Prohibition Gave Us Xylazine in Fentanyl. The Solution, Drug Warriors Say, Is More Prohibition.
The emergence of the animal tranquilizer as an opioid adulterant illustrates once again how the war on drugs makes drug use more dangerous.

The emergence of the animal tranquilizer xylazine as a fentanyl adulterant, like the emergence of fentanyl as a heroin booster and substitute, has prompted law enforcement officials to agitate for new legal restrictions and criminal penalties. That response is fundamentally misguided, because the threat it aims to address is a familiar consequence of prohibition, which creates a black market in which drug composition is highly variable and unpredictable. Instead of recognizing their complicity in maintaining and magnifying that hazard, drug warriors always think the answer is more of the same.
Xylazine was first identified as a drug adulterant in 2006, and today it is especially common in Puerto Rico, Philadelphia, Maryland, and Connecticut. In Philadelphia between 2010 and 2015, according to a 2021 BMJ article, xylazine was detected in less than 2 percent of drug-related deaths involving heroin and/or fentanyl. Its prevalence in such cases had risen to 31 percent by 2019. According to a 2022 Cureus report, "up to 78%" of illicit fentanyl sold in Puerto Rico and Philadelphia contains xylazine. In 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reports, xylazine was detected in 23 percent of fentanyl powder and 7 percent of fentanyl pills analyzed by its laboratories.
Xylazine is a sedative, analgesic, and muscle relaxant that is not approved for use in humans but is commonly used by veterinarians. It is chemically similar to phenothiazines, tricyclic antidepressants, and clonidine. But like fentanyl and other opioids, xylazine depresses respiration, so combining it with narcotics can increase the risk of a fatal reaction. Unlike a fentanyl overdose, a xylazine overdose cannot be reversed by the opioid antagonist naloxone.
Xylazine also seems to increase the risk of potentially serious skin infections and ulcers that have always been a hazard of unsanitary injection practices. According to a 2022 article in Dermatology World Insights and Inquiries, "the presumed mechanism" is "the direct vasoconstricting effect on local blood vessels and resultant decreased skin perfusion," which impairs healing.
Why is xylazine showing up in fentanyl? For the same reasons fentanyl started showing up in heroin. As a 2014 literature review in Forensic Science International notes, "illicit drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, are often adulterated with other agents to increase bulk and enhance or mimic the illicit drug's effects." Because xylazine and heroin have "some similar pharmacologic effects," the authors say, "synergistic effects may occur in humans when xylazine is use as an adulterant of heroin."
Before the DEA was warning us about xylazine in fentanyl, it was warning us about fentanyl in heroin, and both hazards are the result of laws that the DEA is dedicated to enforcing. From the perspective of drug traffickers, fentanyl has several advantages over heroin. It is much more potent, which makes it easier to smuggle, and it can be produced much more cheaply and inconspicuously, since it does not require the cultivation of opium poppies. Xylazine has some of the same advantages: It is an inexpensive synthetic drug that can be produced without crops. And unlike fentanyl, it is not currently classified as a controlled substance, which makes it easier and less legally risky to obtain.
It is not clear to what extent drug traffickers are relying on domestic sources of xylazine. The DEA "reports finding empty xylazine bottles at U.S. stash houses," Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, notes in an interview with The New York Times, "so some mixing is happening here." But he adds that we don't know whether "mixing in the U.S. account[s] for the majority or minority of cases."
Either way, American drug users are not clamoring for xylazine in their fentanyl, any more than they were demanding fentanyl instead of heroin. In both cases, the use of adulterants is driven by the economics of the black market. And as usual with illegal drugs, consumers do not know what they are getting. The Times underlines that point by noting one response to the proliferation of xylazine: "Addiction medicine experts," it says, "urged that newly introduced xylazine test strips, which people can use to check the drugs they buy, be as widely distributed as fentanyl test strips."
The fundamental problem, of course, is the dangerous uncertainty created by prohibition. Unlike alcohol, cannabis products sold by state-licensed pot shops, or legally produced, reliably dosed pharmaceuticals, black-market drugs do not come with any assurance of quality or potency. The introduction of new adulterants like xylazine increases that hazard. We have seen this story play out many times before. Whether it is vitamin E acetate in black-market THC vapes, MDMA mixed with synthetic cathinones or butylone, levamisole in cocaine, or fentanyl pressed into ersatz pain pills, prohibition reliably makes drug use more dangerous.
The solution, according to drug warriors alarmed by xylazine in fentanyl, is more prohibition. "Law enforcement agents are pressing for xylazine to be listed as a controlled substance, which would criminalize distribution for human use," the Times notes.
That proposal has raised alarm among veterinarians, who understandably worry that such a designation would interfere with the legitimate use of xylazine. But such concerns did not stop legislators and regulators from restricting the use of prescription pain relievers in response to the "opioid crisis," with predictably disastrous consequences.
That crackdown succeeded in the sense that it reduced opioid prescriptions. But it simultaneously deprived patients of the medication they needed to control their pain and pushed nonmedical users toward black-market substitutes that are far more dangerous. The prohibition-driven rise of illicit fentanyl, meanwhile, made those drugs even more of a crap shoot. The result was predictable: Drug-related deaths not only continued to rise; they rose at an accelerated rate, reaching record levels in recent years.
"As federal and state agencies imposed strict controls on prescription opioids," the Times notes, "drug dealers and people who use drugs shifted to using illegal opioids—heroin, counterfeit pills and illicit fentanyl." But the Times does not mention the resulting increase in drug-related deaths or the impact on pain patients.
The latter omission is especially striking in an article that is highly sympathetic to veterinarians worried about potential restrictions on xylazine. You might think that the suffering of humans who cannot get adequate pain treatment would be worthy of a mention in a story that devotes several paragraphs to a horse undergoing dental surgery.
Still, the Times is appropriately skeptical of the idea that expanding the war on drugs to include xylazine would be an effective way to address the hazards it poses as a fentanyl adulterant. It is "unclear what impact scheduling would actually have on human consumption and health," the paper says, citing Kilmer. The Times also cites Maritza Perez Medina, federal affairs director at the Drug Policy Alliance, who is "worried that criminalizing xylazine would not substantially address its problems."
Perez Medina notes the perennial challenge confronting drug warriors who reflexively respond to the problems they created by doubling down on a strategy that has failed for more than a century. "Crackdowns put us in a game of whack-a-mole," she says. "When we try to eradicate one drug, a new one comes up." It is a lesson that prohibitionists never seem to learn.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Their bodies, their choice?
Prohibition restricts choices, no? Or forces markets into less desirable or alternative areas.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link------------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Yup. Kind like the Ku-Klux Khristian Koathanger movement, pushing violent Comstockism since 1872. No choices no markets. No markets, Crashes and Depressions...
Legalization of every drug there is will solve all of that problem.
Sure, but their choices are rather constrained in the current market.
As a 2014 literature review in Forensic Science International notes, "illicit drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, are often adulterated with other agents to increase bulk and enhance or mimic the illicit drug's effects."
Doesn't sound like xylazine's legality has anything to do with it. Drug traffickers are using it to boost effectiveness and minimize cost. Just like fentanyl.
The legality may have something to do with the relatively low cost.
You proggies made this FDA bed to lie down in, what are you complaining about?
Show me a Republican in the last half century who hasn’t created at least one alphabet agency. Even Trump created the Space Farce.
The Drug War has been a Republican flag since day one of the Drug War. Along with continuing an ill conceived war on the Asian mainland, it helped sweep Nixon into office. And Reagan (all praise is holy name) continued it. Then Bush. Then Bush II. Then Trump. Republicans love themselves some Drug War.
I've yet to see any national Republican politician call for the end of the Drug War.
So not a proggie thing, but a joint venture between proggies and conservies. Only libertarians and a tiny few old school liberals have been against it.
Lol. Are you fucking this retarded?
The heroin and crack laws started after outcry to democrat politicians in large urban centers. YOUR president was at the forefront of the criminal increases. Holy shit brandy. At least try to pretend you aren't a dem in centrist clothing.
Are you fucking retarded? Reagan directly said that his WOD was because of Nancy's pleading/bitching after basketball player Len Bias died from a coke binge, but it was really to keep reporters busy so that the Iran-Contra didn't make headlines until after midterm congressional elections. They squeaked by with only a few days to spare. If Iran-Contra broke before the election, not a single Republican candidate would have won. Are you that young or stupid that you don't remember Nancy's "Just Say No"?
Are you so stupid you think anyone outside of the Leftist press corps GAF about Iran Contra?
I can't think of any national politician except maybe Ron Paul who has ever called for an end to the drug war. Democrats are more likely to call for cannabis legalization and various "harm reduction" things for harder drugs. But no one is trying to end criminalization of recreational narcotics or crackdown on supply.
Yes, we live in a progressive social welfare state in which the cost of drug use is socialized. In such a system, it is rational to prohibit drug use. The "prohibition" simply means that drug users can be forced into treatment when they cause problems.
Drugs can be legal in a minarchist, libertarian society. But we are never going to achieve such a society by starting with drug legalization.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the DEA is adding fentanyl to clean drugs and putting them back on the market similar to how the feds laced illegal hooch with methanol during Prohibition with the intent of killing people.
Denaturing alcohol to kill or blind tax avoiders is STILL legally required as far as I know. This practice goes back to the 07JUN1906 law washed ashore amid the "pure" food fanaticism Teedy Rosenfeld and other eugenics experts pushed to better humanity by a sort of culling process. Besides, killing people to collect taxes showed the revenuers' strength and determination, so the practice was expressly included as part of the Volstead Act in 1919 to keep on killing for Jesus, God and a "new race."
From the excellent piece, Taking Back Harm Reduction
And they want that because fentanyl sucks and is less euphoric and doesn't last very long compared to heroin.
DMT is less psychedelic than mescaline or LSD and doesn't last as long. But none of the three have ever killed anyone. It therefore follows, by the ethics of altruism, that THEY must be crushed underfoot lest the purveyors of addictive narcotic poisons be troubled by unwanted competition or choice.
Heroin replaced morphine because it's more powerful. At one point, heroin was marketed as a cure for morphine addiction and also given to kids that wouldn't sleep or cried too much.
Let Darwin be the final judge.
Don't forget that this adulteration craze was started by the Federal Government itself during prohibition when it required alcohol to be "denatured" before being sold.
Politicians called it "tax free" alcohol. Like gangsters only killed each other, revenuers only poisoned and shot bootleggers and scofflaws, so it was okay. Cite (06/01/25 SELZMAN v. UNITED STATES)
Portland legalized near every drug. Users have continued to use harder and harder drugs including tranquilizers. Less than 1% utilize the rehab resources instituted during legalization. But keep thinking it is the prohibition. Drug users chasing the dragon will continue to seek harder substances.
You can be for legalization, but you don’t have to lie about the results.
I don't think that's right at all. "Harder and harder" isn't really what this is about. I don't think there are really any junkies who would choose fentanyl over heroin or morphine or some other more conventional opioids. It's just more available and cheaper.
And Portland hasn't legalized anything. They've just stopped enforcing things. If the supply isn't legalized, it's not legalization. They left the drugs market in the hands of nasty criminals who don't give a fuck how many customers die and just stopped doing anything about it.
It’s just more available and cheaper.
A choice no?
And the reason tranquilizer usage is up is to extend the high. Making the drug harder, despite necrotic risks.
Somehow I dont see users turning up to a dealer and being asked if they want pure H, H with fentanyl, H with xylazine or H with fentanyl and xylazine
Choice is take it or fuck off
I don’t think there are really any junkies who would choose fentanyl over heroin or morphine or some other more conventional opioids. It’s just more available and cheaper.
They want to get high, not die. So if given a choice I think they'd choose the safest route, which is not black market fentanyl.
They want to get high, not die.
There's a caveat here: They're willing to risk death to get high.
And the government keeps raising the odds of a bad outcome. The gov't cares less about junkies' lives than the dealers. If morphine were still legal, addicts could safely get high on pennies a day. The cops could even chase real criminals and organized crime would lose a massive source of income.
No legitimate business is going to sell morphine OTC. The crime lords would still control the business after legalization.
People are willing to risk death to get drunk
How many people die each day in car accidents?
How many people make a living each day driving to or at work? Compared to how many people are professional drug addicts?
Driving to work... shooting up heroin in an alley, it's all swings and roundabouts.
I'm willing to risk death to climb up cliffs or slide down mountains. I'd like to think those are much healthier risks to take, but still.
Sullum may be onto something here. Mystical conservatives have, since the Civil War (concurrent with British/French Opium Wars against China), pushed ever escalating levels of violent and deadly coercion to crush something escalated by Chinese overreaction and fanaticism. Until alcohol, stimulants, narcotics and entheogens were declared minions of Satan, the "drug problem" was as real as "demonic possession." Now it has directly caused two World Wars and an endless cycle of Crashes. Only the LP suggests cutting back on the initiation of deadly force.
Well, making drug use more dangerous discourages drug use, doesn't it? What's the problem?
It doesn’t discourage use, it just makes it riskier. Before the Harrison Act, doctors would get alcoholics to switch to morphine because it’s less harmful. Fighter pilots and some combat soldiers get amphetamines to stay"up", and ambien or barbiturates so that they can sleep. Long ago, some employers offered their employees free cocaine along with coffee. Legal drugs have far fewer drawbacks than the public thinks, especially when compared to the black market.
Now, the whole law enforcement, justice, imprisonment, and lawyer ecosystem depends on prohibition more than organized crime does.
And basic economics tells us that that discourages it.
Drugs are substances that alter a body's physiology in some abnormal way; by definition, that is always a cost/benefit tradeoff. There are no harmless drugs. Not even aspirin, let alone the ones you list.
Substances that alter our physiology in normal ways are not called drugs, they are called foods and nutrients.
Simple junkie economics tells us that when people start overdosing, they want to get the stuff that people are overdosing on because it's stronger. They go to the area where they can buy the more dangerous dope.
If junkies are so self destructive that they seek out the most potent and dangerous "stuff", then drug legalization will obviously lead to more and more deaths. So, you just torpedoed the argument for legalization.
No, not at all. They seek the dangerous stuff because in the illegal market that's the best indicator of quality (in some sense). In a legalized market (including supply) they can get exactly what they want and don't have to use dangerous proxies for potency and quality.
It discourages it in most people. That's probably fair to say. Though most people were never going to start taking heavy duty narcotics anyway.
But does that discouragement translate to any net social benefit? The vast majority of harm from drug use comes from a small minority of drug users. I don't think it is clear at all that drug prohibition discourages the filthy, criminal street junky scene even if easing up on enforcement does concentrate it.
I don't care if you do drugs. But I don't think it's so much to ask to make it very difficult for you to GET drugs. Which has less to do with you, the addict, and more to do with people who AREN'T addicts.
The addict will find a way no matter what. The non-addict being frustrated in even being able to obtain them, will be less likely to become addicted to them if only by sheer unavailability or inconvenience.
Full legalization of dangerous narcotics is a silly fantasy. There is no way that Fentanyl and Meth are going to be on the shelf at RiteAid next to the aspirin, no matter what the laws are. The criminal organizations would continue to be the manufacturers and distributors. We've already seen this happen in states with marijuana "legalization"—the illegal sellers continue to dominate the market with the legal "dispensaries" being a sideshow. Legitimate, regulated drug manufacturers and pharmacies are not going to touch OTC heroin, meth, fentanyl, or xylazine, even if they're legal, and the crime lords are not going to just surrender the market.
Believing that eternally doubling-down on costly, destructive policies with the expectation that somehow, suddenly, the countless perverse incentives will magically disappear and everything will miraculously improve isn’t mere silly fantasy; it’s the pinnacle of towering delusion!
According to your argument, Prohibition should still be a going concern because Al Capone and the Outfit still dominate the American liquor markets…except in reality, they don’t, do they? Sure, The Outfit and the American Mafia still exist, but to hear kids tell it, they have a real bitch of a time getting legal booze from legal distillers. On the other hand, black market drugs are readily available to anyone with cash, even – especially – kids. How do you explain these glaring discrepancies?
To this day, I’ve never met even ONE SINGLE anti-Prohibitionist who advocates some anarchic free-for-all like you (I suspect very much disingenuously) prognosticate. In fact, most essentially follow the tenets advocated by groups like the reformed drug warriors at LEAP.
The Temperance movement employed the same fear-mongering hyperbole of ‘total anarchy if we don’t blindly stay the course.’ It didn’t happen! And while booze kills 160,000 Americans every year, at least we’re no longer encumbered by the myriad greater harms of what reformed Temperance folks called ‘The Great Folly!’
It is: alcohol is highly regulated and restricted across the country.
We aren't "blindly staying the course", either on alcohol or on drugs. Drug policy has changed dramatically over decades. A lot of drug use is effectively decriminalized.
The delusion is yours: that you have a silver bullet for drug problems in the US. In fact, experience internationally shows that you are full of it.
The market is largely created by hopelessness.
The US Union government steals property to create hopelessness. It is the largest creator of hopelessness the world has ever known.
The former bargain of appeasement has ended and a new bargain has been struck. That bargain being that to appease the government you now own NO property if you wish to keep your life.
The end result is clear and millions of people will opt for the drugs before facing what is surely coming our way.
Only hope can save humanity and government won't tolerate it.
No, legalization won't magically fix all the problems with drugs. But it is prohibition that needs to be defended. The default (for everything) should be government not being involved. Show me that enforcing prohibition has done more good than harm if you want to change my mind about legalization. Then show me that it has done so much more good than harm that it is worth the cost of punishing people for acts that for the most part harm no one but themselves.
The point is that is dangerous addictive narcotics were completely legalized tomorrow, nothing would change. Legitimate manufacturers and pharmacies would have nothing to do with selling over-the-counter herion, meth, or "cocktails", and the same people making and selling the stuff now would continue to do so, by the same methods, including the violence.
Remember that day the feds were granted authority to run the pharma/drug market?
Yeah; Me neither.... F'En [Na]tional So[zi]alists.
Next up; Prohibiting gasoline because someone somewhere abused it.