It's naive to think we could make "super heroin" and it would stay restricted to safe, controlled medical environments. I'm not convinced the good it does in certain cases outweighs the enormous harm it's also responsible for.
While there was a little bit of questionable marketing around some forms of fentanyl it was mostly around for the ride - the real blockbuster drugs leading to the medical establishment opioid crisis were hydrocodone, oxycodone and tramadol. Making fentanyl a scapegoat is misplaced.
The opioid epidemic did not need a "super heroin".
> It's naive to think we could make "super heroin" and it would stay restricted to safe, controlled medical environments
It's naive to think organized crime cartels would not have figured it out anyway.
There's good reason for my harsh criticism, and I don't think most people truly realize how bad the situation is.
No. I'm saying, as someone that understands the nuances better than you that, focusing on the fentanyl statistic is misleading.
> It alone is responsible for what is quickly becoming the deadliest drug epidemic of all time.
No it is not "alone" responsible. All the other stuff: oxy, hydro, tramadol, heroin, morphine is more responsible for the current mess. People didn't routinely end up with opioid addictions due to fentanyl as much as all these other medications (and illicit heroin, not all addictions are the doing of big pharma)
The fact that they are now seeking out illegal suppliers and that invariably these end up being fentanyl based due to the convenience for that organized criminal enterprise is why fentanyl shows up so much.
It's not the root cause though. And the forces that make it appealing in the illegal market would be present regardless of its legal status as a prescription medication.