I understand two answers to your question: 1. Nothing will replace the opioids, but we should make most routine use illegal anyway, because the usage you descr

I understand two answers to your question: 1. Nothing will replace the opioids, but we should make most routine use illegal anyway, because the usage you described causes addiction, abuse, and death in some cases, which overrules your QOL improvements. 2. Nothing could replace the opioids, so we should keep the status quo. The addiction, abuse, and death are a relatively minor downside to an important bundle of benefits. The Sacklers marketed them illegally, but we've course-corrected as best as possible, and the new status quo is uncomfortable but OK. These are, I think, the first two buckets of people I listed. I understand them both. I think you're in the second camp. I'm in the first. But I think most commenters here are in neither camp???