Prohibition Gave Us Tranq-Laced Fentanyl
Mixing other drugs with xylazine is driven by the economics of prohibition.
The emergence of the animal tranquilizer xylazine as a fentanyl adulterant 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.
Xylazine, a.k.a. "tranq," was first identified as a drug adulterant in 2006, and today it is especially common in Puerto Rico, Philadelphia, Maryland, and Connecticut. The combination of fentanyl and xylazine poses special hazards.
Like opioids, xylazine depresses respiration, so mixing it with fentanyl 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 serious and persistent skin infections and ulcers, which 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.
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. But 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 opium poppies. Xylazine has similar advantages: It is an inexpensive synthetic drug that can be produced without crops. And unlike fentanyl, it is not classified as a controlled substance, which makes it easier to obtain.
American drug users are not clamoring for xylazine in their fentanyl, any more than they were demanding fentanyl instead of heroin. The use of such adulterants is driven by the economics of prohibition. And as usual with illegal drugs, consumers do not know what they are getting. Whether it is vitamin E acetate in black market THC vapes, MDMA mixed with butylone, levamisole in cocaine, or fentanyl pressed into ersatz pain pills, prohibition reliably makes drug use more dangerous.
Much to the dismay of veterinarians, drug warriors alarmed by tranq have proposed treating xylazine as a controlled substance. As usual, they think the solution to a problem created by prohibition is more prohibition.
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
Prohibition Gave Us Tranq-Laced Fentanyl
I thought it was the free market.
If there was a free market people would still be smoking opium, there would have been little need to seek more concentrated refinements. The move toward concentration (and subsequent adulteration) is driven by prohibition and the need to conceal and smuggle the substances.
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website… http://www.Payathome7.com
were shatter and wax a thing before cannabis legalization
someone was just sued over a kratom extract that killed someone
concentrates and extracts seem to be the natural evolution in the life cycle of any psychotropic substance
concentrates and extracts seem to be the natural evolution in the life cycle of any
psychotropicsubstanceNot to defend prohibition in the least, but the idea that we’d all be chewing cannibus and coca leaves, scarfing down poppy blooms/seeds, and eating fermenting fruit off the ground to get stoned by the light of crude oil torches if it weren’t for prohibition is grade A retardation.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,300 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
No, sorry. One of the main arguments for making weed legal was that “it would break the back of the cartels.” What happened was that when pot was legalized, the cartels simply took other avenues through the drug trade. Not to mention all their other activities such as human trafficking.
Turns out the people running these massive criminal enterprises aren’t as stupid as the “legalize it” crowd thought they were. These are sophisticated operations that are basically running Mexico now.
And no, legalizing tranq isn’t going to fix this, either. Although, I do hope Colorado does that as well so even more blue voting morons increase their chances of overdosing.
“No, sorry. One of the main arguments for making weed legal was that “it would break the back of the cartels.”
Please, tell me… when did the feds legalize weed?
Please, tell me… when did the feds legalize weed?
I hope you’re at least getting a good workout from moving those goalposts. That’s okay, I was stupid enough to believe those arguments as well. That all stopped after seeing the actual results.
Your “legalize it!” argument is hunched over in stupor in the Civic Center.
Anywhere from 40% to 67% of the pot consumed in this nation comes from Mexico. I will guarantee you that most of it is headed for States which haven’t yet legalized it. That’s the only place the cartels can make a real killing. Add to that, the absurd restrictions, taxation and regulations in some of the States (California anyone?) often keeps the price higher for domestically-produced weed than Mexican weed. It’s kinda like, if when prohibition ended, the government added a $50 tax to every bottle of whiskey sold. Had that happened, “Moonshiners” would be the norm, rather than a rather curious cultural oddity.
Forgot the link, sorry:
https://kjzz.org/content/8319/where-does-pot-come-domestic-growers-or-mexican-cartels#:~:text=Beau%20Kilmer%27s%20research%20finds%20that%20somewhere%20between%2040,marijuana%20in%20the%20US%20probably%20comes%20from%20Mexico.
Yeah, I know, the “legalize it” crowd always has an excuse whenever their policy falls on its face. I can look at the rhetoric, or I can look at the results. Because I used to believe all those stupid arguments, too, until I saw what actually happened in Colorado when pot was legalized.
It’s kinda like, if when prohibition ended, the government added a $50 tax to every bottle of whiskey sold.
Of course the government is going to get its cut on controlled substances. Duh. That’s the bargain the “legalize it” crowd makes when they demand legalization. Anyone who thought they would be given free rein was either delusional or willfully ignorant.
“Of course the government is going to get its cut on controlled substances. Duh. That’s the bargain the “legalize it” crowd makes when they demand legalization.”
You are missing the point. OVERLY-HIGH taxation and regulation is helping keep the prices of “legal” weed very high, which, in some areas, keeps the cartels quite competitive. That helps keep them in business. It’s called basic economics.
When “medical pot” first became a thing in CA, the street price was about $20/gram (according to the “authorities”). I passed by a dispensary every day on my way to work. Within a year, the price was down to $6/gram. I am fairly confident that took a huge bite out of the cartels’ business.
>>OVERLY-HIGH taxation and regulation is helping keep the prices of “legal” weed very high … keeps the cartels quite competitive
feds make $$ on both prospects.
The feds will take their share of the booty (or the blood), no matter.
You are missing the point. OVERLY-HIGH taxation and regulation is helping keep the prices of “legal” weed very high, which, in some areas, keeps the cartels quite competitive. That helps keep them in business. It’s called basic economics.
It’s also basic economics that the government is going to squeeze every penny it can out of the drug addicts, because they’re going to buy the product no matter what. That was the whole point of governments allowing the booze stores to stay open during the initial lockdowns during COVID.
And like I said, I’ll take Denver prior to pot legalization over the post-legalization shithole that it’s become.
Never mind cities like Seattle and the like.
If one makes it easier for somebody to drug themselves into oblivion, they will do so. It does not make the society better and sure as hell does not make their locality better.
It’s kinda like, if when prohibition ended, the government added a $50 tax to every bottle of whiskey sold. Had that happened, “Moonshiners” would be the norm, rather than a rather curious cultural oddity.
Just to be clear, you’re on the side that likes to point out that legal alcohol kills more people every year than illegal weed, right?
Realist: “Legal or not, this pile of dead bodies is pretty fucking big.”
Legalization Zealot: “Yeah but if we legalized this substance the way we legalized the other substance for that pile of dead bodies, then all these dead bodies would be legal.”
I’m 100% on board with the idea that people should be able to vape freely, even cannabinoids. The idea that pot prohibition is what caused the vaping deaths is retarded.
The legalization movement is going around the bend from “Do no harm.” to “Ignore any harm as the result of our advocacy.” on this.
“Just to be clear, you’re on the side that likes to point out that legal alcohol kills more people every year than illegal weed, right?”
Just to be clear: I find that argument irrelevant.
I see. So no issue with the piles of dead bodies themselves, just on whether they’re less, more, or roughly the same degree of legally acceptably dead as any other substance you can pluck out of the ether but don’t believe can be used as a 1:1 analog.
Lots of things in life can kill people. Over 6,000 pedestrians died in 2020 (WISQARS) due to motor vehicle traffic. We don’t outlaw either pedestrians or motor vehicles. Cigarettes still kills a lot of smokers. Cigarettes are still legal. According to the State of CA, playing my mandocello increases the chances of me dying from cancer, since I get exposed to the nickel in the frets, and nickel is a known carcinogen. Needless to say, fretted instruments, including guitars, banjos, and the like, are also still legal. And, of course, nickel is also an essential element to the proper functioning of the human body.
Lots of things in life carry risk. It’s up to the individual to decide if the risk of what they put in their bodies is worth it — not the government.
You misunderstand. I’m not against the sentiment. I’m against the breathless dismissal and even avoidance of pragmatics. If the two weeks from 2019-2021 taught us anything it’s that no matter how fervently we believe that I’m not responsible for your grandma’s life and your not responsible for mine, virtually no one else agrees. More critically, when anybody even perceives the pile of dead grandmas beginning to grow, the argument of “Not my responsibility.” isn’t going to cut it. Even among people pretty solidly in the “Legalize it.” camp* and even if only to ensure that dead bodies aren’t clogging the streets on people’s way to work.
It’s entirely possible that the number of ODs goes up after legalization. It’s entirely possible that it goes up in an effective dose-dependent manner. The dealers, cartels, and drug warriors almost certainly aren’t going to simply lay down their arms, take a pay cut, and learn to code. Even if manufacturing collapsed and supply evaporated, you’re going to have legions of people suffering from withdrawal. At that point, regardless of beliefs or intentions, it’s straight-down-the-punch-card religious zealotry in the midst of a “Great Moments In Unintended Consequences” Moment whether it essentially advances liberty or not.
*Even here, now, you have people rather essentially saying “Prohibition is the reason drugs get more potent.” The more abject falsehoods and inflated expectations you weave into (or allow to be woven into) the narrative, by explicit libertarian standards, the shittier you look when they don’t come true.
“The dealers, cartels, and drug warriors almost certainly aren’t going to simply lay down their arms, take a pay cut, and learn to code.”
In this, you are absolutely correct. As long as something is in demand, there will always be “cartels” and other forms of “organized crime” to provide the product or service, whether it be alcohol, prostitution, drugs, “numbers,” or anything else.
But bear this in mind — pot doesn’t kill “grandma.” Crime syndicates do. I do not favor the unrestricted legalization of all drugs. Some drugs are dangerous. But there should be a middle ground between “no, heroin is illegal and you can’t have it,” and being able purchase it at the 7-11.
Will this “solve” the “drug problem?” Not in the least, but it just might reduce the violence associated with it due to cartels and the like.
If 100% of the states legalized weed but the feds kept it illegal, would that be solely responsible for keeping cartels in business? Or is it possible that Cartels don’t really make any money on weed?
Yeh, I can’t imagine they are/were making a bunch of $$$ off of weed.
Given the way “My body, my choice.” turned into “You just want grandma to die.” in 2019, I’d appreciate a more clear walkthrough of what portion of the “Legalize it” crowd really would like to see people get off drugs, what portion really would like to see people more generally free, and which portion is just advocating for different set of compounds on their respective black/
whitemandatory lists.Ooh, not sure if it’s your/a intended extrapolation but; “Pot Legalization Gave Us Tranq-Laced Fentanyl. Prove Me Wrong (convincingly… to a majority of the electorate).”
Not legal in Wisconsin, you have to go to IL,MI or MN to get your pot.
>>and today it is especially common in … Philadelphia
go Flyers?
What the prohibitionist are missing is how these drugs are small, potent, and easy to make. All this make smuggling so much easier. There is not good solution to the supply side and so you need to work the demand side. If possible, get people off these drugs, if not possible, get them legal drugs that help them be functional.
Abolish the welfare state first, the drugs will sort themselves out one way or the other.
As you indicate in your reply to Nominalis below, the reverse is untenable.
No, it’s driven by some seriously evil mofos. If they weren’t doing this, they’d be doing something else.
“As usual, they think the solution to a problem created by prohibition is more prohibition.”
Prohibition is the all-purpose legislative Swiss Army Knife of lazy, useless, dangerous politicians and the corrupt cops that control them.
Prohibition is the natural and inevitable consequence of having a progressive social welfare state. You cannot offer a universal no-questions-asked social safety net and let people use drugs as much as they want.
As noted elsewhere, there are roots to the issue.
Look up The Joint Commission and their role in pain management guidelines and mandates in the 1980s & 1990s. In particular, look up “the 5th vital sign”.
Also, consider the war on drugs and compare it to the history Prohibition in the early twentieth century. And then consider the impact of changes during the Obama administration.
Prohibition (war on drugs, alcohol prohibition and more) have fostered much more than just the OD epidemic.
Tranq-laced fentanyl would go a long way to explaining Jakey’s mind-rotted obsessive Trump leg-humping.
In the end, until I do not have to pay for somebody else’s actions, I’d rather the drugs be utterly illegal.
If I am not on the hook for others’ idiotic decisions (and as long as crimes they committed are not ignored because “they really don’t know better in their condition”), then go free and knock yourselves out.
That idiots pursue more idiotic things is logic.
Captain Obvious here. I thought we learned from Alcohol prohibition. There might not have been so much demand, sans bringing back large numbers of shattered soldiers from our forever wars. No, I am not supporting drug abuse, I am just frustrated how we trust OURSELVES with freedom (But those neighbors, I’m not so sure about them) Same could be said of gun control. Notice how some states are for de-criminalization of weed, but not scary rifles. Other states have no problem with guns, but take a toke and well……. I NEVER!
Such wrong-headed reasoning. Let’s just point out 3 things that are totally missed in this wrong-headed analysis 1) Prohibition was national, bypassing all local mores and federalist strictures on dictating right and wrong. Let states criminalize and punish drugs as they see fit. The drug context is radically different in Chicago from rural Georgia. 2) Some things are wrong. Does government even use ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ anymore? It should. That was the problem with slavery, that it wasn’t the legality that motivated slavers it was the desire to have you say and believe and promote that “Slavery is Good” 3) We see undeniably that the Deaths of Despair are increasing. There are many (perhaps up to 75% at an informed guess) who will never take drugs except if it is right in their face. I remember working at a huge company once and some land right next door was bought up for a pornography shop. The company of course bought them out, but it was their reasoning that made the impression : they said that employees who never used lunch for shopping pornography nor wante to might now start with a store easily available to tempt them. [ And you know that his how the pornography shop reasoned to the point of buying the land ]
ADDENDUM on Deaths of Despair
Suicide and deaths of despair have reached historic levels in the United States, according to the latest data from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). There were a record high of 49,369 suicide deaths in 2022 alone and since 2011, nearly 540,000 individuals have been lost to suicide.