of the heroin chic look. The article cites Kate Moss and Jaime King as prime examples of heroin chic, but they're not wearing dark lipstick in the images commonly associated with it. Does anyone have a source for this? Sadiemonster (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Cocaine/heroin surge of the 1980s

@Schazjmd: My edit on the cocaine/heroin surge of the 1980s was deleted. This edit establishes how rich cocaine users started to casually use heroin, and turned the street drug into a chic trend. The heroin chic was not a constructed trend, it emerged from the blend of the two drugs during the 1980s. Ok to restore it? I plan to further develop it, there are more usable sources on that matter. Thank you! Wyatthaps (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Wyatthaps, that NYT source doesn't make any connection between the fashion style and drug use trends in NYC, unlike the source already used in the article to support the increased use of heroin by middle- and upper-classes. Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but this is the 'Context' section.

• The first sentences are already focused entirely on the heroin market ('During the 1980s, the AIDS epidemic had made injecting heroin with unclean needles increasingly risky. However, the price of heroin had decreased, and its purity had increased dramatically. Available heroin had become more pure, and snorting became a more common mode of heroin use) --> nothing about heroin and fashion here, making your reason for reverting illogical
• Your source 'https://books.google.com/books?id=vCYyDZE2umcC&pg=PA87&sig=xzjPUzu6zRMaT0kFMhWrN-1XaJ8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=heroin%20chic' barely talks about heroin chic, so you cannot put it forward and discredit all other sources on this page.
• The NYT does establish a connection, it clearly establishes how heroin reached the upper crust of society in the most casual way, making it chic.
• The NYT source is freely accessible online, whereas the book you keep as an exclusive reference here is only partially accessible, making the NYT source a preferred choice for verification purposes.

Wyatthaps (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Wyatthaps, the book (which is available in libraries and for sale) cited for the first three sentences in that section discusses the changes in drug use trends and makes the connection to the fashion style. The NYT source does not make that connection. The book takes a national perspective. The NYT article is solely about drug use trends in the New York metro area. Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)