[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.