19 ms·
> in that case surely it doesn't matter whether it's actually fentanyl or something else, any opiate of this strength is too dangerous to be out there, no? I d
by Lazare 7y ago
> in that case surely it doesn't matter whether it's actually fentanyl or something else, any opiate of this strength is too dangerous to be out there, no?
I don't see why.
The primary issue with fentanyl today is not that the people who need/want it are taking it, it's that it's being used to adulterate other drugs. Many people die from fentanyl having no desire to take it, nor any knowledge they are taking it. Others die because of incorrect labelling or unexpected purity. Regulate the market as we regulate other markets, and these problems go away.
My local supermarket sells a lot of things which would kill me if swallowed in relatively small amounts (acetaminophen and caffeine tablets, for example), but there's no crisis of people dying from taking a box of No-Doz because, well, why would you want to? Fentanyl overdose is a pretty baroque method of suicide in a hypothetical world where all drugs are legal and safe.
(I'm not especially against the idea that, even if heroine is legal, fentanyl should still be prescription only or whatever for some reason! I just don't see any obvious reasons why it would be uniquely dangerous. Most things will kill you at a sufficient dose; they're problematic only if you're at risk of accidentally taking that dose. And the obvious problems with fentanyl today would not apply so...)
- DuskStar 7y agoOr even stop regulating the drugs that are currently illegal entirely, and let market mechanisms work! Drugs are in this middle ground that's both not policed by the government AND can't use standard market signalling methods. Arguably the fact that you can get good, high quality drugs reliably from darknet markets is the "stop regulating the drugs entirely" mechanism at work, only by making enforcement impossible.