[aidenn0]

I think regardless of the details of legality, it is strong anecdotal evidence that dollars spent on treatment reduce OD deaths more than dollars spent on enforcement. It adds to a strong body of research that already points in that direction

[lmickh]

Yes, it appears to affirm that law enforcement is not the best bang for the buck. There has been plenty of work indicating that like you mentioned. That wasn't a "bold risk".

That is separate from saying that changing the legality of it impacts the usage though. There is not reason to take the result beyond what it indicates.

[toyg]

You cannot realistically get one without the other. Treatment often cannot be cold turkey, which means the addict will have to keep consuming (and hence carrying and buying) for a period; if that's illegal, treatment is not going to work. And no, methadone is not the same.

Taking Sweden as control, for example, they spend loads on health services and treatment; but without decriminalisation, their numbers are still terrible.

[usrusr]

Sure you can. Restrict illegality to use/possession outside of a treatment program. There already are many things pharmacists are not allowed to sell without a doctor's prescription, including strong opoids.

You would probably not want this kind of prescription to be signable by just any MD though, but that's another story.

[syshum]

>That is separate from saying that changing the legality of it impacts the usage though

You can not before treatment and for keeping it illegal.

These are mutually exclusive, as treatment for drug addiction has to be voluntary on the part of the user, and often time criminal convictions, and stress of legal issues are what drive people to use drugs.