this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
776 points (97.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

8685 readers
4027 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The real enemy is addiction

With Fentanyl it’s different. It can be lethal the first time you try it. We might say addiction is one problem but lack of regulation and predictability in dosage is also a problem. Much of what’s dangerous about illicit drugs is not knowing quite what you are getting.

Heroin addiction can also be immediate, so I’d say the mere availability of the drug is a problem. It’s not just that sometimes an addiction develops and then there’s a problem.

I agree with most of what you said, just not this one part. It’s an antiquated point of view from rosier times with less dangerous drugs on the street.

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Heroin can be lethal the first time you try it. People were dying of opioids because of heroin long before fentanyl was on the streets and people were dying from oxycontin too.

Does fentanyl kill more? Yes, because again I am not disagreeing that it is far more powerful, that there are scumbags who mislabel supply or purposely adulterate drugs to make them seem more potent, etc

I’d just argue that your point of view is a war on drugs bullshit take that only started to give a shit about the addiction crisis once vice and youtube dummies starting making fentanyl a buzzword. It’s overly myopic and ignores the systemic factors that drive people to use.

So you regulate supply. Then what? Fentanyl is already regulated. It still doesn’t address the fact that 95% of the people on the streets in Kensington are seen as utter trash and society is waiting for them to die. It still doesn’t address that someone on their way to that place has no real support if they don’t come from a rich family (and honestly even then it’s not great?)

I do absolutely agree with you that safe access to regulated drugs is absolutely necessary. If addicts could get pharmaceutical grade heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, etc it would ensure safe reliable dosing in a monitored site that could support overdose if it occurs (remember that overdoses are not inherently fatal), it would essentially completely disarm the cartels (unless they fully shift to avocados or whatever), and it would allow you to regularly connect with addicts to encourage treatment and connect with resources like housing and welfare

But whenever these programs get trialed (just the clean needle stuff, no way the dea lets the drug part happen) the conservatives go nuts and the libs let out their inner NIMBY conservative so they get their funding cut and often shut down, even when data supports their existence

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

addiction is never, ever immediate. dependency is only one part of addiction.

ragebutt is pretty on point here. you are correct though that the lethality of fentanyl is unique and does pose a significant problem in our society. i don't think ragebutt is giving that enough credit.