4 ms·

If the US wanted to end the fentanyl and xylazine and nitazene epidemic, it would legalize the controlled manufacture, sale, and usage of the drugs being adult

by sowbug 8mo ago

If the US wanted to end the fentanyl and xylazine and nitazene epidemic, it would legalize the controlled manufacture, sale, and usage of the drugs being adulterated. This won't happen, because the 50-year-old War on Drugs is a load-bearing pillar of the US government.

projektfu 8mo ago
Xylazine and fentanyl are already legally distributed in the US. I believe Xylazine is still unscheduled. https://www.dechra-us.com/our-products/us/equine/horse/prescription/rompun-xylazine-injection-100-mg-ml https://www.dechra-us.com/our-products/us/equine/horse/presc...
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- sowbug 8mo ago
  Those are the adulterants, not the drugs being adulterated such as heroin, meth, and MDMA. For the most part, no customer wants fentanyl. The dealers like it because it's a cheap booster for cutting the drugs that their customers actually do want to buy. It just has this unfortunate side effect of making small overdoses lethal. That's why "ending the fentanyl crisis" is a curious goal. We had a perfectly good War on Drugs going on, but fentanyl is making the illicit drug industry too dangerous. You'd think that if we wanted to stop drugs, and we knew how to do that, we'd stop drugs. Instead we're stopping fentanyl, so we can get back to the regularly scheduled version of the War on Drugs that was always intended to last forever.
  - projektfu 8mo ago
    Fentanyl is the drug for effect, but it's being sold as a cheap alternative to heroin, or as counterfeit heroin. Unfortunately for users, the effect is short-lasting and it is about 30x as potent, so it is difficult to for them to dose properly. The traffickers like it because many more doses fit into a small space. I'm not sure I believe that making heroin legal and available for "recreational" use would solve the problem. People who propose it usually say that it's working in another country (such as Portugal), but then you look at that country and it's not really legal or available, it's just that they do not jail people for personal use anymore. I can agree with that, but it doesn't solve the trafficking problem. The only way to get rid of trafficking is to either allow people to easily buy it legally without onerous taxation, or to reduce demand to zero. If you do the former, you will still be stuck with lots of addicts, the associated crime and suffering, and probably many overdoses. Most likely, the number of addicts will increase, as they did with OxyContin, Actiq, etc. Worth mentioning that Actiq is fentanyl and it was in demand. Reducing demand is a multifaceted problem with complicated solutions, many of which are politically unpopular. Interestingly, some drugs can simply be taken off the market and the demand plummets. Quaalude is one example. Nobody stepped in to make an illicit version and the users probably just stopped using or switched to benzodiazepines and then hopefully stopped those. Unfortunately, it seems like we have a persistent demand for opioids.
influx 8mo ago
I live in Seattle, decriminalizing drugs didn't turn out that way here.
- sowbug 8mo ago
  "controlled" is key. Seattle decriminalized drug use. That's a tiny part of a larger solution rooted in harm reduction.
  - mikkupikku 8mo ago
    Singapore kills drug dealers. That works much better.
    - RiverCrochet 8mo ago
      Idk, if the number of people executed increases over time, maybe it doesn't. https://www.afr.com/world/asia/singapore-executions-touch-22-year-high-on-drug-murder-offences-20251202-p5nk6p https://www.afr.com/world/asia/singapore-executions-touch-22... This article cites Singapore saying the existing laws mostly get low-level users and not kingpins because kingpins operate outside of the country. https://www.vice.com/en/article/singapore-drug-executions/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/singapore-drug-executions/ Decriminalization of drug use doesn't have to mean decriminalization of anything else. Thieves and murderers should be prosecuted regardless of any state induced by the voluntary ingestion chemicals.
      - mikkupikku 8mo ago
        Decriminalization without legalization is something I can't support. If it's not illegal for me to have and use a drug, them why should I be forced to buy it from criminals? Either legalize it, or go whole hog on criminalizing it. Execute the dealers and put users into mandatory rehab, or let people buy it in shops. Any of these half measures are intolerable, they exist to make sure the situation is in a constant state of tension, to nobody's benefit but the governments. Ideally we would pick one or the other on a drug by drug basis. Executing people for selling weed isn't something I actually want, but neither do I want them simply imprisoned or fined either. But with shit like fent? Trying to find a single policy to fit both drugs is inane.
drstewart 8mo ago
It's like if Canada wanted to end gun smuggling and school shootings, it would legalize the controlled manufacture, sale, and usage of the guns being banned. But they won't.
- mulmen 8mo ago
  If I squint gun control doesn’t look much different than legalized drugs. They’re both just a question of how restrictive the regulation is. There are still legal ways to have a gun in Australia and many other countries that “ban guns”. They don’t have total bans, they just have more restrictive regulations than the United States. Consider how we regulate alcohol or marijuana as examples of how legalization of drugs works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control
duped 8mo ago
I mean, prohibition works while legalization just makes more people use whatever you legalize and increases the negative externalities of its use. You see that almost universally (alcohol, drugs, sex work). The exception is it gets rid of the black markets and some (but not all) of the violence associated with them. So if the goal is to put cartels out of business then yea, full legalization would help. If the goal is to stop overdoses and addiction then absolutely not.
- AnimalMuppet 8mo ago
  Alcohol is legal. We don't have gun battles between gangs of smugglers, or between them and the cops. We also don't have people dying or going blind from trying to drink wood alcohol. But we still have a depressingly large number of alcoholics. The campaign against drunk driving has helped reduce one set of negative side effects, but not others.
  - duped 8mo ago
    So alcohol prohibition worked at reducing alcohol consumption. The organized crime and violence are negative externalities that were real, but my point is that if you're just looking at the goal of stopping drinking, then prohibition worked.
  - datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
    The decline in alcohol consumed by Gen Z is interesting though. We’ll see if it holds with Gen Alpha, or if it can just be chalked up to Gen Z dealing with Covid during their formative years when other generations would have been partying quite a bit. Maybe an unintended positive externality of marijuana legalization?

by sowbug 8mo ago

projektfu 8mo ago

Xylazine and fentanyl are already legally distributed in the US. I believe Xylazine is still unscheduled. https://www.dechra-us.com/our-products/us/equine/horse/prescription/rompun-xylazine-injection-100-mg-ml https://www.dechra-us.com/our-products/us/equine/horse/presc...

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
sowbug 8mo ago
Those are the adulterants, not the drugs being adulterated such as heroin, meth, and MDMA. For the most part, no customer wants fentanyl. The dealers like it because it's a cheap booster for cutting the drugs that their customers actually do want to buy. It just has this unfortunate side effect of making small overdoses lethal. That's why "ending the fentanyl crisis" is a curious goal. We had a perfectly good War on Drugs going on, but fentanyl is making the illicit drug industry too dangerous. You'd think that if we wanted to stop drugs, and we knew how to do that, we'd stop drugs. Instead we're stopping fentanyl, so we can get back to the regularly scheduled version of the War on Drugs that was always intended to last forever.
- projektfu 8mo ago
  Fentanyl is the drug for effect, but it's being sold as a cheap alternative to heroin, or as counterfeit heroin. Unfortunately for users, the effect is short-lasting and it is about 30x as potent, so it is difficult to for them to dose properly. The traffickers like it because many more doses fit into a small space. I'm not sure I believe that making heroin legal and available for "recreational" use would solve the problem. People who propose it usually say that it's working in another country (such as Portugal), but then you look at that country and it's not really legal or available, it's just that they do not jail people for personal use anymore. I can agree with that, but it doesn't solve the trafficking problem. The only way to get rid of trafficking is to either allow people to easily buy it legally without onerous taxation, or to reduce demand to zero. If you do the former, you will still be stuck with lots of addicts, the associated crime and suffering, and probably many overdoses. Most likely, the number of addicts will increase, as they did with OxyContin, Actiq, etc. Worth mentioning that Actiq is fentanyl and it was in demand. Reducing demand is a multifaceted problem with complicated solutions, many of which are politically unpopular. Interestingly, some drugs can simply be taken off the market and the demand plummets. Quaalude is one example. Nobody stepped in to make an illicit version and the users probably just stopped using or switched to benzodiazepines and then hopefully stopped those. Unfortunately, it seems like we have a persistent demand for opioids.

influx 8mo ago

I live in Seattle, decriminalizing drugs didn't turn out that way here.

sowbug 8mo ago
"controlled" is key. Seattle decriminalized drug use. That's a tiny part of a larger solution rooted in harm reduction.
- mikkupikku 8mo ago
  Singapore kills drug dealers. That works much better.
  - RiverCrochet 8mo ago
    Idk, if the number of people executed increases over time, maybe it doesn't. https://www.afr.com/world/asia/singapore-executions-touch-22-year-high-on-drug-murder-offences-20251202-p5nk6p https://www.afr.com/world/asia/singapore-executions-touch-22... This article cites Singapore saying the existing laws mostly get low-level users and not kingpins because kingpins operate outside of the country. https://www.vice.com/en/article/singapore-drug-executions/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/singapore-drug-executions/ Decriminalization of drug use doesn't have to mean decriminalization of anything else. Thieves and murderers should be prosecuted regardless of any state induced by the voluntary ingestion chemicals.
    - mikkupikku 8mo ago
      Decriminalization without legalization is something I can't support. If it's not illegal for me to have and use a drug, them why should I be forced to buy it from criminals? Either legalize it, or go whole hog on criminalizing it. Execute the dealers and put users into mandatory rehab, or let people buy it in shops. Any of these half measures are intolerable, they exist to make sure the situation is in a constant state of tension, to nobody's benefit but the governments. Ideally we would pick one or the other on a drug by drug basis. Executing people for selling weed isn't something I actually want, but neither do I want them simply imprisoned or fined either. But with shit like fent? Trying to find a single policy to fit both drugs is inane.

drstewart 8mo ago

It's like if Canada wanted to end gun smuggling and school shootings, it would legalize the controlled manufacture, sale, and usage of the guns being banned. But they won't.

mulmen 8mo ago
If I squint gun control doesn’t look much different than legalized drugs. They’re both just a question of how restrictive the regulation is. There are still legal ways to have a gun in Australia and many other countries that “ban guns”. They don’t have total bans, they just have more restrictive regulations than the United States. Consider how we regulate alcohol or marijuana as examples of how legalization of drugs works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

duped 8mo ago

I mean, prohibition works while legalization just makes more people use whatever you legalize and increases the negative externalities of its use. You see that almost universally (alcohol, drugs, sex work). The exception is it gets rid of the black markets and some (but not all) of the violence associated with them. So if the goal is to put cartels out of business then yea, full legalization would help. If the goal is to stop overdoses and addiction then absolutely not.

AnimalMuppet 8mo ago
Alcohol is legal. We don't have gun battles between gangs of smugglers, or between them and the cops. We also don't have people dying or going blind from trying to drink wood alcohol. But we still have a depressingly large number of alcoholics. The campaign against drunk driving has helped reduce one set of negative side effects, but not others.
- duped 8mo ago
  So alcohol prohibition worked at reducing alcohol consumption. The organized crime and violence are negative externalities that were real, but my point is that if you're just looking at the goal of stopping drinking, then prohibition worked.
- datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
  The decline in alcohol consumed by Gen Z is interesting though. We’ll see if it holds with Gen Alpha, or if it can just be chalked up to Gen Z dealing with Covid during their formative years when other generations would have been partying quite a bit. Maybe an unintended positive externality of marijuana legalization?