Man hand holding cocaine or other drugs, drug abuse

(© DedMityay - stock.adobe.com)

L.A. Fentanyl Users May Consume Nearly 100 Times the Opioid Level in a Common Pain Guideline

In A Nutshell

  • Researchers found that regular street fentanyl users in Los Angeles were consuming an average equivalent of nearly 9,000 milligrams of oral morphine per day, roughly 99 times a standard clinical pain guideline.
  • Street fentanyl purity varied so dramatically that a single gram could contain less than 1 milligram to almost 650 milligrams of actual drug, a dangerous gamble buyers make without any warning.
  • Standard methadone starting doses cover only a tiny fraction of the opioid exposure fentanyl users have built tolerance to, which may help explain why so many people struggle to stick with addiction treatment.
  • Researchers say drug checking programs, which let people test their supply before using, could help both reduce overdose risk and inform how doctors approach treatment dosing.

Street fentanyl users in Los Angeles are consuming, on average, the equivalent of nearly 9,000 milligrams of oral morphine every day. Clinical guidelines for treating chronic pain recommend doctors think carefully before prescribing more than 90 milligrams of oral morphine daily. People in a new study were consuming roughly 99 times that amount, not necessarily because they were seeking a stronger high, but because many regular users may have developed extraordinary opioid tolerance to a drug that has reshaped the entire overdose crisis.

That number matters most for what it reveals about treatment. Methadone, a standard medication for opioid addiction, is typically started at 20 to 40 milligrams daily. Even at an unusually high dose of 180 milligrams, methadone delivers only about 846 milligrams of morphine equivalent, a standard measure of opioid potency. For someone whose body is used to nearly 9,000 of those milligrams per day, that gap could be the difference between treatment that works and treatment that sends someone back to the street.

This is a window into why so many people with opioid addiction struggle to stay in treatment, and why the fentanyl era has proven deadlier and harder to manage than what came before.

L.A. Drug Checking Data Revealed Staggering Street Fentanyl Consumption

Researchers at UCLA, UC San Diego, and the University of Toronto published their findings in Drug and Alcohol Dependence, merging two streams of data: lab testing of street drug samples and self-reported surveys from people actively using fentanyl.

On the laboratory side, the team analyzed 509 drug samples collected through Drug Checking Los Angeles, a community program where people can bring in drugs to be tested without legal consequences, between September 2023 and January 2026. Samples were analyzed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology using a method precise enough to identify exactly how much fentanyl, or its close chemical relative fluorofentanyl, was in each one. Purity varied wildly across those samples. One gram of product sold as fentanyl could contain less than 1 milligram to almost 650 milligrams of the actual drug.

On the human side, 47 participants reporting past-30-day fentanyl use completed brief surveys. Average daily consumption was about 1.07 grams of raw fentanyl product. Almost all, 97.87%, reported smoking or vaporizing fentanyl. Many also reported injecting it, and some reported snorting it.

To translate all of that into a single figure, the researchers combined four inputs: raw product consumed, purity, how much the body would absorb based on how it was taken, and a conversion factor from scientific literature allowing fentanyl doses to be compared to oral morphine on a common scale.

Because each input carries uncertainty, the team ran a statistical simulation with one million data draws. When all four factors were combined, the average estimated daily exposure came out to roughly 99 times the standard clinical pain guideline, with individual estimates ranging from about 157 to over 41,000. Even under the most conservative assumptions, the average never dropped below 5,125, still more than 56 times that threshold.

street drugs
New study reveals why fentanyl has made addiction treatment harder and how unpredictable street drug purity fuels overdose deaths. (Getty Images For Unsplash+)

Street Fentanyl Tolerance Makes Addiction Treatment Far Harder

Getting patients started on addiction medication has become increasingly difficult in the fentanyl era. Many may feel undertreated, experience more severe withdrawal, and drop out before the medication has a chance to help, a problem the researchers say may stem directly from the sheer scale of tolerance people have built up.

For patients at these levels, higher starting and ongoing doses of methadone may be warranted, according to the paper. Adding supplementary medications without the heart-rhythm concerns that limit methadone dosing could also help. Emerging evidence around starting buprenorphine, another addiction medication, at higher doses may be partly explained by the same tolerance phenomenon.

One important caveat: patients do not need medication doses matching their street fentanyl exposure. A steady, long-acting drug like methadone works differently in the body than the sharp spikes caused by hourly fentanyl use. Not every fentanyl user will have the same level of tolerance; some may be much closer to clinical opioid thresholds than the study average suggests.

Underpinning all of this is the variability problem. A gram of street fentanyl can contain anywhere from a trace amount to a potentially lethal concentration depending on the batch, and buyers have no way of knowing which they are getting on any given day. Drug checking programs like the one that supplied this study’s lab data give users at least some advance warning about their supply, and researchers argue the data those programs generate can help doctors better tailor treatment for patients walking through clinic doors.

Participants were drawn from community drug checking sites, which likely skews toward heavier users, so average figures may not reflect the broader fentanyl-using population, and the data reflects Los Angeles specifically. Still, under every scenario the researchers modeled, the conclusion held: the drugs people are using and the treatments being offered exist on entirely different numerical scales, and until that gap is better understood, treatment may continue to fall short for some of the people most at risk.


Disclaimer: This article is based on a peer-reviewed research study, but the findings reflect a specific population in Los Angeles and may not apply universally. It is not intended as medical advice.


Paper Notes

Limitations

The study draws its drug samples and survey respondents from community-based drug checking services in Los Angeles, a design known as convenience sampling, which may not represent the full range of people who use fentanyl in the region. Consumption quantities may be higher among drug checking participants than among the broader population of opioid users. Purity estimates were based only on fentanyl and fluorofentanyl content; a small number of other chemical variants present in samples were not included in the main analysis, which may have slightly underestimated overall potency. Estimates of how much of a smoked or inhaled drug reaches the bloodstream were drawn from existing published literature rather than measured directly in this population, and the authors acknowledge that high-quality data on those specific parameters is limited. The degree of correlation between how much product a person uses and how pure that product is could not be directly measured, and this uncertainty was addressed through multiple modeling scenarios rather than resolved. The findings reflect the Los Angeles fentanyl market specifically and may not generalize to other geographies.

Funding and Disclosures

This publication was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as part of Overdose Data to Action: LOCAL (CDC-RFA-CE-23-0003). Chelsea L. Shover received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K01DA050771; R01DA057630). Joseph R. Friedman received funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (1U01DA063078). Adam J. Koncsol received educational support through the NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Science UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute (TL1TR001883). Equipment support came from the James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust to the UCLA AIDS Institute and UCLA Center for AIDS Research. Funders played no role in study design, conduct, analysis, or publication decisions. David Juurlink reports having received payment for lectures and medicolegal opinions regarding the safety and effectiveness of analgesics, including opioids, and holds unpaid membership in PROP. Remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Publication Details

Authors: Morgan Godvin, Joseph R. Friedman, Caitlin A. Molina, Adam J. Koncsol, Ruby Romero, David N. Juurlink, and Chelsea L. Shover. Godvin and Friedman are listed as co-first authors. Affiliations include the Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research at the University of California, Los Angeles; the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego; and the Departments of Medicine, Pediatrics, and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto. | Journal: Drug and Alcohol Dependence | Title: “Estimating the Daily Milligrams of Morphine Equivalent of Illicit Fentanyl Use in Los Angeles: Clinical and Epidemiological Implications” | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2026.113224 | Received October 7, 2025; revised May 5, 2026; accepted May 11, 2026. A preprint was previously posted to medRxiv (DOI: 10.1101/2025.10.07.25337514).

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Comment