the lack of education on the part of consumers
When weed was legalized in Oregon, I immediately knew exactly what strain/THC%/CBD% I was buying. This was not available on the black market.
Education and security come from acceptance and regulation.
That is far less dangerous than opiates; I don't think it's comparable.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13847136
IMHO Marijuana isn't a relevant example for the parent's argument because it's not that dangerous; it still is distributed illegally except for a few states in the U.S. and parts of Europe, and (almost) nobody dies from marijuana overdoses.
opioids, especially the lower potency ones, do not meet this criteria at all. With tolerance, minimum effective dose increases, but so does the lethal dose. With pharmaceutical-grade opioids whose amounts are precisely metered, it's possible to live in that window.
It's only opioids under prohibition (aka, uncertain/varying doses and ingredients) that are inherently dangerous.
There is no place in the US where traffic in marijuana is legal. The absence of state-level prohibition doesn't negate federal prohibition.
That's how a couple of people in my rehab ministry died. Meth is more reliably predictable in comparison.
Addicts are already punished enough just by being addicts. I doubt any of them want to be addicts. Making it illegal, heaping on more punishment, does not help and just makes it worse.
Government policy on addictive drugs should be focused on treatment, not punishment.
I agree that the current approach works very poorly; that doesn't mean any other approach is better. Sometimes what works poorly is still the best we can do, such as our approach to pancreatic cancer (though I don't think that's the case here).
Government restricts access to many things for safety reasons, from unsafe cars to prescription drugs to dodgy financial deals to highly enriched uranium. It's a simple formula, almost a slogan, to say 'legalize it and consumers will decide for themselves' (and in fairness maybe the parent isn't being formulaic in this case). In some cases that's true; in some cases consumers simply don't have that capability. In our business, IT security is a good example; consumers have no way to make a judgment or even know that it's working. It's the same for prescription drugs: Am I better? Is that due to the drug? The placebo effect? Natural progress? Maybe I'd be even better without the drug.
But that's all theory; before we mess with people's lives, we need evidence.
By making drugs illegal you cut off reliable, safe, and inexpensive access.
I personally know two addicts who OD'd because they acquired a batch of heroin that was more potent than they realized. One had been in and out of jail due to drugs.
They'd likely be alive today if addiction was treated as a disease rather than a crime.
> Maybe I'd be even better without the drug.
They didn't want to be addicts.
The American experiment with Prohibition suggests otherwise.
It implies that people are not using because it is illegal. Is that true for you? It isn't true for me, nor anyone I know.
For example, I voted in favor of marijuana legalization in Washington State. It's now legal. I didn't smoke weed before legalization, nor after. I simply have no desire for it. I don't know anyone who took up weed because it is now legal.
I understand the claims, but without evidence they are only a couple claims among very many. Evidence is what separates science from all the other theories of the world.
The problem with fentanyl is the dosage is in the micro-gram range which is why so many opiate addicts die from it. You simply can't gauge the dosage with such a powerful compound with any sort of accuracy.
The problem is again with education. When heroin addicts are getting stuff cut with fentanyl, they fall out because they do not know what dose they are taking.
If you know how much you are taking, these fent analogs can (and have been for years) be used quite safely)
The combination of the technology to synthesize these drugs from unconstrained pre-cursors, the intensity of their effect, the lack of education on the part of consumers, and a tracking/enforcement system which responds more slowly than conditions change is leading to a situation where tens of thousands of people are going to die essentially at their own hand.
It is not a question of 'people like to get high' it is that 'people getting high on arbitrary things will kill themselves'.
I understand that you're approaching this from a legalization standpoint, and on that we agree. But the overdose rate is "actually" sweeping the country now and that is born out by the available reports of emergency rooms around the country. And between your "regulated and safe" future and now, there is a large pile of unnecessarily dead people.