Recent Overdose Trends Underline the Folly of the War on Drugs
Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris support supply-side tactics that are worse than ineffective.

The annual U.S. death toll from illegal drugs, which has risen nearly every year since the turn of the century, is expected to fall substantially this year. The timing of that turnaround poses a problem for politicians who aim to prevent substance abuse by disrupting the drug supply.
Those politicians include Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who promises to deploy the military against drug traffickers, and his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, whose platform is also heavy on supply-side tactics. Neither candidate seems to have absorbed the lessons of the "opioid epidemic," which showed that drug law enforcement is not just ineffective but counterproductive, magnifying the harms it is supposed to alleviate.
In the first two decades of this century, the annual number of drug-related deaths quintupled, reaching a record of nearly 108,000 in 2022. That year, illicit fentanyl figured in 90 percent of opioid-related deaths and more than two-thirds of all drug-related deaths.
"We took the drug and fentanyl crisis head on, and we achieved the first reduction in overdose deaths in more than 30 years," Trump brags, referring to the 4 percent drop between 2017 and 2018, which in retrospect looks like a blip. The upward trend resumed in 2019, and it included a record 30 percent jump in 2020, Trump's final year in office.
Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recorded a 3 percent reduction in fatal overdoses, similar to the 2018 decrease that Trump cites as evidence of his success. But unlike the 2018 drop, this one seems to be continuing: According to preliminary CDC data, the death toll for the year ending in April 2024 was 10 percent lower than the death toll for the year ending in April 2023.
Nabarun Dasgupta and two other drug researchers at the University of North Carolina found that the downward national trend indicated by the CDC's provisional counts was consistent with state-level mortality data and with overdose cases reported by hospitals and emergency responders. "Our conclusion is that the dip in overdoses is real," they write, although "it remains to be seen how long it will be sustained."
While replacing street drugs with methadone or buprenorphine reduces overdose risk, Dasgupta et al. say, it does not look like expanded access to such "medication-assisted treatment" can account for the recent drop in deaths. But they think it is "plausible" that broader distribution of the opioid antagonist naloxone, which quickly reverses fentanyl and heroin overdoses, has played a role.
By contrast, Dasgupta et al. say it is "unlikely" that anti-drug operations along the U.S.-Mexico border have helped reduce overdoses. They note that recent border seizures have mainly involved marijuana and methamphetamine rather than fentanyl, the primary culprit in overdoses, and that retail drug prices have been falling in recent years—the opposite of what you would expect if interdiction were effective.
Supply-side measures, which are doomed by the economics of prohibition, not only have failed to reduce drug-related deaths. They have had the opposite effect.
Prohibition makes drug use much more dangerous by creating a black market in which quality and purity are highly variable and unpredictable, and efforts to enforce prohibition increase those hazards. The crackdown on pain pills, for example, drove nonmedical users toward black-market substitutes, replacing legally produced, reliably dosed pharmaceuticals with iffy street drugs, which became even iffier thanks to the prohibition-driven proliferation of illicit fentanyl.
That crackdown succeeded in reducing opioid prescriptions, which fell by more than half from 2010 to 2022. Meanwhile, the opioid-related death rate more than tripled, while the annual number of opioid-related deaths nearly quadrupled.
Trump and Harris seem unfazed by that debacle. Trump imagines "a full naval embargo on the drug cartels," while Harris aspires to "disrupt the flow of illicit drugs." They promise to achieve the impossible while glossing over the costs of persisting in a strategy that has failed for more than a century.
© 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
Nobody cares.
Find a new job, dude. You’ve gotten to the point where I see your name, skip the article, and go straight to the comments to say you’re the worst excuse for a libertarian on Reason.
Which is really bad. That’s like being the ugliest horse at the glue factory.
Nah, you’re just another deadbeat faggot who goes online to get your dopamine fix from online strangers.
to get your dopamine fix from online strangers.
Congratulations, that is possibly the most un-self-aware comment ever posted here and that’s saying something!
Nah, he’s just one of Sullum’s sock puppets. Or one of the other “journalists” who get published here.
Well, that, or someone who actually paid $20 to buy a plus subscription so he could make this complaint. I’m gonna go with that. I find it funnier.
Remember when the LP stood for personal responsibility? Now it’s personal choices (usually bad) backstopped by collective responsibility. Which differs from the Democrats how exactly?
GOP uses deadly force to ban non-toxic alternatives to the sort of deadly stupefacients mystics prefer. Islam and National Socialist Christianity are peas in the same pod when it comes to enslaving and murdering women by sharia law and making sure nobody competes with gin and opiates. Laws against trade and production are their stock in trade.
I honestly don’t know if I’m being repudiated or agreed with. But then I’m neither high nor schizophrenic.
Yeah, man, that’s the full Hank experience right there.
Meanwhile at a Koch Industries clandestine offshore facility…
Staffer 5: Sir, reporting in as requested.
CK: Give me an update on our Springfield operation.
Staffer: Just as you predicted, sir. Switching to imports is paying off. Payroll taxes and benefits liabilities are way down causing revenue to increase. Also, closing the cafeteria seems to have no impact on productivity. These new workers must be finding others means to stay nourished. We are saving 3% with that move alone. I know keeping that cafeteria open was a pet peeve of yours.
CK: Excellent. Now, tell me about operation Squeezed Orange Juice.
Staffer 5: Sir, uh, this might make you feel blue. Act 2 was an utter failure. We are pushing a narrative and recruiting another through the usual channels.
CK: Goddammit! How the fuck?!?! Give me all the data and I’ll find out what the fuck went wrong! As damage control, get those Reason editors to gloss over it. The standard both sides game-plan. Mix in some shit about rhetoric. And have them put abortion on the top of the lizt. That might keep the lessers distracted.
Staffer 5: On it sir. Related, there is still that outlaw we need to Roundup.
CK: Jesus! I thought she was turning to the dark side!!
Staffer 5: Uh, sir. Not yet. We gave her time off to see if she comes to her senses. Maybe a few more cocktail parties will do it. In the meantime, the rest of the gang has been following the script.
CK: Keep at it. I have money riding on this with Bloomberg. What about the agitators?
Staffer 5: Sir…polling shows they aren’t working. Sir, they aren’t working!
CK: Dammit, I know they aren’t working! Who would hire those buttfucks?
Staffer 5: Sorry sir. I meant that their narratives aren’t working.
CK: Shit. It was bound to happen. Dammit, phone call. They may have found that toy sled. I have to take this. Dismissed.
I originally read that as “what about the alligators” and it still made sense, lol
Take away taxpayer-funded emergency care for drug overdose patients. Let’s calc the numbers then.
Prohibition makes drug use much more dangerous by creating a black market in which quality and purity are highly variable and unpredictable, and efforts to enforce prohibition increase those hazards.
Gosh. For realsies? You mean gun control doesn’t work on people who are intent on doing crime and destruction regardless of the laws on the books? Crimey’s gon’ crime, that what you’re telling me? Gosh, tell me more Jakey jakey news is fakey.
Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Is AT defending drugs?”
Nope. Ain’t no 2A for the junkies. For the record, I also don’t care even slightly about women who die in back alley abortions. You want the black market, then take your risks.
Your recreational drug use SHOULD come with a certain risk of death. As should your elective abortion. It’s a natural consequence. You whining that it should be mitigated, if not eliminated, is your self-god rebellion against reality.
But here’s the dirty little secret Jakey – reality always wins.
Hey Jake, I want to rob a bank. It’s wrong, and it’s dangerous, and because of that we’ve declared it criminal. But gosh darn it Jake, I’m GOING to do it and nothing you can say or do will stop me – so how are you going to make that safe for me?
You stupid derp leftist government stooge.
Hi AT
Your recreational drug use SHOULD come with a certain risk of death
Just checking… My cousin, died age 30; my friend from childhood, died age 43; my friend’s son, died age 20; all of opioid overdoses within the past 10 years. Can you tell me to my (virtual) face it’s good they’re dead?
I will.
No offense, dude, but they fucked up. Their bad decision, their responsibility, they paid the price. Awful as it is.
Had a friend’s sister OD a decade back. It sucked, but we were all helpless to stop it. She ignored her family. They found her in a house with two others, all three had died a few days before, OD on whatever the fuck it was she was taking.
It’s not safe. And it isn’t my responsibility to make it safe. if someone’s going to be dosing themselves, they’re the ones taking the chances.
I will.
OK. Earn my respect. Type the words. “It’s good those family members and friends of yours are dead.”
Because right now, you’ve only said that it’s their responsibility that they’re dead. I agree with this, but it’s still sad and I’d prefer it was prevented. Despite their decisions, I would have Narcan’ed them if I was able.
And it isn’t my responsibility to make it safe.
I agree here also, but I’d add, it’s also not your responsibility make it more dangerous which is what prohibition does.
OK. Earn my respect. Type the words. “It’s good those family members and friends of yours are dead.”
They are no longer a burden to you or the rest of society. And you know deep down inside they were a burden, and would be even if drugs were legal.
They 2 younger were burdens to their parents. They’d gladly take that rather than the situation they live with now.
My kids are a burden to me. I still prefer them alive.
How the hell does that earn your respect?
If repeating words you seem to have inserted into someone else’s post does that, I don’t want your respect.
But someone doing something abjectly stupid, that carries great risk and great cost, and dying being good? Well, they become an object lesson for all of the other stupid fucks out there who might think “Boy, heroin, man, that looks like fun!” or whatever it is that gets people dabbling in these substances.
No matter what people say, drug use is not without a price to people OTHER than the user. The legions of irrational homeless living in the streets, taking over public spaces, stealing, making a huge mess everywhere they go, and making it so others cannot use public spaces, streets, parks, those are all just the very visible example.
I can bitch all day about the problems of prohibition, but the “it makes it more dangerous” aspect is not an argument that will sway me. The drug war is wrong because it is wrong, but your arguments are purely emotional and, frankly, beside the point. Don’t care. Play stupid game, win stupid prizes.
I have read his screeds before.
AT has this tortured logic where an individual’s choice of recreational intoxicants is a legal crime in and of itself, because it hurts society. (A 8D chess level libertarian argument). And while he uses the most dangerous drugs as an example, believe me, he means pretty much anything he doesn’t personally enjoy himself. Even things that are legal. They’re not only a potential individual spiritual hazard (true enough), they are a societal legal hazard that should be re-criminalized.
This is how he sidesteps certain messy logical conflicts, like the government creates and inflates the black markets, or how he supports abrogating*actual*individual responsibility while claiming hies all about individual responsibility , etc.
It also explains why he can compare recreational drug use to bank robbery and thinks it makes sense.
I agree with your assessment. And yet, I have respect for AT (or at least his online persona) for several reasons.
For 1 thing, when treated with respect, he returns that respect.
He takes time both understand opposing arguments and thoroughly explain his own arguments when questioned.
If I take him at his word, he puts his money where his mouth is. He means what he says and he lives by it.
He comes here to say things unpopular with the commentariat and sticks to his arguments and principles in the face of overwhelming opposition, a position I often find myself in. Actually, I seek it out on purpose and I suspect AT does too.
So he has my respect even though I rarely ever agree with his opinions or logic.
Thanks Brix, kind words. They’re much appreciated. Know that I regard you highly as well.
I really mean that too, because this is the kind of discourse our hyperpartisan nation has dumpstered in favor of vitriol and reflexive hatred towards that with which they disagree. The fact is that two reasonable people – regardless of how much they vehemently disagree – should be able to discuss that disagreement rationally and without contempt for each other for disagreeing.
That’s sorely lacking in this nation – if not the Western World as a whole – and it’s to its detriment and downfall.
I had a friend in college like you. We’d just go at it in certain classes. And then when they were over, we’d go have a beer. I remember a girl asking once, “How can you two be friends?” My buddy answered before I could, “How boring would it be if we all agreed with each other on everything?”
A sage lesson so many have forgotten in the social media era, it seems.
AT has this tortured logic where an individual’s choice of recreational intoxicants is a legal crime in and of itself, because it hurts society.
That’s not exactly how I’d phrase it, but let’s run with that argument all the same.
Answer me this: is harming society something to be encouraged, or discouraged? As a people, who make up said society, do we want to support things that are beneficial to us on a social level, or destructive?
Because what you seem to forget is that social harm inevitably harms people on the individual level. And drug abuse is a perfect illustration of it. Think about all those addicts and derelicts who have formed tent cities and who spend their days shambling about the sidewalks. Think about their garbage. Think about the needles they leave behind, or the feces they literally dump on the sidewalk. Think about the increases of crime, and the sharp decrease in people’s confidence in public safety.
Now think about what that does to the local businesses in that area. And as those businesses start to close and/or relocate elsewhere, think about the non-addled citizens in that area who have a greater burden to bear until ultimately they relocate as well. And then what’s left?
Decay, ruin, and images near-indistinguishable from a zombie film.
Was the social harm, and ultimately individual harm caused by drug use worth our tolerating it?
And while he uses the most dangerous drugs as an example, believe me, he means pretty much anything he doesn’t personally enjoy himself.
No, what I mean is that I don’t draw specious distinctions between recreational drug use for the singular purpose of trying to rationalize one type as “more acceptable” over another. Your predictable counterargument would then be the lazy “buh alcohol and tobacco” trope – which I’ve already debunked more times than I care to count.
like the government creates and inflates the black markets
Sometimes the markets for certain things should be black. This prevents accessibility and discourages that market simply by virtue of making something too difficult/costly to be worth the effort.
And let’s face it, this isn’t a real argument in the first place. Child sex trafficking is also a black market. We know the market exists, and we know there’s people who shop it. But that doesn’t mean that we should somehow legitimize the market for that product. I mean, to what end? To stick it to the government? Because the worst elements of society are going to do it one way or another?
This is why I included the back-alley abortion mention. Yea, OK, so there are some folks out there who so badly want to kill their baby that they’ll risk a black market to get it. By why pander to that crowd? Why pretend like what they want is a legitimate thing that should be easily accessible? “They’re going to do it anyway,” doesn’t legitimize it, and isn’t an argument.
or how he supports abrogating*actual*individual responsibility while claiming hies all about individual responsibility
The problem is when the individuals prove – through aggregate harm – that they can’t be responsible with something. Sure, some might be able to, but then bad actors have a way of ruining things for everyone. And in the case of recreational drug users, the negative effect the bad actors have far outweighs whatever positive effect you think the “responsible” ones have.
It’s a numbers game on a social scale, and recreational drug use just doesn’t have the cost/benefit analysis on its side.
Not enough government was the cause of death for each?
No. Closer to the opposite. Too much government contributed to each death.
Government made them take these drugs? Interesting.
No. Government prohibition made those drugs more dangerous than they’d be under a free market.
They would have still drugged themselves to death.
Because anyone who’s ever abused opiates has died from it.
That explains why the great rock and jazz musicians all died before they got great.
No musician has died from drugs.
They would have still drugged themselves to death.
Your confidence reveals your lack knowledge or seriousness about this. It’s possible that all, some, or none of them would have died under a legal regime, but we can never know this. What we can know with 100% confidence is that all of them did die under prohibition.
And it’s possible more people would die in a legal setting, we will never know this either.
True, but we can make better predictions of rates and populations with different policies than we can with individuals.
Possibly. I recall opioids under free markets were still harmful. Dunno. Yes, government should get out of all aspects of healthcare except enforcing contracts between a patient and their doctor-insurance agent. And especially taking from productive people to provide to free riders/lazy layabouts.
I think it’s a matter of standardizing quality and dosages. Which may involve a bit of government. But yeah, opiates are always going to be potentially dangerous. Especially if you’re intent on self destruction.
This is contrary to your remarks above.
No it isn’t.
I think it’s a matter of standardizing quality and dosages. Which may involve a bit of government.
Simply allowing people to sue for fraud should suffice.
I think it’s a matter of standardizing quality and dosages.
So, what you’re effectively saying is that drug use is something that should be monitored by a licensed physician who knows what he’s doing and has a legitimate reason for doing so, and not self-administered at leisure for recreational purposes.
Agreed 100%.
Agreed on both. Opiates will always be dangerous, but as Beezard points out how prohibition adds to the danger, and government should be out of healthcare.
I would argue that you have created a false equivalence here- saying that something should carry a risk is not the same as saying it is a moral good that people fall prey to that risk.
I am sorry that you have been so personally affected by people overdosing. It sounds awful. It is one of the reasons I am morally opposed to recreational drug use- it destroys lives, and in doing so harms the loves of others.
Having said that- I am not convinced most drugs should be illegal (I am a religious fanatic who is morally opposed to alcohol, but I don’t advocate for Prohibition, after all). But I do think we are engaged in a fool’s errand in trying to both allow the use of inherently dangerous chemicals and prevent the negative consequences of that use.
I would argue that you have created a false equivalence here- saying that something should carry a risk is not the same as saying it is a moral good that people fall prey to that risk.
I can see why you say that, but AT and I have had exchanges going back a long time. In the past he argued that drugs should be intentionally poisoned to kill the users. I think I have accurately interpreted his opinion that using drugs is a moral failing and the death caused by those drugs is a good thing. So my post above was a challenge to him to clarify that.
…that drugs should be intentionally poisoned to kill the users.
That would be a completely wrong thing to do.
But that is exactly what our enemies are doing now.
No, of course not. It’s terrible, and I’m sorry for your loss.
That doesn’t mean their OD deaths weren’t 100% preventable/avoidable. If they had instead sat down to play Russian Roulette, I mean – someone’s going to get the one in the chamber.
It’s why you don’t play games like that in the first place.
The death isn’t a good thing per se, Brix. It’s just, as I said, a natural consequence of poor decision making and behavior. Like waving around a golf club in a thunderstorm. We openly mock people who die due to their own willful stupidity, give them a tongue-in-cheek award for it even.
Recreational drug overdoses – every single one of them – are precisely that. A Darwin Award winner.
Just when I think I understand you…
My apologies again for making wrong assumptions about your opinions.
Would you make skydiving illegal? What about foods that are pretty bad for you? Should fast food be illegal? Should people be locked up for smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol?
All of those involve poor decision making, to varying degrees.
None of those, as well as drugs, should be illegal, in my opinion, as you own your body. We also shouldn’t have a system that taxpayers cover the cost of one’s poor decisions. I can understand the argument that once we get rid of all of these taxpayer-funded programs that bail people out for their bad decisions, we can then legalize drugs. I disagree with that argument, and would legalize drugs if I were emperor, but I understand the reasoning. I don’t understand the reasoning of what I take to be your argument, though: drugs are harmful and can be a net detriment to society, so they should be banned, but other harmful things, like alcohol and obesity should remain legal.
I don’t understand your point of view that your tossed salad of completely different things should be treated as identical by public policy.
I don’t think I was unclear, but I’ll try to simplify it for you then.
I addressed the question to AT, as, from what I understand, his position is that drugs are a net harm to society, so the libertarian argument that you own your body is moot, as you’re harming yourself AND society when you do drugs, and that is why they should remain illegal. Then, if your (AT’s) standard for illegality should also include other things that are or could be harmful to you and society, such as alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, etc. Obesity is a big problem in this country, so shouldn’t we ban fast food restaurants and other purveyors of food that cause obesity? I wanted to see if he applied his standard (if I even have his standard correct) consistently. And if he did apply it consistently and favored government bans on McDonald’s, Marlboro, and Smirnoff, how far from liberty he would be taking us, in favor of a nanny state.
All of those involve poor decision making, to varying degrees.
Yea, but without the glaringly destructive consequences that recreational drug use visibly creates.
I’ve never – ever – seen hordes of drunks or fatties set up camp in an area and destroy its commercial feasibility, property values, and sense of public safety. Have you?
Y’know what I always find funny? Check out the label on a beer, or watch an alcohol commercial. They always say the words, “Please drink responsibly.” I think it’s weird they do that, because by and large people DO drink responsibly. So why admonish them? The message is targeted at people who are going to ignore it. (Like gun control.)
The problem is that recreational drug users don’t do it responsibly. And even if you wanted to make the argument purely by the numbers – let’s say speculatively that for every 10 users, 7 are just chillin’ and having fun and 3 are destructive abusers – the problem is that’s not the only weight on the scale.
Yea, 7 to 3 would tip the scale in favor of drug legalization. BUT, when you add the weight that measures destructiveness – those 3 flip the scale the other way. Imagine a scale with seven 1oz units on one side, and three on the other. Then put a feather on the seven side, and drop a brick on the other.
The same is not true for alcohol. The same is not true for fatty foods. The same isn’t even true for firearms.
But with drugs, it absolutely is. Sorry, but that’s the reality of it.
Okay, in that case take away ANY care for lung cancer, most of which is self-inflicted by nicotine addicts. That would actually save Medicare some money.
/s
Again, look at the words that I said: Your recreational drug use SHOULD come with a certain risk of death. As should your elective abortion. It’s a natural consequence. You whining that it should be mitigated, if not eliminated, is your self-god rebellion against reality.
Why would you think I’d think any different for nicotine users who develop lung cancer? Why would you think I’d not consider them the architects of their own demise the same way I do drug users?
But your argument is based on a very false premise to begin with. To answer you directly, I don’t have a problem with what you said. You said it sarcastically, as if a notion such as “take away ANY care for lung cancer” is ludicrous on its face.
But it’s not.
Your problem is that your argument necessarily implies that all sick people deserve treatment/care as a matter of right. That is extremely false. They flat out do not.
If you get lung (or any other) cancer, you SHOULD be personally responsible for the cost of treatment. And if you can’t afford it, then you don’t get said treatment.
That’s how health care is supposed to work in the first place. The argument shouldn’t be to “save Medicare some money.” The correct argument is: Medicare is not a thing that should exist at all.
And if a nicotine addict develops lung cancer, and can’t afford his own treatment? Yea, that’s his problem.
Why create a market via prohibitionist policies that encourages and enriches criminal predators in the exploitation of the weak in our society?
You would prefer that the corner drug store exploit them?
Does the corner liquor store exploit raging alcoholics?
Yes.
So we should close corner liquor stores?
Sarc hardest hit
But a boon for local mouthwash sales!
Don’t forget antifreeze and hairspray.
No, because that would infringe upon the liberty of the vast majority of their customers who use alcoholic beverages moderately and responsibly. There is no such thing as moderate and responsible use of heroin, fentanyl, or crystal meth. This illustrates the meaninglessness of the term “drugs” in this context–there’s no such thing as “drugs”. The term lumps together a wide array of substances and behaviors that are very different from each other and ought to be treated differently.
There is no such thing as moderate and responsible use of heroin, fentanyl, or crystal meth.
I bet you know people who use those drugs responsibly, but because it’s illegal they keep it to themselves.
I guess you’ve never cleaned your entire house and organized your pantry on Adderall.
There are more functional uses for speed and pain killers than alcohol ever had (other than getting ugly people laid). It’s one of the most stupid, dangerous, violence inducing drugs in existence.
Responsibility lies in the user, not the drug.
As a clinical mental health counselor I have worked with professionals who have used licit and illicit opiates and/or stimulants for decades. Not a lifestyle I would suggest but certainly one that widely exists. And as already pointed out, such individuals generally don’t casually share such details with others.
Actually heroin is a very good painkiller for post surgical pain. I know an anestheiologist who prescribed in when practicing in Britain where it is a legal prescription drug, similar to cocaine in the US.
Anywhere that dose and purity can be more accurately determined than that which occurs on the black market.
To kill people. This was explained in Atlas Shrugged and led to the YAF, Birchers, Silvershirts, Klan, American Nazi Party, Eugenicists, Race-Suicide cranks and Tea Party search for some sort of Germanic alternative faking free enterprise while skirting values and distinctions between right and wrong. The Jesus Caucus outhouse in what was one the LP is a manifestation of that.
But they think it is “plausible” that broader distribution of the opioid antagonist naloxone, which quickly reverses fentanyl and heroin overdoses, has played a role.
So, not necessarily actually fewer overdoses at all, just fewer overdoses that killed people.
The idea of a life of repeatedly *nearly* killing themselves out of desperation as clearly better than the alternative is an interesting one.
But then, of course, we aren’t hearing from Reason Magazine (who lied to us from 2020 to 2022) and the FBI (who lied to us for pretty much their whole existence but especially 2020 to 2022) and the CDC (same) that crime is down, overdoses are down, and jobs are up because of the ongoing desperation, but because of the Joy. The Joy of being unburdened by what has been and being an optimistic people who have dreams and ambitions and aspirations by character.
Ding ding ding
We are under attack by hostile foreign powers using chemical weapons. We have long used the term “drug war”, but we only meant law enforcement. Today, we are in an actual Drug War being waged against us but we aren’t fighting back.
Nobody who argues for full legalization of dangerous narcotics has ever been able to paint me a picture of what that would look like. It’s always
Legalization
?
Safe drug use
What happens the day after we legalize everything? Do you imagine heroin and fentanyl hanging on a hook in RiteAid next to the ibuprofen? That’s absurd. Never gonna happen.
I’ve definitely massively down shifted in how fast I’d want any of this to happen, after seeing what happens when neo-commies take control of the “solutions”. “ Go ahead and shit and die in the streets and on those peoples property. We’ll help you!”.
But I still think we should be using actual individual freedom as a horizon line. At some point you can’t talk all this freedom shit and still want to play daddy in this one sector of our lives. Which in the case of opiates doesn’t just involve getting high, it involves involves actual pain management for everybody.
The obvious counter point is said individuals need to take responsibility for their own decisions. And right now, our entire society and legal system seems hell bent on saving individuals from having to do that. And it causes massive problems. The rehabilitation industry and the disease model of addiction that kisses junkies asses for their own weaknesses is especially toxic to any long term solutions on this matter.
As for a new type of drug war. I’m all for shutting down the borders but I expect it to work as well on curbing fentanyl as 100 years of the previous drug war has on curbing anything else.
We’ve never had a drug war. We’ve only had drug law enforcement. At this point, we need an actual war against the hostile foreign powers attacking us with narcotics.
So what was all that military intervention in Panama and Colombia in the early 90s about?
Turf battles.
But THIS drug war will be different!
I don’t believe if it will actually happen, but it would be different if attempted.
If all drugs were made legal, would you rush out to the store to buy some? No? Then why do you assume other people would?
Everyone knows other people are weak, but they are not.
When one’s own moral, ethical, and behavioral Superiority over others is assumed, a LOT else logically follows! To most certainly include “setting policies” for the lesser beings, and micro-managing their lives! Best of all, we Superior Beings get to PUNISH the lesser mortals! A spanking! A spanking! Asspanking we a go-go!
All drugs WERE legal before 1905, when China boycotted US trade to make us police the planet and wage World Wars to ban enjoyables. Nearly all morphine overdoses from that time were deliberate suicides by the less painful poison. There were medical and other accidents one expects from any poison. But then only hemp, peyote and mushrooms were known alternatives. Mescaline was only isolated in 1927 and Republicans promptly banned that less-toxic alternative to alcohol, tobacco and opiates.
I like how American policies are responsible for the Global War on Drugs, yet China declared Opium illegal in the 1700s… So the problem IS China… I knew it…
I would. I’d scarf up some pharmaceutical quality mdma, coke, heroin, and maybe a few other goodies and stash them away in the safe for future use in the hope I would not blow an aorta upon use.
If Americans weren’t so into getting high the hostile foreign powers wouldn’t be causing trouble. Mexico doesn’t have much of an addiction problem and Mexicans blame the US for empowering the cartels that they all hate. As Walt Kelly famously wrote, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
This is wisdom, charliehall, and thank you!
(For Mexico, subsititute all of Latin America, or at the very, very least, certainly most of Central America. American thirst for ILLEGAL drugs has turned it into a war zone. Note that American thirst for booze, coffee, and tobacco has NOT turned it into a war zone.)
Superman could be taking care of a LOT of all of theses drug-related problems!!!
But Superman is held in chains, in a torture chamber, by the BAD guys (by who else butt USA feds AKA Government Almighty?).
https://reason.com/2024/09/15/the-psychedelic-emancipator-of-kentucky/ … Ibogaine!!! Set Superman free!!! NOW!!!
Isn’t this the same drug researcher who, in a previous post, called the reduction in deaths the “most significant public health outcome“ in history, but couldn’t identify the public health initiative that caused the outcome?
Of course, it couldn’t possibly be that drug users have become more careful and selective, or that the general availability of Anti opioid overdose medication and its use by the public could’ve caused this Reduction in fatalities. Nothing good ever happens unless it’s caused by the government…
Or the drug users are dying off?
Schaißt here shares the belief in initiation of deadly force common to parasites. When all drugs were legal NO problem existed other than alcohol and tobacco. Laudanum was used for severe pain as insulin is used for diabetes, and Ryno Hay Fever cocaine was OTC at drugstores. The Dutch East Indies government shut down opium régies in Java and Sumatra and switched to coca as the less toxic and non-habit-forming alternative able to actually relieve dangerous opiate side effects. After the Opium Wars, zealots targeted that too for deadly coercion. If it’s safe, ban it! That’s the parasitical recipe for sustaining a deadly black market.
(Wrong spot)
The demand for drug policy exceeds the supply.
The stresses imposed by superstitious laws against trade and production exceeds the structural strength of the economy during mystical Administrations. The market collapses are followed by liquidity crises, recessions and unemployment, if not war.
Pumping more and more resources into FAILURE for over a century.
Yep; Sounds like every other ‘Government’ program for your own safety.
Funny; I don’t remember the beginning of this nation being founded on Government programs trying to save people from themselves. (tyrannical). Think it went something like “ensuring Liberty and Justice for all” or something.
Suggesting that narcotics addicts are exercising “liberty” is ignorant. Getting off of addicting drugs almost always starts with coercive intervention.
Why should the rest of us give up our liberty because some selfish prick won’t stop getting high?
Actually, cold turkey works about as good as any method. Unless you’re talking alcohol or benzos. Or numerous prescribed drugs.
How’s anyone else being “addicted to drugs” an infringement on your Liberty?
It’s not. I’m arguing against Vernon. I used drugs for decades and didn’t fuck everything up.
I’m a tax paying home owner who’s happily married and works 6 days a week. It’s nobody’s fucking business.
I quit most things because most drugs have built in factors that make constant abuse untenable or undesirable. So long as you put your quality of life above being completely fucked up all the time, It’s a decision.
Why do you care if your neighbor is addicted to drugs? You know as well as I know if the welfare-state wasn’t subsidizing drug addiction (incompetency & uselessness) it really wouldn’t be an issue.
Addicts without a ‘pity poor me’ welfare-state would end up in prison anyways were coercive intervention is suppose to happen.
A big part of the nanny-state has a lot to do with preemptive strikes against “what might happen” instead of what “has happened”.
“For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”—Galatians 5:14
Sullum’s previous article linked OD stats for States. Of the States that repealed weed prohibition, ALL did so after the Georgie Bush christianofascist asset-forfeiture Crash wrecked the economy in 2008. Three states were quick on the uptake; the other 14 repealed prohibition after the Libertarian candidate’s 4.3M spoiler votes reshuffled 127 electoral vote outcomes in 13 States. That cost prohibitionist Hillary the election. Pent up demand is saving lives while the looters scrabble to nullify the safer drug market now freed up. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2024/09/20/legalize-non-toxic-cannabis/
The reduction in deaths is the direct result of reduction in government coercion by initiation of deadly force. People cut back on sniffing glue, gasoline and gin. The obverse was the sudden increase in heroin addiction when the USA banned beer, wine and booze, then mescaline. Alternatives enable choice, and the anti-choice party is killing people with coercion in drugs just as it increases deaths in childbed by forcing doctors to let women die. Anti-choice is anti-trade and anti-life. Freedom is freedom from coercion.
Here’s what it looked like when Seattle said “We’re not doing that bummer head trip drug war anymore man… it’s harm reduction from hereon out!”
The problem is we are painted into a corner. If we do away with attempts to suppress the drug trade, or even legalize drug manufacturing/distribution/possession, the same violent people making and selling the drugs today (specifically the Mexican cartels) will be the same people making and selling those drugs tomorrow.
Unless we kill them.
I disagree. When Prohibition (alcohol) ended, the suppliers of alcohol shifted away from the gangsters and bathtub distilleries.
By far the most dangerous recreational drug is nicotine. But it was socially acceptable for many years. Alcohol still is socially acceptable. The war on drugs is a culture war not a war to help people.
The war on drugs is about controlling people, supporting legal drug makers that donate to campaigns, and continuing the law enforcement & judicial industrial complex.
LMAO… Yeah; I can’t even count the number of ‘nicotine’ over-doses I see in the emergency room. Oh wait.
U.R.F.O.S. (on everything)