Twenty-One Debunked does not take an official position on hard drugs (i.e. illicit drugs other than cannabis and some psychedelics) or the question of their legalization, but we generally lean more towards the decriminalization and harm reduction side of the spectrum as opposed to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs. There is a lot of nuance that tends to get glossed over in debates that are, more often than not, typically dominated by hysterics.
Reactionaries have lately been giving some red-hot takes about the supposed perils of decriminalization and harm reduction, and often pointing fingers at Oregon for their decriminalization policy causing or exacerbating homelessness, crime, and overdose deaths. However, such hot takes are typically completely devoid of nuance, and thus conflate correlation with causation. Such nuances include the role of super-deadly fentanyl and its variation over time and geography, the role of the pandemic and lockdowns and their aftermath, the still-growing housing crisis, the inherent pitfalls of forced treatment, and so on. Better articles about such nuances can be found here and here, for starters.
Those who have the GALL to oppose basic and increasingly necessary lifesaving harm reduction measures like making naloxone (Narcan) and fentanyl test strips readily available are, to put it mildly, murderously stupid. Fentanyl often gets mixed into other drugs and can make the drug supply much deadlier than it would otherwise be. While treatment and recovery are no doubt important goals, we also still need to meet people where they are as well.
Of course, the reactionaries do get one thing partially right, as a stopped clock always does twice a day. There has been a general breakdown of law and order in most major North American cities in recent years due to a combination of general policy changes, anti-police sentiment, catch and release, political ideology, political correctness, and perhaps even deliberate chaos manufacture by various agents provocateur. Of course, they should shut down and clear out the sprawling homeless encampments on the city streets and sidewalks and the open-air drug scenes that all too often go along with them. End catch and release. Re-criminalize theft. Crack down on violence of all kinds. Bring back "focused deterrence" policing, and take the classic "broken windows" theory literally. All of these things are really just common sense, and none of them require ending harm reduction or reversing Oregon's decriminalization of simple possession of small amounts of illicit drugs.
In other words, simply enforce existing laws, and repeal bad or counterproductive ones. But please, do it ethically, and don't let it be a springboard for an illiberal reactionary agenda. If you feel the urge to show "tough love", look to Portugal or Alberta, not the current or historical drug warrior nations.
That said, we should always keep in mind that hard drugs called "hard" for a reason, as they are a different beast from alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis. They may not be quite a million miles away from the latter ones, but they clearly don't belong in the same category either. While illiberal drug policy clearly makes them much more dangerous than they have to be, they are also pretty inherently dangerous, deadly, and highly addictive in their own right as well regardless. This is especially true for opioids in particular, as there is really no such thing as a truly safe opioid. And we have also long known that "speed kills" and "meth is death". And yet, unfortunately these things are still not going anywhere either. Policymakers need to handle these things with great care as they should with any wicked problem. And consumers would be wise to avoid these substances like the plague, especially in the age of fentanyl.
As for the perennial wicked problem of homelessness, the housing crisis still needs to be solved before there is any hope of ending it for good. Artificial scarcity of housing needs to end, yesterday. And a recent study found that some form of UBI can also play a net positive role in the solution as well. Contrary to popular opinion, spending on "temptation goods" did not actually increase for such recipients. But good luck convincing the reactionaries of that!
