[nedwin]

If we had similar labelling for opiates, and distributed them in the same way we distribute booze or marijuana, surely they could be consumed more safely / appropriately. It seems the overdoses are not necessarily thrill seekers, but where the consumer doesn't know that they're taking a 5000x dose of morphine vs a 2.5x dose.

[hackuser]

Some things are too dangerous to distribute to consumers, no matter how they are labeled. Rather than repeat another discussion, see here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13847136

IMHO Marijuana isn't a relevant example for the parent's argument because it's not that dangerous; it still is distributed illegally except for a few states in the U.S. and parts of Europe, and (almost) nobody dies from marijuana overdoses.

[zkms]

> Some things are too dangerous to distribute to consumers, no matter how they are labeled.

opioids, especially the lower potency ones, do not meet this criteria at all. With tolerance, minimum effective dose increases, but so does the lethal dose. With pharmaceutical-grade opioids whose amounts are precisely metered, it's possible to live in that window.

It's only opioids under prohibition (aka, uncertain/varying doses and ingredients) that are inherently dangerous.

[dragonwriter]

> it still is distributed illegally except for a few states in the U.S.

There is no place in the US where traffic in marijuana is legal. The absence of state-level prohibition doesn't negate federal prohibition.

[lightedman]

Labeling for opiates does not matter as opiates in and of themselves are highly unpredictable. Example: The same batch of heroin - first dose could be fine. You come back several hours later, take 1/3 the dose you did before and you're dead from an OD.

That's how a couple of people in my rehab ministry died. Meth is more reliably predictable in comparison.