> It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent This is an extreme example

> It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent This is an extreme example of “correlation does not equal causation” The regulation came from the expanding popularity of these drugs. It didn’t cause it. Likewise, regulating precursor chemicals wasn’t some causative factor in further drug use. It was the next level of regulations added in response to the increasing drug use. Regulations and limited availability don’t cause more people to use drugs. That’s not only an illogical conclusion, it ignores the order of how things happened. The increased availability of fentanyl has been a driving force in more people using opioids in general. Note that most people aren’t seeking out fentanyl (though many are), they believe themselves to be purchasing more traditional opioids. The increased availability of fake pills has definitely increased opioid use. The idea that opening the floodgates to more access will somehow decrease usage is inconsistent with evidence and inconsistent with reality. It also just doesn’t make sense.