Interesting data point that I saw. A century ago, heroin was freely available. In the 1960s it was illegal, but not heavily enforced. In 2010 it was illegal, and tremendous law enforcement effort was brought against it.
The percentage of the population addicted to heroin was roughly the same at all three points. The consequences for addicts was not. This demonstrates that banning a serious opioid produces no measurable effect other than having us spend a lot of money to create problems for addicts.
The problem with what the drug companies did here is not that they were producing dangerous substances (though they were), it is that they were getting doctors to prescribe them to be used in a way that was virtually guaranteed to create addiction on a large scale. Which is an argument for correct prescription policies, and not for banning the substances themselves.
I am sympathetic to your argument, but most people are not going to be willing to take you at your word unfortunately. do you have any sources you could link?
The percentage of the population addicted to heroin was roughly the same at all three points. The consequences for addicts was not. This demonstrates that banning a serious opioid produces no measurable effect other than having us spend a lot of money to create problems for addicts.
The problem with what the drug companies did here is not that they were producing dangerous substances (though they were), it is that they were getting doctors to prescribe them to be used in a way that was virtually guaranteed to create addiction on a large scale. Which is an argument for correct prescription policies, and not for banning the substances themselves.