Did Decriminalization Boost Drug Deaths in Oregon?
Recent research finds "no evidence" that it did, undermining a key claim by critics of that policy.

Oregon is considering legislation that would recriminalize low-level drug possession, reversing a landmark reform that voters approved in 2020. Although critics of that ballot initiative, Measure 110, cite escalating drug-related deaths, decriminalization is not responsible for that trend.
Opioid overdose fatalities have been rising nationwide for more than two decades. That trend was accelerated by the emergence of illicit fentanyl as a heroin booster and substitute, a development that hit Western states after it was apparent in other parts of the country.
"Overdose mortality rates started climbing in [the] Northeast, South, and Midwest in 2014 as the percent of deaths related to fentanyl increased," RTI International epidemiologist Alex H. Kral and his colleagues noted at a conference in Salem, Oregon, last month. "Overdose mortality rates in Western states did not start rising until 2020, during COVID and a year after the introduction of fentanyl."
That lag explains why Oregon has seen a sharper rise in opioid-related deaths than most of the country since 2020. But so have California, Nevada, and Washington, neighboring states where drug possession remains a crime.
Decriminalization under Measure 110 took effect in February 2021, and a 2023 Journal of Health Economics study estimated that it was associated with a 23 percent increase in "unintentional drug overdose deaths" that year. But "after adjusting for the rapid escalation of fentanyl," Brown University public health researcher Brandon del Pozo reported at the Salem conference, "analysis found no association between [Measure 110] and fatal drug overdose rates."
Kral and his collaborators concurred, saying "there is no evidence that increases in overdose mortality in Oregon are due to" decriminalization. That is consistent with the results of a 2023 JAMA Psychiatry study, which found "no evidence" that Measure 110 was "associated with changes in fatal drug overdose rates" during the first year.
The expectation that decriminalization would boost overdose deaths hinges on the assumption that it encourages drug use. Yet an RTI International study of 468 drug users in eight Oregon counties found that just 1.5 percent of them had begun using drugs since Measure 110 took effect.
Because Measure 110 did nothing to address the iffy quality and unpredictable potency of illegal drugs, it is not surprising that overdoses continued to rise, consistent with trends in other Western states. Those problems are created by drug prohibition and exacerbated by efforts to enforce it.
When drug consumers do not know what they are getting, as is typical in a black market, the risk of a fatal mistake is much greater. That hazard was magnified by the crackdown on pain pills, which pushed nonmedical users toward more dangerous substitutes, replacing legally produced, reliably dosed pharmaceuticals with products of uncertain provenance and composition.
Worse, the crackdown coincided with the rise of illicit fentanyl, which is much more potent than heroin and therefore made dosing even trickier. That development also was driven by prohibition, which favors highly potent drugs that are easier to conceal and smuggle.
The perverse consequences of these policies soon became apparent. The opioid-related death rate, which doubled between 2001 and 2010, nearly tripled between 2011 and 2020, even as opioid prescriptions fell by 44 percent. In 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counted more than 80,000 opioid-related deaths, nearly four times the number in 2010.
Although it is hard to make much progress in reversing these depressing trends without addressing the underlying legal regime, harm reduction tools such as fentanyl test strips, naloxone, and supervised consumption facilities can make a dent in the death toll by preventing or reversing overdoses. Treating drug users as criminals, by contrast, compounds the harm caused by prohibition, unjustly punishing people for conduct that violates no one's rights.
"It is no longer 2020," Albany, Oregon, Mayor Alex Johnson told state legislators last week, urging recriminalization. "The world has changed. Fentanyl has become a death grip." Before legislators take Johnson's advice, they should reflect on how that happened.
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
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
Utah’s numbers are the best! The Mormon religion needs to be mandated, ass the “fix” that we all need!!! Mormonism is the opiate of the masses, and all of the rest are asses!
(Idaho has a fair number of Mormons, and Idaho looks semi-OK ass well.)
(Ass soon as we have a state where there’s TONS of Scientologists, we can see… Butt I bet that when we’d ALL be Scientology slaves, life would be PERFECT!!!)
So...drug deaths are up nationwide but higher in the place that decriminalized it. He argues that the correlation is just noise because a few other states also saw a far greater than average increase. Somehow it escapes him that those other states are ideologically similar and that enforcement of drug crimes is lax.
Drugs should be legal, but denying that more addicts will manage to off themselves with less impediments to imbibing is illogical and dishonest. If drunk driving is no longer illegal then people will weigh the risks differently and we will see more people driving at higher levels of intoxication.
Denying reality to make a point just reveals you to be a lying shill
So…drug deaths are up nationwide but higher in the place that decriminalized it.
Nope. The drug related death rate is higher on the east coast where Fentanyl became available earlier.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mortality/drug_poisoning.htm
Now that fentanyl reached the west coast, its rate is climbing rapidly to catch up, similar to what the the east coast saw earlier, when fentanyl reached those states. There was no such decriminalization policies coincidental with that rise.
Citing the CDC does not help your cause.
Oh, OK ...but CDC data is the source of increased opioid death rate this article is based on. So I guess we can discard this whole discussion?
The CDC is collecting this data which they do by "data from death certificates, including cause-of-death information reported by medical examiners and coroners."
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/drug-overdose-deaths.htm
Here's a hypothesis: The timing of the increase in fatalities suggests that "cause-of-death" assignments have changed from "covid-related" to the more factually correct "opioid ingestion-related", as the need to gin up pandemic hysteria and fear receded.
Eh?
This is how it works. Every medical facility uses the same system of codes to report to insurance what diagnosis was done, what tests were run and what the results show. Example. Guy is brought into ER. ER docs look over things like blood pressure, pulse rate, temperature, tenderness areas, listen to lungs and heart, and ask lots of questions about medications and what symptoms brought the guy in. If they suspect opioid use, and the guy is still with them, they will justify a blood test. The test comes back positive for stupid amounts of opioids and they attempt to treat for that diagnosis. If the guy dies during treatment the codes read opiod overdose. This the CDC marks down a death from opioid overdose. Which also falls under the greater category of illegal drug overdose, since the feds don't consider any drugs legal. So the CDC raw data is as accurate as the hospital reports are. Unless the hospitals are now reporting drug overdoses as traffic accidents their information is valid.
It's worse than that. Both Decriminalization and "harm reduction" which these places have gone ALL IN on, were supposed to REDUCE deaths.
The second issue is that Decriminalization, apart from whether or not it reduces death is supposed to boost overall 'quality of life' for the entire population. Fewer people in jail creates an environment where drug users aren't stuck in the jail pipeline, don't have their 'lives ruined' and lose their jobs due to convictions and jail time caused by a 'nonviolent crime'... so on and so on and so on.
However, as Michael Shellenberger noted, this process was supposed to be a two-way street with the drug users meeting soceity 'half way'. We stop throwing you in jail, you stop pooping on the street and committing crimes. The second part of the equation never happened.
Then there's the oft-cited (by former drug addicts THEMSELVES) second-order effect that for seriously drug-addicted users jail actually was part of the process of getting them off drugs.
Either way, the decriminalization discussion HASN'T produced the results it claimed it would, so now we're arguing that it hasn't made things worse.
The problem is they didn't legalize drugs, only decriminalized them. That leaves the black market intact, perhaps even stronger. They also combined decriminalization, strengthened black markets, and lax or non-enforcement of property rights with soft on crime policies. Shoplifting, burglary, and even violent crimes were not policed or prosecuted, at least to such a lower standard that it encouraged that behavior.
There is no reason decriminalization had to go with being soft on property and violent crimes, other than Portland and much of the Pacific Northwest is run by leftists and not libertarians. This approach is perhaps the worst possible one as it causes most people to conflate decriminalization with legalization, and that with lawlessness in general.
I don't think any time soon we will see the libertarian approach taken in this country. Even if we do get legalization, the left will insist we tax legal drug sales to such an extent that the black market remains.
We’ve already seen the results of that re: pot in places like Colorado and Washington.
Do you want to do drugs?
If not, then why give a shit?
Can’t speak for Nevada, but California, where it “remains a crime”, has seen downtown San Francisco (for one OBVIOUS example) give over whole swaths of the city to the druggies, basically turning some locations into an open air drug market and place for homeless to shoot up right out in the open.
Just because Sacramento didn’t decriminalize the drugs statewide doesn’t mean they aren’t unprosecuted. De facto decriminalization rather than de jure.
Anyway, it’s moot. Whether some fucktard kills himself with drugs isn’t the only issue here. It’s that very takeover of public space and other issues of public safety and health — MY safety and health, not the druggie’s — that are a massive problem.
I don’t give a shit if you want to do horrible things to yourself in the privacy of your own home, but I do give a shit when it costs me money, blocks my public right of way, makes me unsafe, and otherwise utilizes public services my tax dollars paid for.
Philly is the same. There are YT videos of Kensington. It is utterly revolting, the depth and depravity of what people do to themselves, and to others.
Agreed! The other things about places like this is, they don't bust the local dealers that supply these addicts, turning a blind eye. Yet, if you are a highly educated, degreed, licensed DOCTOR prescribing pain pills, they enforce to the hilt! And SOME pain patients end up committing suicide as "pain control", as a result! WHERE is the BALANCE here?
And MANY pain patients have dismissed the "doctor shopping", diversion and theft methods of obtaining pain medication and gone straight to heroin (much cheaper). I know I did, for several years.
Of course, the introduction of fentanyl (which is so cheap and easy to mismeasure during manufacture that there's no financial incentive for producers to minimize it) creates a grave danger for many of these unfortunates, who may be entirely unfamiliar with street drugs and drug culture.
Kind of a complex quesstion.
My issue as well. If your demons do not impact me, then have fun with your demons.
If your demons DO impact me, then fuck you and fuck your demons.
Please define "impact".
...
Could you possibly write a sentence with more negatives to decode?
What's wrong with, "Just because Sacramento criminalized the drugs statewide doesn't mean they are prosecuted."? Got it down to one negation and it reads so easy.
Wow, I bet you're fun at parties.
Just because Sacramento didn’t decriminalize the drugs statewide doesn’t mean they aren’t unprosecuted. De facto decriminalization rather than de jure.
Yes, Seattle, for example, had De Facto decriminalization long before it had de jure decriminalization, and the local prosecutor even bragged about it when they passed the measure.
"Drug deaths?"
You can just call them suicides. "Unintentional" ones, if that makes you feel any better.
Also, *yawn* - who cares about dead drug users.
Also, *yawn* – who cares about dead drug users.
Humans. You have probably seen them outside your lair.
Look, I know drug users were human once - but after they go down the recreational drug road... well, any zombie flick will tell you, they're not. One in the head, otherwise they just keep coming.
For example:
https://twitter.com/dammiedammie35/status/1600039127310688256
Take any of those three drug users from that video. Defend the merits of caring about them without simultaneously decrying the use of recreational drugs, drug proliferation, drug use, or drug-related otherwise which contributes to humans being reduced to that.
You tell me how those three people are a GOOD thing. You tell me how they're a NET POSITIVE for society. Putting aside the hyperbole of drug zombie apocalypse, I'm not saying they're not human and devoid of rights. I'm saying that if you want to recognize and respect their humanity and rights, you HAVE to be 100% against the drug trade; against everything that Reason supports which turns them into that.
tell me how they’re a NET POSITIVE for society.
Do we have an obligation to be a net good for society?
Anyway, my point was that some people care about those drug users. I lost a cousin and multiple friends and acquaintances to opiods. Their funerals involved many tears, especially from their parents.
I didn't ask if we had an obligation to be one. I asked if they ARE a net positive to society.
It's a yes or no question.
some people care about those drug users.
Do they care enough to decry recreational drugs/drug use? Do they care enough to say, "No, screw you" to the people - like Reason - who advocate decriminalization? Do they care enough to say, "Drug users belong in jail, or a sanitarium - if only to prevent their drug deaths?"
Because otherwise their sobbing over bodies is a little disingenuous, don't you think?
Do they care enough to decry recreational drugs/drug use?
Yes, I'd say most, if not all, of the mourners feel this way, at least about opiates.
Do they care enough to say, “Drug users belong in jail, or a sanitarium – if only to prevent their drug deaths?”
Your argument is based on the assumption that jail or involuntary sentencing to a sanitarium prevents drug deaths and that everyone believes that. Some would rather save lives by providing legal safe opiates at known concentrations that are not the norm in the black market.
Yes, I’d say most, if not all, of the mourners feel this way, at least about opiates.
Have they conveyed that to Reason writers, you think? Do you think Reason cares?
Some would rather save lives by providing legal safe opiates at known concentrations that are not the norm in the black market.
So, no. They don't care even a little bit. But we're still supposed to empathize with their grieving. Right. 😉 Got it. 😉
You seem to be conflating the argument of whether or not prohibition saves lives or causes more death with caring about drug users.
I'm not talking about whether prohibition saves lives. I'm talking about the fact that nobody who "cares about drug users" can possibly be in favor of decriminalizing drugs for the sake of their recreational use. Those two positions are in contradiction.
People who, by reason of their incarceration in jail or institution, cannot obtain drugs, actually *do* have their lives saved, at least for the duration of their confinement.
True, but what if many that overdose wouldn't have if a safe legal supply of their drug was available? Maybe prohibition costs more lives than it saves.
I lost a couple of cousins, sister and brother to each other, that way. The family would like to think of them as accidental deaths, but those of us who know the most facts understand both as suicides. Our sadness was about their lives, not particularly about their deaths. One cousin at least for years didn't want to tell another surviving cousin about a conversation that made pretty clear their brother's death was voluntary, and it was via an insulin overdose, although opiates had been available to him.
Do we have an obligation to be a net good for society?
Just a warning before you go down this path, libertarians are skeptical of social contract theory (except when it suits them).
It's been my observation here in the comments that "libertarians" can justify anything that suits them.
I could make the same statement about drug users.
Well yeah, addicts take that to intollerable extremes.
BTW, I agree with what you said above about public areas health and safety.
Then deal with the problems and leave the great masses of not really giving a fuck alone.
Those "loss of coordination" zombies are probably a result of xylazine, a new large animal muscle relaxer that's finding it's way into heroin/fentanyl concoctions, Not an opiod,
You personally care about all 6B humans?
No. I'm an autistic robot. What I'm saying is some (most?) humans care about other humans, even if thy're drug users.
"Before legislators take Johnson's advice, they should reflect on how that happened."
My guess is the democrats opened the borders.
Even you had to admit fentanyl is the joker in the deck.
People are dying because they're buying stuff with no real knowledge of what they're actually getting or what the potency is, which is a result of supplies coming from the black market.
That's what makes 'decriminalization' so fucking stupid. It doesn't solve any problems because it leaves the causes in place.
Agreed. They combined decriminalization (not legalization) with not enforcing property rights, and being soft on theft and violent crime. That is sure to have a bad outcome as we are seeing.
Huh...
You know. I seem to recall another recent phenomenon that followed state-to-state trends with curves rising in some parts of the country while falling in others. From Reason, we largely got “MOAR TESTING!!!”, nationwide death from/with counts, and backhanded endorsements of mask, vaccine, and passport requirements.
Fuck you and your “death rates have been rising in other states for decades” bullshit Sullum. You couldn’t critically analyze your way out of a wet paper bag.
Even that's not as straightforward as you present.
Do you care more about their rights and personal freedom, or about their lives untainted by addictive drugs?
If the latter, incarceration can be seen as a compassionate response.
If the former, society, in the form of taxpayer-funded organizations, should be abjured of any obligation wrt the drug users' safety. I would be fine with the fates of the addicted being left in the hands of those who advocate for their full free agency wrt addictive substances. Let them volunteer for, organize and fund the needed response to having subsidized a zombie underclass. As opposed to just virtue-signaling about it and claiming that other people (the ill-defined "society") must protect the addicts from the consequences of their freely-made choices.
This is not a great chart to accompany this opinion piece, because it may not illustrate the points the author is trying to make. For example:
“Opioid overdose fatalities have been rising nationwide for more than two decades.”
But according to the graph, fatalities have been relatively flat from 2010 to 2018, and in one case, significantly lower, not higher. Oh, I see; that's because the chart isn't a nationwide one. Hm.
“Overdose rates in Western states did not start rising until 2020 … Oregon has seen a sharper rise in opioid-related deaths than most of the country since 2020. But so have California, Nevada, and Washington, neighboring states where drug possession remains a crime.”
But the graph shows three categories of change, not one. The slopes for Oregon and Washington are sharply upward and parallel one another. The slopes for California, Nevada and Idaho are upward, but not as sharply as the first two. And then there’s Utah, the lone exception to the sharp rise in deaths. Its slope is only slightly upward — and only if one starts counting a full decade earlier than the rest.
Huh. 4 out of 5 states had dramatic increases in overdose deaths, but one did not. If fentanyl is to blame for the increases, how is Utah to be accounted for?
The big story this data tells is not only about fentanyl, it’s about the differences in the states. The author wants to make the point that fentanyl is the cause of overdoses, not COVID, but the graph blunts the point by changing the subject:
– Washington state’s slope is the only one that shows no sign of slowing down. Every other state has shown a reduction in the rate starting in 2021.
– The relative differences in the impact in the states are very large. Washington and Oregon’s increases are twice as large as the other Western states. And Utah’s increases are well below any of its neighbors.
It may well be that fentanyl is the problem, but even if it is, the unequal effects on these states is what draws our attention. How are the states of Washington and Oregon different from Utah?
I am reminded of an old bit of advice on how to science up a good graph:
1) place differently-colored "data points" on your graph paper, the more the better.
2) draw a clean, straight line through your noise, usually upward, left to right.
3) It may be useful to define the X and Y axes, but this is not really necessary. Calculus symbols may be useful here.
4) Write "As shown by Graph 3-10a, [enter desired conclusion]"
Oila! Science!
Yeah, but the graph looked nice, didn't it? It had nice colors and fit well in the space while still being mostly legible without having too blow it up.
Nonsense.
They're comparing de facto decrim vs formal decrim and seeing no difference.
Drug deaths by drug abusers does not justify laws against drug possession. Just because power-hungry official thugs are able to push panic buttons for pliant sheeple does not give them the authority to tell everyone what they can have and what they can ingest. The lack of a single spine or the minimum number of testicles amongst the Judiciary is the only excuse they need to forge ahead on their quest for power.
Apparently libertarian analysts feel totally comfortable with feeding into the excuses of the power elite by ignoring this basic, fundamental fact of the Constitution while devoting column inches to hand-wringing angst over the sad deaths of drug abusers.
The lack of a single spine or the minimum number of testicles amongst the Judiciary is the only excuse they need to forge ahead on their quest for power.
What are you talking about? The Wickard decision says that any action that might possibly have an effect on commerce in the aggregate is fair game to regulate. If the drugs were imported into the state then that's commerce. If the drugs were made in the state, then that means drugs that could have been imported into the state were not. That's commerce according to the Court. So until Wickard is overturned, there is virtually nothing that the federal government cannot control.
Yes, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) is a PERFECT example of the lack of spines and testicles in the Judiciary. Thanks for making my case for me!
I’m not disagreeing that there’s nothing in the Constitution authorizing the drug war. I’m disagreeing with you saying that constitutionality comments are required, and that failure to include them is motivated by ignorance.
Apparently libertarian analysts feel totally comfortable with feeding into the excuses of the power elite by ignoring this basic, fundamental fact of the Constitution while devoting column inches to hand-wringing angst over the sad deaths of drug abusers.
That's JesseAz level dishonesty: "They didn't mention this thing that's important to me, therefore they believe all these things I just made up. Prove they don't. You can't. That means they do. Nyaaaa!"
I'll let your sarcasmic level ignoramusness speak for itself.
I thought that it went unsaid. It being the lack of constitutionality for the drug war.
Most things the government does are not authorized by the Constitution. If they did your bidding and put a constitutionality comment in there every time you thought it was warranted, then the articles would be like weather reports that always have some tiresome comment blaming global warming. I get it. We know.
Not only that but people who wave the Constitution around are viewed as nutters. Why? Because so much of what the government does is in violation of the document that there’s little someone can’t wave it at. So they become tiresome and are then ignored. That’s basically what you’re criticizing the article for not doing.
Drug deaths by drug abusers does not justify laws against drug possession.
In a US where the drug abuser plops dead out on the Oregon Trail and the coyotes picks their bones, you're right.
In the US where we distribute narcan to police officers, get articles from libertarians in support of safe injection sites, and penaltax everyone for universal healthcare, your cries of personal autonomy and people suffering the consequences of their actions are between naive and immaterial.
Does this argument apply to gun control? After all, a lot of people are injured in gun involved incidents which we pay for with our penaltax for universal healthcare.
Someone usually goes to jail in this scenario...
Not when they save the last bullet for themselves.
This is irrelevant to my point, which is: If we accept that our socialist system justifies the removal of rights because your risky behavior costs me money then this can be used to remove any right.
Still, I’ll address your point. Intentionally injuring someone with a gun often results in prison, intentionally injuring someone with a drug often results in prison. We call it poisoning.
Gun possession or gun sales is usually not a crime even if that gun is used purposely or accidentally to injure someone. But, Mad was defending criminalizing drug possession even without any injury because it may cost us. So we can now use this argument to justify banning guns, smoking, unhealthy foods, sugary beverage size.
I'm taking issue with his assertion that an obvious correlation contrary to his thesis doesn't exist because reasons. The logic doesn't follow even if I believe people should be free to use drugs in their own homes and even off themselves with those drugs.
Unfortunately, he has also shown a desire to throw taxpayer dollars at safe injection sites and other government driven initiatives to protect dumbasses from themselves. At no point does he care about logic or libertarian priorities. It's purely libertine thinking
The places legalizing are by and large leftist shitholes that simply remain shitholes, they just tell the cops "here are more laws we don't want you to arrest people for breaking." They already can't arest anyone with a suntan, anyone dressed like a sexual freak, anyone with unnatural hair colors and anyone just stealing a little bit of stuff. So what if they stop arresting people for drug offenses too?
If they legalized drugs and criminalize bad behavior this wouldn't be a problem.
In order to prevent fentanyl consumption, overdoses and deaths, it would be helpful to know which products are being laced with fentanyl, and to urge the public to NOT consume those products.
Unfortunately for public knowledge and public health, drug prohibitionists, politicians and the sensationalistic news media continue to say: "Don't use any illegal drug" and continue to call for "more incarcerations and the death penalty" for those caught selling any product that was laced with fentanyl.
And of course, 75% of licensed drug treatment facilities and the most vocal critics of fentanyl continue to oppose the most effective opioid treatment: methadone.
Note which western state has the highest death rate from opiod overdoses: Washington, which has NOT decriminalized drugs, but has cut way back on enforcing laws against public nuisances and property crime, like Oregon and California. Washington started out with a higher rate than Oregon, and remained higher throughout. Both states experienced a rise in deaths starting before Oregon decriminalized drugs, and in both states this trend continued to rise at about the same rate afterwards.
California, the western state that lead in non-enforcement of laws against public nuisances and property crime, began from a lower death rate than Oregon, it began rising at the same time, and grew faster to match Oregon in 2021. Then there's no more data. If you extrapolated over the missing data, it looks like CA was going higher than Oregon, possibly as high as Washington. In the other states in this graph, which have a less radical reputation, the death rate jumped when fentanyl arrived in 2019 like Oregon, Washington, and California, but the rise slowed or leveled off in 2020-2022.
I have no idea how coddling thieves and mentally ill homeless can have a stronger effect on overdose deaths than actual drug policy, but that claim is more consistent with these graphs than any claim about decriminalization.
But...but...but..."DRUGS!!!"
I am reminded of Ron Paul comments on legalizing drugs. He asked people to think about what they would do if heroin was legalized? Would they go out and start taking the drug.
As the article notes drug deaths are same group but with unregulated and more dangerous drugs. I suspect that the next step is drugs more powerful than fentanyl and so easier to smuggle. The result will be more deaths. The answer is not trying to regulate the supply side but rather to work the demand side. Address mental health to discourage self-treatment with street drugs. Get people off of drugs if you can and if not, get prescriptions for drugs they need. Set a goal of getting people functional and not insisting on being drug free.
As the article notes drug deaths are same group but with unregulated and more dangerous drugs.
Be very careful when you start noting a problem with something being “unregulated” on a quasi libertarian forum attached to a marginally libertarian magazine.
I would suggest that the over regulation here is on the part of the government attempting to prohibiting drugs. There are better ways to discourage drug use than by prohibition.