Sociologists recently performed a large multi-region study of homelessness, drug use, etc.

It turns out that there’s no real correlation between having drug addicts on the streets and the level of drug use in the area or even mental illness. Unemployment doesn’t even predict homelessness, and neither does weather, or laws pertaining to the homeless.

By far, the best predictor is housing affordability and availability.

Link to study?

I know this sounds absurd, but I don't think social studies on such politically hot issues can be trusted outright. Given the state of university social science departments, can you imagine the cost of publishing something that supported ‘war on drugs’ style policy. Im not saying your study is bogus, just that Ive learned to be circumspect around research into such topics. Because often such academics are also activists or involved in public/ nonprofit institutions that have become invested in specific policy.

I get your sentiment, but note that this study goes even farther to piss off anti-war on drugs activists:

It says it doesn’t matter either way, so they are wrong (if they win, it won’t help), but also irrelevant.

Interestingly, progressive cities also have the most expensive housing.

They generally have incredibly severe homeless problems, which is ironic, since they spend so much money on homeless aid programs, affordable housing (not more housing) initiatives, etc.

I think that partially motivated the study. Climate also doesn’t seem to matter, neither does hiring more police, or really anything politicians have funded in the last decade.

The biggest problem with dying by overdose is measuring the dose. Legal drugs presume quality control and standardized dosing. This, alone, could prevent the majority of opioid deaths.

> This, alone, could prevent the majority of opioid deaths

Reduce, yes, but it's not a magic bullet. Many opioid deaths are from people taking pharmaceuticals in precisely measured doses, often in conjunction with other drugs. Others are from people who misjudge their tolerance after extended breaks, such as after relapsing.

Regardless, it's an entirely separate discussion than the problem in the main article: Increasing availability of drugs will worsen the societal problems in places like Portland.

I suspect increased availability of drugs would also lead to more deaths from polydrug abuse. People who normally take one drug might be more tempted to start mixing drugs if it's as easy as picking up some extra pills at the drug center down the street.

I bet what would work even better to prevent overdose deaths is not having our cities full of people doing opioids.

You're missing the point. If you're a politician, "making drug addicts not poison themselves" is a nice-to-have, but "making drug users not victimize others" is basically mandatory. Zero political parties are going to win on a platform of "its ok that drug addicts are making the streets unsafe, the real problem is that their drugs are not affordable or high enough quality."

But this is not about opioid overdose deaths, but random people getting assaulted ("beaten nearly to death ") by meth-heads.