Editorial note. In March 2001, the Waismann Method was featured in a television news segment about Vicodin dependence. This page previously reproduced that segment’s transcript. It no longer does. The transcript was the broadcaster’s work, it named individuals in connection with their health, and it included a patient account that would not meet current standards for publication. What follows is our own account of what that moment looked like and what the intervening 25 years revealed.
Quick Answer
In 2001, prescription opioid dependence was being covered as a celebrity lifestyle story. The reporting of that period treated Vicodin as a fashionable pill, framed dependence as a matter of personal excess, and drew a clean line between people who used the drug properly and people who abused it. Much of what those segments observed was accurate: dependence was developing in ordinary people through ordinary prescriptions, it was largely invisible, and it required no dealer. What that coverage could not see was scale. It was describing the opening years of what the CDC would later categorize as the first of three waves, and the framing it used, the terminology it used, and the regulatory environment it described have all since changed.
What the coverage of that period looked like
The 2001 story ran on the entertainment news circuit rather than the health desk, and that placement shaped everything about it. Vicodin was presented as something circulating at parties and award shows, a pill with cultural cachet. Public figures who had disclosed dependence were listed as evidence of a trend. The segment then widened to an ordinary person in early recovery, and closed on the observation that this could happen to anyone.
Reading it now, the most striking thing is not what it got wrong. It is the confidence of the frame. Prescription opioid dependence was a curiosity in 2001, a story about people behaving indulgently, and there was no available vocabulary for what it would become.
What that coverage got right
- Dependence was arriving through legitimate prescriptions. The observation that people were developing dependence after routine procedures, without ever seeking a drug recreationally, was correct and central. It remains the single most misunderstood thing about opioid dependence today.
- It was invisible. The point that a person could be dependent while functioning normally at work and at home was accurate and still is. Opioid dependence does not look the way people expect it to look.
- No dealer was required. The supply was a prescription pad. That was the defining feature of the first wave and it was correctly identified.
- Tolerance drove escalation. The description of needing progressively more for the same effect was pharmacologically sound and matches what is now well characterized at the receptor level.
- The shift in patient population was real. Clinicians in that period were seeing a change in who was arriving for treatment, from predominantly heroin to predominantly prescription opioids. That shift is now visible in national data.
What it got wrong, and what it could not have known
The framing as a lifestyle story
Treating prescription opioid dependence as a celebrity trend made it look like a phenomenon of excess among people with unusual access. It was the opposite. It was a phenomenon of ordinary medical care, distributed across the country, and it was already well underway in places that had no relationship to Hollywood.
The clean line between use and abuse
Coverage of that era consistently drew a boundary: the drug was safe for people who used it correctly and dangerous only for people who abused it. That boundary does not hold. Physical dependence develops from sustained exposure at prescribed doses, in people following instructions exactly. Dependence is a predictable physiological adaptation, not evidence of misuse, and conflating the two left a great many people unable to recognize what was happening to them.
The scale
Nothing in the 2001 coverage anticipated the magnitude. Prescription opioid overdose deaths in the United States numbered 3,442 in 1999 and reached 17,029 by 2017. Across 1999 to 2023, roughly 806,000 people died from an opioid overdose, and the CDC now describes the period as three distinct waves: prescription opioids first, heroin from around 2010, and synthetic opioids including illicitly manufactured fentanyl from around 2013.
The acetaminophen problem
Vicodin was a combination product, hydrocodone with acetaminophen. Coverage of that period focused almost entirely on the opioid component. The acetaminophen was arguably the more immediate danger for a person taking large daily quantities, because of the risk of severe liver injury, and it went essentially unmentioned.
What changed after 2001
| 2001 | Today | |
|---|---|---|
| Scheduling of hydrocodone combinations | Schedule III, refillable, prescribable by phone | Schedule II since October 2014, with tighter controls on refills and prescribing |
| Acetaminophen content | Commonly 500 mg or more per tablet | Limited to 325 mg per dosage unit in prescription combination products following FDA action |
| Prescribing guidance | Little formal guidance; pain treated as undertreated | CDC prescribing guideline issued 2016 and revised 2022 |
| Prescription monitoring | Few states, limited coverage | Prescription drug monitoring programs operating nationwide |
| Dominant risk | Prescription pills | Illicitly manufactured fentanyl and an unpredictable illicit supply |
| Overdose reversal | Naloxone largely confined to medical settings | Naloxone available over the counter and widely distributed |
The language changed too
The vocabulary of 2001 coverage, describing people as addicts and framing recovery in terms of beating a drug, has been retired in clinical and journalistic practice. Current usage is person first: a person with opioid use disorder. This is not cosmetic. Language that identifies a person with their condition has been shown to affect how clinicians treat them, and framing relapse as personal defeat obscures that it is a recognized feature of a chronic condition.
The detail that has aged worst: coverage of that period, this segment included, presented dependence and recovery as questions of character. Someone had beaten a drug or had failed to. Twenty five years of receptor pharmacology have made clear that what is being described is a nervous system that has physically adapted to sustained opioid exposure and requires time to readapt. That reframing is the most consequential change of all, and none of it was available in 2001.
Where things stand now
The most recent national picture is genuinely better, and that is worth saying clearly because it is not widely known. CDC provisional data indicate roughly 69,973 drug overdose deaths in the United States in 2025, down almost 14 percent from an estimated 81,313 in 2024. Opioid-involved deaths fell from about 55,296 to 44,564 over the same period. This is the third consecutive annual decline, and the lowest count since October 2019.
Two cautions belong alongside that. These are provisional figures that get revised as records mature, and the improvement is not evenly distributed, with some states recording increases while others fell by a quarter or more. But the direction has held for three years, which is longer than any previous reversal in this epidemic.
What has not changed since 2001 is the mechanism. Sustained opioid exposure produces adaptation at the receptor, adaptation produces tolerance, and tolerance drives escalation. That was true of a hydrocodone tablet in 2001 and it is true of the illicit supply today. What changed is the margin for error, which is now measured in micrograms.
Need help or information about opioid use? The SAMHSA National Helpline is free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in English and Spanish: 1-800-662-HELP (1-800-662-4357). It provides referrals to local treatment facilities, support groups and community organizations. If someone may be experiencing an overdose, call 911 immediately.
Frequently asked questions
Why is the original 2001 transcript no longer published here?
Three reasons. The transcript was the broadcaster’s copyrighted work rather than ours. It named individuals in connection with their health, which would not be published this way today. And it included a patient account recorded under consent standards from a different era. Describing the segment in our own words preserves the historical record without republishing any of that.
Was Vicodin really easier to obtain in 2001?
Yes. Hydrocodone combination products were Schedule III until October 2014, which permitted refills and telephone prescribing. Reclassification to Schedule II brought substantially tighter controls. Prescription drug monitoring programs, which now operate nationwide, were also rare at the time.
Is Vicodin still prescribed?
Hydrocodone with acetaminophen is still prescribed, though the formulations have changed. Following FDA action, prescription combination products are limited to 325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage unit, considerably less than the tablets common in 2001. Some brand names from that era have since been discontinued while the generic combinations remain available.
Can someone become dependent on opioids while taking them exactly as prescribed?
Yes, and this is the point 2001 coverage consistently missed. Physical dependence is a physiological adaptation to sustained opioid exposure, not a consequence of misuse. It develops in people following directions precisely. Dependence and addiction are related but distinct, and treating them as the same thing has caused significant confusion for patients trying to understand their own situation.
Why does language like “addict” matter?
Because it affects care. Terminology that merges a person with their condition has been associated with more punitive clinical judgments, and framing recovery as beating a drug misrepresents relapse as personal failure rather than a recognized feature of a chronic condition. Current clinical and journalistic practice uses person first language.
Are opioid overdose deaths still rising?
No. CDC provisional data show roughly 69,973 drug overdose deaths in 2025, down almost 14 percent from 2024 and the third consecutive annual decline, reaching the lowest level since October 2019. Opioid-involved deaths fell to about 44,564. These figures are provisional and get revised, and the improvement varies considerably by state, but the trend has now held for three years.
What is the main risk today compared with 2001?
In 2001 the dominant risk was prescription pills obtained through medical channels. Today it is an unpredictable illicit supply in which illicitly manufactured fentanyl is the primary driver of opioid overdose deaths. The underlying receptor pharmacology is unchanged; what changed is that active doses are now measured in micrograms, so small inconsistencies in an unregulated product become the difference between a dose and a fatal one.
Sources
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Understanding the Opioid Overdose Epidemic
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Overdose Deaths Decrease for Third Consecutive Year in 2025
- National Institute on Drug Abuse, Drug Overdose Deaths: Facts and Figures
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Overdose Prevention Data Resources
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Helpline
Related reading on Opiates.com
- How opioid receptors work
- Norco: brand discontinued, generic still prescribed
- Fentanyl abuse: signs, risks and a changing drug supply
- Opiates vs. opioids: what is the difference
Published by Waismann Method®, Opioid Dependence Experts.
Reviewed by Clare Waismann, M-RAS, SUDCC II, Registered Addiction Specialist.
Originally published March 2001. Rewritten and last reviewed August 24, 2026.
This page is provided for education and general information only. It is not medical advice, does not establish a clinician and patient relationship, and should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition. Opioids should never be started, changed or stopped without guidance from a qualified physician.
Clare Waismann is the founder of the Waismann Method®, a leading opioid detoxification program with nearly three decades of clinical experience. As a registered addiction specialist and certified counselor, she has dedicated her career to advancing humane, medically-based approaches to opioid dependence. Clare has been featured in major media outlets discussing addiction policy and patient care, and hosts the Waismann Method Podcast. All content on this site is educational and not a substitute for professional medical advice.
