I think they're actually worse than the cartels. Are the cartels more violent and scary? For sure. Do they pull off heinous crimes? Yeah.

But...

Do they have to, in order to stay in business? Yes. Did Purdue Pharma have to? Not in the slightest.

What I mean by that is that Purdue made all it's money at least somewhat legally. A doctor who took bribes from them and pushed Oxycontin knowing it wasn't actually as legit — as in "doesn't cause addiction", pushing the medication to pretty much whoever from teenagers to grandparents, unsuspecting people in need of medical advice — is arguably of poorer moral character than a dealer selling cocaine to people who know they're buying cocaine.

And what I mean by the cartels having no choice is that whilst I definitely don't agree with the violence, I can understand that without it, they'd have practically no control over the trade. If however, they were given the option of actually doing it legally, I think they might give up the violence. Or at least the trade would shift away from it, because it would mean that legit cocaine traders would have the justice system and law on their side. Currently it doesn't mean much in South-America I think, because the cartels are just so big, powerful and violent. But with time.

Responsible people should even be allowed to use those drugs. But like with alcohol, there should be products which aren't just as pure as they can get. Like I compared earlier, buprenorphin is to hard cider as fentanyl is to moonshine.

It's very different having a few beers which are 5% alc than downing a glass of moonshine. Same with so called "hard drugs". I wouldn't fuck with opiates too much, but with the proper regulation, I think even those should be allowed, and if they were, they'd eat the legal market of poisons away. Ask yourself, when's the last time you had a chance to buy illegally made alcohol? It's not too often that that happens. But illegally made class A drugs? Can get them about anywhere in the world.

And especially for drugs like cocaine, milder versions would be fantastic, as people could still have plenty, just wouldn't get as affected. Like how you wouldnt' really be able to kill yourself by drinking 4% beer. It's just incredibly hard to get an alcohol poisoning from that because how mild it is. But with wine, it's possible yet unlikely, but with something like 40% vodka/whisky/rum, it's almost probable if you don't know how much you should drink and you're a teenager or something and with moonshine it's almost inevitable if you actually force yourself to drink the stuff.

So for cocaine I'd say something which is perhaps a bit stronger than just coca leaves, or equivalent, but nowhere near pure face-numbing cocaine.

Bring back real Coke! Original recipe! (Coca-Cola Company is btw the largest legal producer of cocaine in the world, they still make it during the process but just sell it off to... 'pharmaceutical companies', or that's what I've heard.)

edit sorry for the essay I just saw your reply after taking a half an ambien so I rambled a bit

I'm actually pretty pissed off that people are trying to take fentanyl off the market completely. It needs to be a highly controlled substance but to take it away from the burn ICUs and hospice units is wildly inhumane.

Just compare the US to literally everywhere else in the developed world and try saying again blaming the Sacklers is "a copout".

to use something because we WANT to.

That's addiction. Addiction and dependence are two different things. I've used literally all the drugs there are and never had a proper problems with any of them. Abused a few on rare occasion but never anything too problematic.

Regulation is key to controlling what addicts are allowed.

Thats why it's good that the liquor store doesn't sell you a gallon of vodka when you've been drunk for a week and can't stand on your feet.

Pick up the kids cook dinner and do it all again. Just do subsist and breed the next gen of sheep to be sheared. THATS who you blame.

That's LITERALLY who the Sacklers are blaming, not me.

"We have to hammer on the abusers in every way possible. They are the culprits and the problem. They are recklessly criminals." - Richard Sackler in his deposition.

I don't blame the abusers. I blame the system which allows people like the Sacklers to pull shit like this. None of this shit is going away before all drugs are legalised in a properly regulated way.

It might be more prevalent with fentanyl but it's not unique to it, I remember seeing the fold happening decades before fentanyl was around. I do think it is unique to opioids though, there's a similar thing that can happen with dissociates but it's got a different character to the movement and poses.

I really do. It's terrible. I acknowledge that there is a public nuisance and safety aspect that they bring to the community because of addiction and why people on the other side get frustrated by it, but nobody goes out in life and thinks "I'll be a homeless drug addict, that's the way to live". It's a product of multiple factors, poverty, etc. And it's absolutely terrible to try and get clean off substances, especially when you have no home to go to when you're done.

This is what happens when you have conservative governments. They're absolutely fine letting these poor people rot.

It sounds like you think these people are homeless because they are addicts, but it is the other way around. Taking fent or even becoming addicted won't turn you into a homeless person living in hell.