> Drug overdose kills more people in the U.S. than car accidents [...]

> But the politicians supporting drug control are the bad guys.

How's that drug war working? Drugs are very illegal, yet there are many people dying from overdose. The US imprisons millions of people, yet drugs are still easily available and very cheap.

Also, the article you link talks about prescription drug deaths - many of these are legally prescribed, legally owned, not being abused, meds that the owner accidentally overdoses on.

"There has been a dramatic increase in use of prescription drugs as physicians have become more liberal in prescribing them," said Paulozzi, adding that the bulk of drug-related deaths stems from accidental opioid painkiller overdoses. "

How are speed limits and licensing requirements working? It's illegal to speed and illegal to drive without a license, yet there are tens of thousands of traffic deaths every year. How is gun control working? It's illegal to own high-powered weapons, but there are tens of thousands of gun-related murders each year. Does that mean we should get rid of traffic laws and gun control laws?

And while prescription drug abuse constitutes about half of overdose deaths,[1] that leaves over 20,000 deaths a year from non-prescription drugs, and many of those deaths from prescription drugs would not have happened if those drugs were used as prescribed.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html.

The US doesn't really have "gun control". Here in the UK, gun control is working very well, thanks for asking. That doesn't mean that guns are completely unavailable in the UK, but the murder rate here is a fraction of what it is in the US.

How many drug overdoses are caused because of bad quality control that would be eliminated (or mostly eliminated) by legalization and regulation.

IOW, how many people overdose because they get a batch of 90% pure heroin when they are used to 25% pure? This probably would be solved if they were not getting the drugs illegally.

Treating drug addiction as a disease instead of a crime would go a long way towards reducing overdoses and keep otherwise potentially productive members of society out of prison. At the very least, amnesty should be offered for addicts that want treatment.

But we're talking about drug traffickers, not drug users. Should that be a disease?

Actually, according to your comment above, we're talking about "the politicians supporting drug control". Those same politicians support treating drug addiction as a crime, rather than a disease, thereby placing a stigma on addicts who want to get help. Some addicts that go without the help they need due to this unnecessary stigma are the ones that end up contributing to the overdose statistic that you mentioned.

The politicians supporting prohibition are the bad guys, for this and other reasons, such as continuing to waste taxpayer dollars on a failed drug war. The same drug war that feeds the pockets of the drug traffickers. The same drug traffickers that require militarized police forces to fight against. The same militarized police forces that require tax payer dollars to pay for. The same tax payer dollars that could be used to treat addicts and reduce the overdose statistics.

Probably. Many of the low-level dealers make below minimum wage; it would be pretty easy to give them a better options.