Canadian province experiments with decriminalising hard drugs

[Elixir]

Part of being ethical, is allowing people to choose to die.

To die, or to learn not to.
Giving people the freedom to consume to excess is perhaps the best way to teach the perils of consuming to excess. What is the risk, if they’re already on a perilous path?

 

[Jarhyn]

Part of being ethical, is allowing people to choose to die.

To die, or to learn not to.
Giving people the freedom to consume to excess is perhaps the best way to teach the perils of consuming to excess. What is the risk, if they’re already on a perilous path?

Well, the risk is "making it worse". The problem is making that path be worse is... Well, it's "making it worse".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another lesson that you eventually learn while playing my stupid little game: not everyone can be helped.

Yup. With most mental health issues it's impossible to do anything unless the patient wants to be helped. Help is painful and often rejected. There's also the issue that in many cases there's little to be done.

This is also why the toughlove approach to addiction--until the addict suffers worse from their addiction than from help there's nothing to be done. I think my wife summed it up well when she told a patient "You want to want to quit, but you don't really want to quit. I can't help you, I won't take your money." (The addiction was smoking rather than drugs, but there's a lot of overlap regardless of the object of addiction.)

Sometimes you have to realize that your parent or your child or your friend is a junkie and is sliding and will continue to do so, and that it isn't the drugs, but rather them.

I believe that in most cases drugs are a symptom, not a root cause. Habituation is certainly possible but most drugs can be tapered off without major issues--but if you don't overcome the mental desire they'll just go back.

Maybe start with identifying that some people really are not cut out to be parents and some things people should ask for a divorce over, call CPS over, tell a teacher about, and have that person removed to a place where there may be people who can help them fix their priorities or just let their priorities run their course (let them drug themselves to death).

Interesting point--I can very much see a reason for a high school class on bad relationships. The Republicans would howl, though!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Too many people are dying from overdoses!

Maybe we need to change how we address this issue.

Had a thought here--perhaps a very different approach: Heavy opioids (anything that are schedule II) in quantities greater than one dose are only legal if accompanied by a dose of Narcan.

And respond by supplying them with narcan.

I’m a little ignorant of such issues but can someone who is overdosing recognize that they are in trouble and self administer Narcan? I assumed they’d be too sick to recognize their danger or to self administer.

I do know that police officers are not thrilled with having to act as EMTs re: overdose cases as often as they do.

I believe that in many cases the patient can recognize they're in trouble. It's also possible for someone with the patient to see the problem.

EMTs don't like it because Narcan causes an addict to go into immediate, severe withdrawal--it's a rough ride and they're often combative. (Note that this is not a property of Narcan--you don't get this reaction when it's used on a non-user who was accidentally exposed or was trying to kill themselves.)

 

[Toni]

Too many people are dying from overdoses!

Maybe we need to change how we address this issue.

Had a thought here--perhaps a very different approach: Heavy opioids (anything that are schedule II) in quantities greater than one dose are only legal if accompanied by a dose of Narcan.

And respond by supplying them with narcan.

I’m a little ignorant of such issues but can someone who is overdosing recognize that they are in trouble and self administer Narcan? I assumed they’d be too sick to recognize their danger or to self administer.

I do know that police officers are not thrilled with having to act as EMTs re: overdose cases as often as they do.

I believe that in many cases the patient can recognize they're in trouble. It's also possible for someone with the patient to see the problem.

EMTs don't like it because Narcan causes an addict to go into immediate, severe withdrawal--it's a rough ride and they're often combative. (Note that this is not a property of Narcan--you don't get this reaction when it's used on a non-user who was accidentally exposed or was trying to kill themselves.)

First of all, I wasn't talking about EMTs. I was talking about POLICE OFFICERS in caps since you glossed over that.

Secondly, do you know how Narcan is administered? Not for the untrained bystander or someone in the throws of an overdose. If trained EMTs don't like administering Narcan, why on earth would anyone just leave it up to the general public to deal with a difficult, dangerous and potentially deadly situation???????

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Too many people are dying from overdoses!

Maybe we need to change how we address this issue.

Had a thought here--perhaps a very different approach: Heavy opioids (anything that are schedule II) in quantities greater than one dose are only legal if accompanied by a dose of Narcan.

And respond by supplying them with narcan.

I’m a little ignorant of such issues but can someone who is overdosing recognize that they are in trouble and self administer Narcan? I assumed they’d be too sick to recognize their danger or to self administer.

I do know that police officers are not thrilled with having to act as EMTs re: overdose cases as often as they do.

And to me this echoes a different response than the kind that is always attempted and always fails: maybe we should try giving them monitored spaces, make the opium dens where people go to die comfortable and safe and with counseling and exit services, and... Maybe not even charge money?

Support it through taxes.

Just don't mix things up, this is a pipeline of suicide prevention built around a recognized path to suicide, for what all that an opium den is. Or a meth spiral, or whatever they call it.

I do not think opioids are a thing people should have to pay for, because some people need them... And some people really just want to die.

aka safe injection sites.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Has anyone mentioned that illegal opiates are often tainted with fentanyl? This is why there have been so many drug related deaths in the last few years, especially among young people. If these drugs were legal or at least decriminalized, they would be much safer. Again, many young people experiment with drugs but then stop using them once they mature a bit. Making drugs legal would make them safer, regardless if a small percentage of people abused them.

Decriminalization of possession won't do anything about the tainted drugs. That's not a property of the illegal use, but of the illegal supply chain.

Fundamentally, the problem is that fentanyl provides the same effect from a far smaller amount and at a lower cost of production. The result is drug dealers like to mix in some fentanyl to make a more desirable product--but they're not exactly the brightest bulbs and don't always mix it well enough. Poor mixing can make one hit weak and another deadly.

 

[Jarhyn]

Too many people are dying from overdoses!

Maybe we need to change how we address this issue.

Had a thought here--perhaps a very different approach: Heavy opioids (anything that are schedule II) in quantities greater than one dose are only legal if accompanied by a dose of Narcan.

And respond by supplying them with narcan.

I’m a little ignorant of such issues but can someone who is overdosing recognize that they are in trouble and self administer Narcan? I assumed they’d be too sick to recognize their danger or to self administer.

I do know that police officers are not thrilled with having to act as EMTs re: overdose cases as often as they do.

And to me this echoes a different response than the kind that is always attempted and always fails: maybe we should try giving them monitored spaces, make the opium dens where people go to die comfortable and safe and with counseling and exit services, and... Maybe not even charge money?

Support it through taxes.

Just don't mix things up, this is a pipeline of suicide prevention built around a recognized path to suicide, for what all that an opium den is. Or a meth spiral, or whatever they call it.

I do not think opioids are a thing people should have to pay for, because some people need them... And some people really just want to die.

aka safe injection sites.

I don't think that's really going far enough. It's a start, but nowhere near enough.

It has to be rather strictly overseen to prevent people from trying to set it up as a conversion and normalization facility rather than a suicide prevention facility. They have to provide the drugs, and do it for free without strict gatekeeping, with warnings but without reserve.

I could imagine people saying "you need to cut back on drugs to stay" or "you need to go to sermons to stay" or some other way to make it difficult or annoying or lonely and thus doomed to fail. I could imagine it being sabotaged by the well meaning but controlling. I could see people trying to reject animals, or ration patients so as to force them to quit beyond simple "this will kill you" as they provide both food and drugs, and a room designed for using those drugs safely and reasonably enjoyably, and a map to rooms where they can go to school and learn interesting things while they either choose to keep dying or start living.

The only way to do it right is to not moralize over which path people decide on walking, and people fucking LOVE moralizing over drugs.

 

[Toni]

The only way to do it right is to not moralize over which path people decide on walking, and people fucking LOVE moralizing over drugs.

Well, there’s the moralizing because people choose to handle/avoid their problems through drug use/abuse—and there’s people who recognize the damage done from the fallout—kids growing up with people who abuse alcohol or drugs being the ones who have the most legitimate gripes—and the least power.

Substance abuse doesn’t just damage the abuser but everyone who cares about them or depends on them. Then there’s the ripples: people who try to patch and mend what is broken by addicts.

It makes much, much more sense to de-stigmatize mental health care and to start providing it to everyone who needs or wants it. Which, of course means start producing more psychologists, psychiatrists, various mental health professionals, addiction specialists, etc. it is very difficult to get mental health care in my county. I do know that if you make a call, crying so hard that you are all but incoherent, you will get a quick appointment. In case anyone needs that info. It’s hard to get it paid for and it is expensive.

 

[southernhybrid]

Has anyone mentioned that illegal opiates are often tainted with fentanyl? This is why there have been so many drug related deaths in the last few years, especially among young people. If these drugs were legal or at least decriminalized, they would be much safer. Again, many young people experiment with drugs but then stop using them once they mature a bit. Making drugs legal would make them safer, regardless if a small percentage of people abused them.

Decriminalization of possession won't do anything about the tainted drugs. That's not a property of the illegal use, but of the illegal supply chain.

Fundamentally, the problem is that fentanyl provides the same effect from a far smaller amount and at a lower cost of production. The result is drug dealers like to mix in some fentanyl to make a more desirable product--but they're not exactly the brightest bulbs and don't always mix it well enough. Poor mixing can make one hit weak and another deadly.

I'm not so sure about that. If these drugs were legal, that would likely cut down on the illegal supply chain. I am well aware of how fentanyl works, as I've had quite a few patients when I was still working who were using fentanyl transdermal patches for pain relief. I do wonder if any doctor is prescribing the drug these days, due to the bad reputation it has due to how it's been added to a lot of the illegal opiates that come into the country.

Sadly, one doctor in town really over prescribed drugs like fentanyl, leaving one of my former patients with pneumonia after her massive doses of opiates depressed her respiratory system to the point where she needed hospitalization. Interestingly enough, after the big scare regarding prescribed opiates, the same pain doctor was only giving tiny amounts of pain relief drugs to his patients. He's lucky he didn't get his ass sued. Hopefully, nobody ever died while under his care.

My former patient took a large dose of fentanyl, hydrocodone three times a day, a muscle relaxer, an NSAID and an anti anxiety drug. She weighed 65 lbs and looked like a meth addict by the time she ended up in the hospital. The idiot doctor never bothered to weigh her and his staff was always hostile when any of us reported our concerns about this woman. I think that type of over prescribing was what lead to the opiate over reaction. Btw, my former patient never had any withdrawal symptoms when she was taken off of her drugs and put on a small dose of codeine three times a day, by a different provider.

My father used to stop taking his narcotic drugs from time to time because, and I quote, "I'm a Marine, and I don't need those drugs". He never had withdrawal symptoms but after a few day, he was in so much pain that we convinced him to go back on his narcotics. Okay. I'm ranting and I'm just giving some personal experiences related to Rx. pain relievers. The truth is that there is no easy way to relieve chronic pain, especially if it's severe. It's something that a lot of us older adults have to face and do the best we can to find some relief.

 

[southernhybrid]

The only way to do it right is to not moralize over which path people decide on walking, and people fucking LOVE moralizing over drugs.

Well, there’s the moralizing because people choose to handle/avoid their problems through drug use/abuse—and there’s people who recognize the damage done from the fallout—kids growing up with people who abuse alcohol or drugs being the ones who have the most legitimate gripes—and the least power.

Substance abuse doesn’t just damage the abuser but everyone who cares about them or depends on them. Then there’s the ripples: people who try to patch and mend what is broken by addicts.

It makes much, much more sense to de-stigmatize mental health care and to start providing it to everyone who needs or wants it. Which, of course means start producing more psychologists, psychiatrists, various mental health professionals, addiction specialists, etc. it is very difficult to get mental health care in my county. I do know that if you make a call, crying so hard that you are all but incoherent, you will get a quick appointment. In case anyone needs that info. It’s hard to get it paid for and it is expensive.

I agree that we have failed the mentally ill in this country and a lot of that started during the Reagan administration. It's very difficult to effectively treat mental illnesses, even when the best care is available. We simply don't have ways to treat the variety of these brain disorders, which is what they really are. The stigmatism is terrible and the drugs we do have often have lots of side effects. I do wish that we'd spend a lot more money doing research on these diseases as they can cause terrible problems for both the victim and their families, regardless if any illegal drugs are involved. I know this as one who has many mentally ill people in my family, including my late father, grandmother and grandfather, as well as a sister and probably another sister who has never been diagnosed but certainly has some weird symptoms.

And, let me add that sadly, a lot of conservative Christians go as far as to believe that mentally ill people are demon possessed. I had a friend many years ago who had very bad bipolar disorder. Her family insisted that she was demon possessed and they cut her out of their lives. She would go off her meds, end up hospitalized etc. After moving, I lost contact with her but always wondered if she got the help she needed. Forgive me for going off topic, but you made me think of some of the people I've known who suffer from serious mental problems. None of them used illegal drugs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, there’s the moralizing because people choose to handle/avoid their problems through drug use/abuse—and there’s people who recognize the damage done from the fallout—kids growing up with people who abuse alcohol or drugs being the ones who have the most legitimate gripes—and the least power.

Substance abuse doesn’t just damage the abuser but everyone who cares about them or depends on them. Then there’s the ripples: people who try to patch and mend what is broken by addicts.

It makes much, much more sense to de-stigmatize mental health care and to start providing it to everyone who needs or wants it. Which, of course means start producing more psychologists, psychiatrists, various mental health professionals, addiction specialists, etc. it is very difficult to get mental health care in my county. I do know that if you make a call, crying so hard that you are all but incoherent, you will get a quick appointment. In case anyone needs that info. It’s hard to get it paid for and it is expensive.

The problem with this is that you're operating under the idea you can get rid of substance abuse. History shows you can't. In practice all we can do is minimize the damage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Has anyone mentioned that illegal opiates are often tainted with fentanyl? This is why there have been so many drug related deaths in the last few years, especially among young people. If these drugs were legal or at least decriminalized, they would be much safer. Again, many young people experiment with drugs but then stop using them once they mature a bit. Making drugs legal would make them safer, regardless if a small percentage of people abused them.

Decriminalization of possession won't do anything about the tainted drugs. That's not a property of the illegal use, but of the illegal supply chain.

Fundamentally, the problem is that fentanyl provides the same effect from a far smaller amount and at a lower cost of production. The result is drug dealers like to mix in some fentanyl to make a more desirable product--but they're not exactly the brightest bulbs and don't always mix it well enough. Poor mixing can make one hit weak and another deadly.

I'm not so sure about that. If these drugs were legal, that would likely cut down on the illegal supply chain. I am well aware of how fentanyl works, as I've had quite a few patients when I was still working who were using fentanyl transdermal patches for pain relief. I do wonder if any doctor is prescribing the drug these days, due to the bad reputation it has due to how it's been added to a lot of the illegal opiates that come into the country.

Decriminalization doesn't create a legal supply chain so it doesn't displace the illegal supply chain.

Sadly, one doctor in town really over prescribed drugs like fentanyl, leaving one of my former patients with pneumonia after her massive doses of opiates depressed her respiratory system to the point where she needed hospitalization. Interestingly enough, after the big scare regarding prescribed opiates, the same pain doctor was only giving tiny amounts of pain relief drugs to his patients. He's lucky he didn't get his ass sued. Hopefully, nobody ever died while under his care.

My former patient took a large dose of fentanyl, hydrocodone three times a day, a muscle relaxer, an NSAID and an anti anxiety drug. She weighed 65 lbs and looked like a meth addict by the time she ended up in the hospital. The idiot doctor never bothered to weigh her and his staff was always hostile when any of us reported our concerns about this woman. I think that type of over prescribing was what lead to the opiate over reaction. Btw, my former patient never had any withdrawal symptoms when she was taken off of her drugs and put on a small dose of codeine three times a day, by a different provider.

Docs certainly should be keeping more track of their patients than this seems to indicate.

My father used to stop taking his narcotic drugs from time to time because, and I quote, "I'm a Marine, and I don't need those drugs". He never had withdrawal symptoms but after a few day, he was in so much pain that we convinced him to go back on his narcotics. Okay. I'm ranting and I'm just giving some personal experiences related to Rx. pain relievers. The truth is that there is no easy way to relieve chronic pain, especially if it's severe. It's something that a lot of us older adults have to face and do the best we can to find some relief.

I do agree there's no good answer.

 

[Toni]

Well, there’s the moralizing because people choose to handle/avoid their problems through drug use/abuse—and there’s people who recognize the damage done from the fallout—kids growing up with people who abuse alcohol or drugs being the ones who have the most legitimate gripes—and the least power.

Substance abuse doesn’t just damage the abuser but everyone who cares about them or depends on them. Then there’s the ripples: people who try to patch and mend what is broken by addicts.

It makes much, much more sense to de-stigmatize mental health care and to start providing it to everyone who needs or wants it. Which, of course means start producing more psychologists, psychiatrists, various mental health professionals, addiction specialists, etc. it is very difficult to get mental health care in my county. I do know that if you make a call, crying so hard that you are all but incoherent, you will get a quick appointment. In case anyone needs that info. It’s hard to get it paid for and it is expensive.

The problem with this is that you're operating under the idea you can get rid of substance abuse. History shows you can't. In practice all we can do is minimize the damage.

The problem with your post and so many others is that you think you can read my mind.

As with so many other of your replies to me, you are so far off the mark that it isn’t even funny.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, there’s the moralizing because people choose to handle/avoid their problems through drug use/abuse—and there’s people who recognize the damage done from the fallout—kids growing up with people who abuse alcohol or drugs being the ones who have the most legitimate gripes—and the least power.

Substance abuse doesn’t just damage the abuser but everyone who cares about them or depends on them. Then there’s the ripples: people who try to patch and mend what is broken by addicts.

It makes much, much more sense to de-stigmatize mental health care and to start providing it to everyone who needs or wants it. Which, of course means start producing more psychologists, psychiatrists, various mental health professionals, addiction specialists, etc. it is very difficult to get mental health care in my county. I do know that if you make a call, crying so hard that you are all but incoherent, you will get a quick appointment. In case anyone needs that info. It’s hard to get it paid for and it is expensive.

The problem with this is that you're operating under the idea you can get rid of substance abuse. History shows you can't. In practice all we can do is minimize the damage.

The problem with your post and so many others is that you think you can read my mind.

As with so many other of your replies to me, you are so far off the mark that it isn’t even funny.

Your argument only makes sense if making drugs illegal reduces their use--but that's not what we actually see. Legal without permitting advertising doesn't increase the use rate. Decriminalization doesn't increase the use rate. Legal for addicts by prescription decreases the use rate. Yet we go with the path of maximum harm.

 

[Toni]

Well, there’s the moralizing because people choose to handle/avoid their problems through drug use/abuse—and there’s people who recognize the damage done from the fallout—kids growing up with people who abuse alcohol or drugs being the ones who have the most legitimate gripes—and the least power.

Substance abuse doesn’t just damage the abuser but everyone who cares about them or depends on them. Then there’s the ripples: people who try to patch and mend what is broken by addicts.

It makes much, much more sense to de-stigmatize mental health care and to start providing it to everyone who needs or wants it. Which, of course means start producing more psychologists, psychiatrists, various mental health professionals, addiction specialists, etc. it is very difficult to get mental health care in my county. I do know that if you make a call, crying so hard that you are all but incoherent, you will get a quick appointment. In case anyone needs that info. It’s hard to get it paid for and it is expensive.

The problem with this is that you're operating under the idea you can get rid of substance abuse. History shows you can't. In practice all we can do is minimize the damage.

The problem with your post and so many others is that you think you can read my mind.

As with so many other of your replies to me, you are so far off the mark that it isn’t even funny.

Your argument only makes sense if making drugs illegal reduces their use--but that's not what we actually see. Legal without permitting advertising doesn't increase the use rate. Decriminalization doesn't increase the use rate. Legal for addicts by prescription decreases the use rate. Yet we go with the path of maximum harm.

Show your data.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, there’s the moralizing because people choose to handle/avoid their problems through drug use/abuse—and there’s people who recognize the damage done from the fallout—kids growing up with people who abuse alcohol or drugs being the ones who have the most legitimate gripes—and the least power.

Substance abuse doesn’t just damage the abuser but everyone who cares about them or depends on them. Then there’s the ripples: people who try to patch and mend what is broken by addicts.

It makes much, much more sense to de-stigmatize mental health care and to start providing it to everyone who needs or wants it. Which, of course means start producing more psychologists, psychiatrists, various mental health professionals, addiction specialists, etc. it is very difficult to get mental health care in my county. I do know that if you make a call, crying so hard that you are all but incoherent, you will get a quick appointment. In case anyone needs that info. It’s hard to get it paid for and it is expensive.

The problem with this is that you're operating under the idea you can get rid of substance abuse. History shows you can't. In practice all we can do is minimize the damage.

The problem with your post and so many others is that you think you can read my mind.

As with so many other of your replies to me, you are so far off the mark that it isn’t even funny.

Your argument only makes sense if making drugs illegal reduces their use--but that's not what we actually see. Legal without permitting advertising doesn't increase the use rate. Decriminalization doesn't increase the use rate. Legal for addicts by prescription decreases the use rate. Yet we go with the path of maximum harm.

Show your data.

The prohibition and drug war are big starters there, but you can Google it and get half a dozen reports "legalization did not increase adult use" across every state to legalize.

I saw the parade of articles and papers across my own inbox as I watch a few mailing lists in the topic.

I would normally stand right beside you asking loren for a cite, but this is like asking for a cite on "masks decrease transmission of airborne communicable diseases". It's not controversial except among groups that tend towards "mom's against _____" campaigns.

 

[Toni]

Well, there’s the moralizing because people choose to handle/avoid their problems through drug use/abuse—and there’s people who recognize the damage done from the fallout—kids growing up with people who abuse alcohol or drugs being the ones who have the most legitimate gripes—and the least power.

Substance abuse doesn’t just damage the abuser but everyone who cares about them or depends on them. Then there’s the ripples: people who try to patch and mend what is broken by addicts.

It makes much, much more sense to de-stigmatize mental health care and to start providing it to everyone who needs or wants it. Which, of course means start producing more psychologists, psychiatrists, various mental health professionals, addiction specialists, etc. it is very difficult to get mental health care in my county. I do know that if you make a call, crying so hard that you are all but incoherent, you will get a quick appointment. In case anyone needs that info. It’s hard to get it paid for and it is expensive.

The problem with this is that you're operating under the idea you can get rid of substance abuse. History shows you can't. In practice all we can do is minimize the damage.

The problem with your post and so many others is that you think you can read my mind.

As with so many other of your replies to me, you are so far off the mark that it isn’t even funny.

Your argument only makes sense if making drugs illegal reduces their use--but that's not what we actually see. Legal without permitting advertising doesn't increase the use rate. Decriminalization doesn't increase the use rate. Legal for addicts by prescription decreases the use rate. Yet we go with the path of maximum harm.

Show your data.

The prohibition and drug war are big starters there, but you can Google it and get half a dozen reports "legalization did not increase adult use" across every state to legalize.

I saw the parade of articles and papers across my own inbox as I watch a few mailing lists in the topic.

I would normally stand right beside you asking loren for a cite, but this is like asking for a cite on "masks decrease transmission of airborne communicable diseases". It's not controversial except among groups that tend towards "mom's against _____" campaigns.

Asking because I’m too tired to google it myself tonight.: What does the literature say about whether legalization increases illegal usage by adolescents?

Not a challenge: a question.

 

[Bomb#20]

What could possibly go wrong, eh?

The numbers are horrifying, but drug overdose death statistics can't fully convey the crisis ravaging America, so DailyMail.com has documented the suffering in some of the worst-affected communities. There were 107,622 deaths from drug overdoses in the US in 2021, an increase of nearly 15 percent from the year prior, and shocking national trends show few signs of the crisis abating. Just two milligrams of fentanyl - the amount that fits on the top of a pencil tip - is deadly. Despite successful nationwide stings to bust dealers, authorities admit there's no end in sight for the epidemic. The animal sedative Xylazine - known as 'tranq' - is now exacerbating the crisis. It's often combined with fentanyl and its horrific effects cause visceral 'flesh-eating' abscesses and addicts to zonk out as they lose feeling in their muscles. These harrowing pictures lay bare the devastation across the country - as 'zombied' fentanyl and tranq users collapse on needle-littered streets stretching from Washington to Massachusetts, Louisiana to Philadelphia.
In 2021, courts in Seattle scrapped a law making hard-drug possession - including cocaine, meth, and heroin - a felony. Now, the crime is a misdemeanor - and social commentators believe this is a huge reason for Seattle's current issues.

Daily Mail

Are you familiar with the Iron Law of Prohibition? "The harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs." People are dying of fentanyl because the U.S. government, apparently ignorant of Econ 101, chose to incentivize drug dealers to add fentanyl to their less dangerous products.

The opioid crisis was created by the drug war. Every pain patient who kills himself because the government won't let him have his Vicodin was murdered by the government; that goes without saying. The irony is that even the overdosing junkies who the government was nominally trying to rescue from addiction were murdered by the government.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your argument only makes sense if making drugs illegal reduces their use--but that's not what we actually see. Legal without permitting advertising doesn't increase the use rate. Decriminalization doesn't increase the use rate. Legal for addicts by prescription decreases the use rate. Yet we go with the path of maximum harm.

Show your data.

Decriminalization--Portugal has already been mentioned.

Legal with advertising--increased pot use in Amsterdam.

Legal without advertising--did not increase pot use, the effect of the time advertising was legal went away.

Legal for addicts--heroin in England some time ago. They switched to making it illegal and use went up considerably.

Illegal--USA, alcohol use was pretty much back to it's original level by the time we got rid of prohibition.