I think you're both overthinking things. There are more drugs, that are more powerful, and they are more easily available than ever before. Fentanyl is easy to make (thank you biochemical advances), easy to distribute (thank you massive e-commerce market for the camouflage), easy to buy (thank you crypto), and a rice grain's worth will kill. This isn't because of DEA policy, or a slippery slope, this is human progress meeting human flaw.

One proposed explanation I've heard for the rapid rise of fentanyl is that prohibition gives a major competitive advantage to more potent drugs, even if people who use opioid drugs would prefer the less potent alternatives, because they are cheaper to produce and much easier to smuggle.

Yes it makes sense that we'd see arguments like this on a polarized issue. But these discussions end up in hypothetical territory quickly. Did we do a survey of nationwide opiate addicts that showed they'd self limit to less potent alternatives if they were legal? OR would they enjoy unfettered access to their drug of choice so they can use much more of it? Hard to avoid "just so" stories around all this.

People who abuse opioids are very price sensitive. Even in an open market, fentanyl's price advantage alone would probably be enough.

Yeah, that's why session beers don't exist and everyone only drinks everclear nowadays.

/s

I don't get the argument you are attempting to make here. If its that prohibition drives people to more potent substances, I'll point out that legal marijuana has become insanely potent.

Also, cheap vodkas are cheaper and more accessible to people who abuse alcohol, not mention far far more palatable. And that's exactly what alcoholics tend toward.

Lots of factors play into which drugs people consume, and prohibition plays a role.

You jest, but this actually happened during the era of alcohol prohibition: hard liquor went from around 40% of US alcohol sales to 75%. Bootleggers preferred liquor because the profit margin was higher and because it was easier to conceal. After prohibition ended, the proportion of hard liquor dropped, as people returned to wine and beer.

In current times, drinking rates among young people are dropping now that they have access to legal marijuana, which is a good thing from a public-health perspective.

It's a bit frustrating to observe the US on this issue go from draconic prohibition to laissez faire commercialization when probably the solution lies in a legalized but regulated approach.

Ezra Klein interviewed Charles Fain Lehman on a podcast titled, “The Hidden Politics of Disorder”. Charles brought up this exact point about the US struggling to find middle ground in regulation. I had t considered it before but it’s a really interesting point and I intend to agree with it from recent experience.

Where has US drug law changed from draconic to laissez faire? The only laws I'm aware that have changed are at the state level with the Marijuana legalization and every one of those states adopted a regulated approach.

Capitalism + ever more powerful cannabinoid drugs => problems. Many states (including the one I live in) are struggling to limit advertising, in particular.

> Capitalism + ever more powerful cannabinoid drugs => problems.

This is even more true of the black market. Legalization will reduce these problems, even with no regulations (which is not the case).