Opioids Fentanyl aka dirty thirties euphoria

[chippermonk]

Amazing to think that the legal control of drugs only began in the 20th century. Before then anyone could buy morphine, cocaine, cannabis and, in specialist outlets, even mescaline and related compounds. Harm was limited to a tiny minority of users since competition ensured the price stayed down and the quality stayed up.

Criminalization is the major cause of harm for manifold reasons.

It would be interesting to know how people would respond to a full decrinalization. Obviously it would be safer if people then went back to safer formulations like opium, but would they? I've never done fentanyl, and H only once (with horrible sick consequences), but I know people complain about the high not being as good as H, or lasting as long, so I suppose in a free market people would not choose it. But still, how would it play out with all drugs, if people had access to all? Would they choose safer alternatives? I'm not so sure. Seems like some enterprising business person would always be looking for something with a competitive hook to it to get market control. As we all know, a really good high is pretty compelling, consequences be damned, though we also know that most people would probably be fairly moderate with their intake regardless. But there could be some really, really euphoric and damaging and strongly addictive things that could be invented (or have already been invented).
My preference would be for a pleasant mellow little legal opium den with soft cushions and nice music.

 

[dosesfromcinco]

But still, how would it play out with all drugs, if people had access to all?

As long as they are made available for a reasonable price that doesn't force people to look for cheaper alternatives, I believe that fentanyl and its analogues as well as tranq use would disappear very quickly. There would be no reason to. But like I said, not only is decriminalization important, but it also has to be provided at a price that won't cause users to have to look elsewhere.

 

[AlsoTapered]

I don't think the Mexicans ever saw fentanyl as their last throw of the dice. It was simply the only product whose production they could ramp up quickly to provide for that huge increase in market size caused by the DEA.

Even the nitazenes appear more accepted although people are still not totally happy with them, even when the makers worked out longer acting homologues.

 

[Betterworld1939]

Amazing to think that the legal control of drugs only began in the 20th century. Before then anyone could buy morphine, cocaine, cannabis and, in specialist outlets, even mescaline and related compounds. Harm was limited to a tiny minority of users since competition ensured the price stayed down and the quality stayed up.

Criminalization is the major cause of harm for manifold reasons.

In psychology or any field that studies human behavior it is common knowledge that to make something appealing to a human all one need do is forbid the substance. Sadly criminalizing drugs is more about money than any honest drive to help keep people safe. The same can be said regarding the drug and alcohol rehab industry. Efforts to use a more effective system are rejected due to the profits in repeated payment to A and D rehab facilities. In my opinion greed will destroy humanity.

 

[Betterworld1939]

As long as they are made available for a reasonable price that doesn't force people to look for cheaper alternatives, I believe that fentanyl and its analogues as well as tranq use would disappear very quickly. There would be no reason to. But like I said, not only is decriminalization important, but it also has to be provided at a price that won't cause users to have to look elsewhere.

Decriminalized drugs in Oregon only failed due to the unrealistic expectation that use would drop immediately. In countries where they have radically reduced drug abuse it took time. At first there was an uptick in drug abuse. Gradually the new ability to access drugs wore off and people used moderately or not at all.

 

[SealSlapper]

Geez, from everything that I've seen people say about fent, it must be about as boring and trashy as taking a high dose of benadryl (even though the effects are obviously very different). From everything that people have described about fent, it seems like a drug that only has negatives and no positives. What I mean by this is that typically almost every drug has its positive and its negative, like for example cocaine or heroin, the positives are that you feel a euphoric feeling that is so powerful that it makes you content with your life and makes all your problems go away (temporarily). But with fent, it seems like the only effect it has is addicting you and possibly amking you overdose and die without the part that makes drugs worth doing (you know like euphoria or interesting effects on perception, cognition and mood). After reading all of this, I don't think fent is worth doing even for the most extreme junkies, because it just might bore the hell out of them and disappoint them, but somehow addict them even with that. I guess fent is just a very confusing weird drug that is just never even worth considering lol.