That's not really a counterargument. Sure, Purdue and other opiate pushers got people addicted, and tweaked distribution to get around regulation. Then governments freaked, and locked down prescription opiates. So addicts have turned to heroin. But they're naive about heroin, so they tend to fuck up and overdose. And then there's the problem that dealers boost unpredictably with Fentanyl. And about user violence, you don't want hungry junkies around. They will do whatever it takes.
Why not pull a Denmark, legalize and give at no cost heroin to addicts, and get these people back to work? A junkie can be productive, despite an ongoing chemical addiction, whether it be meth, heroin, alcohol or whatever else, many middle class and upper class folks live productive lives despite these addictions.
Why can't we bring these people back into being productive, economically net positive members of society, and deal with their addictions with compassion, as any reasonable human being & the Catholic Church preaches?
I've employed many addicts before, if they have a choice of smashing windows all night to maybe get $100 worth of shit they'll fence for $60, or a gig that'll pay them $110 to pull cabling & set up hardware for 8 hours, they will pick the latter every time. Outside of work hours, don't expect them to be contactable, and watch your shit well, but beyond that this group of humans can be a net positive for our society despite the chemical dependency issues they have.
I think Denmark decriminalized heroin, but didn't legalize it. The distinction being that an addict is no longer a criminal, so they can get treatment without fear.
But the original access helps feed the epidemic. You don't become an addict until you do, right?
Tobacco is as addictive as heroin[0], think about how much of a public health issue smoking has been. Do you think it would be that if tobacco was illegal? I could imagine making heroin legal would create many more addicts.
One of the core arguments for marijuana restriction is that it's not nearly as addictive as "hard" drugs. it's comparable to things like alcohol.
Access restriction seems like a good idea when a substance is so addictive that you develop lifelong dependence from it by default.
Tobacco is far more addictive than opiates. And health and societal impacts are far worse. With consistent and affordable supply, opiate addicts can lead otherwise normal lives. No worse than caffeine addicts, really. And if there's chronic pain that's otherwise untreatable, the fact that they're addicts is almost irrelevant.
