The Sackler decision had a pretty big effect on me. It's hard not to grow up when I did, lose people you know to the opiate crisis, and not feel a deep sense of unfairness and wrong when the people responsible for so much suffering stay out of jail with a million dollars.
As much as you can blame them for that one act, it's the iron law of drug prohibition at play: Meth becomes Crystal, and opiates become more concentrated. Easier to smuggle, better profit margins, it really only goes one direction: the drugs get more potent every year prohibition is in effect.
Not since around 2016, which is around when the panic with pills started and we started cracking down. It did put a small dent in pills but fentanyl is off the charts. We probably would have been better off, at least in terms of deaths, if we had just ignored the "opioid epidemic."
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/trends-statistics/over...
I mean we spent $300 million a day for 20 years on Afghanistan, it can't be that expensive.
>the Sacklers just walked with no criminal liability
In fact, the media firestorm and the political response made heroin overdoses much worse because they "clamped down" on pills that at least had a dosage on it. Addicts then turned to heroin, which now has fentanyl in it.