[heather45879]

Opiate crisis has less to do with people’s deaths and more about their addiction. The lengths they go to score another fix—stabbing people, robbing family members, selling themselves, etc.

It’s one thing to die from doing something stupid—it’s something else entirely to inflict pain and hardship on others.

[skissane]

> The lengths they go to score another fix—stabbing people, robbing family members, selling themselves, etc.

Would they do that if the government just gave them the drug they are addicted to for free? I don’t think so.

Is the real problem then the addiction, or the public policy context in which the addiction exists?

Of course, I wouldn’t want to be addicted to opioids, even if the government gave them to me for free, due to the potential negative long-term health consequences, and also potential negative impacts on cognitive functioning which may in turn limit one’s educational/career/life prospects. But I don’t know if being in such a scenario, even if millions were in such a scenario, would be a “crisis” in the same sense that opioids currently are

[haskellandchill]

Methadone/Suboxone are opioids prescribed for addiction and are often free through low income programs. If they were made more accessible would that solve the crisis? I don’t think so. It’s hard to get to the stage where you accept them as a necessary solution and are still in the dangerous area of trying to taper with unknown quality substances. High quality government heroin/pills and supervised usage would likely work but it’s clear the US would never consider that an option.

[skissane]

> Methadone/Suboxone are opioids prescribed for addiction and are often free through low income programs. If they were made more accessible would that solve the crisis? I don’t think so.

It is unsurprising that if a person is addicted to substance A, trying to substitute it with substance B, which has different properties (even if chemically related to A), doesn't always work. The real solution is to supply them, legally, in pharmaceutical quality, and for consumption under trained supervision (whenever safety demands that), the actual drug they are addicted to, not some substitute.

> High quality government heroin/pills and supervised usage would likely work but it’s clear the US would never consider that an option.

Okay, but if you aren't willing to seriously consider every possible solution to a crisis, that makes your stubbornness a major part of its cause. Government drug policy is a huge contributor to the crisis, and if the government isn't willing to make major changes to its drug policies, the crisis is likely to continue, and the government deserves every blame for that.

[ratboy666]

All I need to do is provide a heroin user fentanyl. We have tried heroin from the government, but the users want fentanyl. And, of course, the "black market" will not limit the amount the user gets.

Now, if you provide a "safe injection/usage site", that attracts the "black market" dealers. Seemingly, that also attracts other "undesired". Take, for example, the problem of homelessness where I live. It is actually difficult to remain unhoused. But, the care demands "no alcohol", "no drugs", "no violence". And a lot of customers do not like those terms and rather live on the street.

Government to blame? Do we not live in a democracy?