You can be pro-legalization without being "pro-drug." In the sense that criminalizing drugs doesn't necessarily reduce usage.

It's funny how often people conflate these. I can be pro freedom of religion but an atheist. Support of the freedom to do anything != an endorsement

Just want to point out that the article is actually in favor of decriminalizing drugs.

Prohibition is the cause of the fetanyl epidemic. As enforcement increases so does potency because smaller portions are easier to smuggle. Fentanyl is ~50x stronger than heroin which means 50x the payoff for smuggling the same quantity, but it's also much easier to misjudge the dosage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition

Yes, opioids are terrible for the human mind and spirit, but the unintended consequences of prohibition make them that much worse.

While I agree that prohibition is harmful and creates huge black markets, we are no longer talking about recreational drug but an active public health crisis where people are buying literally poison that will kill them.

I'm not calling for an all out sudden prohibition but to rehabilitate those already addicted while eradicating further supply of fetanyl.

Heroin and fetanyl are two very different beasts. While heroin seems to have a long use life for it's addicts, fetanyl literally kills because of it's extreme potency.

Carfentinil, the elephant tranquilizer is 100x stronger than fetanyl. There's no way we as a society can allow this to flow freely. It's no longer a drug but poison that absolutely kills its users.

Most people dying from fentynl aren't buying it on purpose. They're heroin addicts who would gladly choose that if it were legal.

>Carfentinil, the elephant tranquilizer is 100x stronger than fetanyl. There's no way we as a society can allow this to flow freely

I'm glad you understand that potency is the issue, but you're advocating policy that causes potency to increase.

> They're heroin addicts who would gladly choose that if it were legal.

It seems more of a preference. Lot of heroin users dislike the fetanyl high and remain heroin users.

> I'm glad you understand that potency is the issue, but you're advocating policy that causes potency to increase.

I disagree. The policy that made sense for mild opiods, namely legalizing and regulation. However, we are dealing with an extremely harmful chemical-a tiny grain size of salt of carfentinil will kill. There's just no way this can be used recreationally and responsibly.

There's a really nice middle ground. In Portugal drugs are legal to possess but illegal to sell/distribute, so you can still go after the dealers and suppliers but not the addicts who are suffering. And they provide easy access to methadone, clean needles. There are places where they can shoot up with nurses to supervise for ODs, testing kits so addicts can verify their supply hasn't been cut with something nasty or unexpected. I'm not exactly pro-drug, but I think this approach is probably the best possible way to address the crisis and reduce usage in the long term.

When people talk about legalizing drugs they usually mean "soft" drugs like weed/LSD/mushrooms and not opioids/benzos.

IMO, legalizing hard drugs is more important than legalizing soft drugs, simply because so many people are dying from hard drugs. But legalizing hard drugs would mean that it's available via prescription, and a valid reason for getting a prescription would be "I'm addicted". The doctors responsibility would be to ensure that you know how to use the drugs safely, and ensure you're aware of the resources available to help you quit. But no moralizing, condescending lectures because that would do more harm than good.

Fetanyl & Carfentanil aren't hard drugs anymore, it's literally killing people. We are no longer talking about Heroin which are the classic hard drugs. I'm trying to argue for a clear distinction between those two groups.