I never even heard of nitazenes until last month. They are a type of synthetic opioids called isotonitazenes, or ISOs, that have been detected in illegal street drugs. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), ISOs are “being mixed into and marketed as other drugs to make drugs more potent and cheaper to produce.”
Ten nitazenes, also called benzimidazole-opioids, are schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—like marijuana—with “a high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use,” and “a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.”
Nitazenes are also much more potent than heroin and morphine and are said to be even more potent and deadly than the current boogeyman of the month, fentanyl.
But I still think we should legalize nitazenes.
Yes, I know that there are over 100,000 drug overdose deaths every year in the United States. Yes, I know that synthetic opioids were involved in the vast majority of overdose deaths. Yes, I know that many of these overdose victims did not know that they were ingesting a potentially lethal drug. Yes, I know that drug overdoses are a leading cause of death among young Americans ages 18–45. Yes, I know that there are thousands of grieving parents across the country who have lost a child due to a drug overdose.
But I still must say, legalize nitazenes.
First of all, a disclaimer. I don’t want to use nitazenes or any other synthetic opioid. I don’t want to use them by themselves or mixed with some other drug. I don’t recommend that anyone else use them, either. I wish that no one would ever, willingly or unwillingly, take them.
Second, the Constitution is still in force. The federal government has been given no authority by the Constitution to have a drug schedule, a CSA, a DEA, an FDA, an Office of National Drug Control Policy, a national drug control strategy, a national survey on drug use and health, or a drug czar. The federal government has been given no authority to prohibit, regulate, or wage war on drugs. The federal government has been given no authority to monitor, control, or restrict the consumption, medical, or recreational habits of Americans. When the Progressives wanted the federal government to institute Prohibition, they realized that an amendment to the Constitution was needed. This is how we got the Eighteenth Amendment, which took effect on January 17, 1920, and was in force until it was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933. If drug warriors aren’t satisfied with the efforts of the states to curtail drug abuse and want the federal government to be involved, then let them petition the Congress to draw up a constitutional amendment and send it to the states for approval. This issue actually goes way beyond just illegal drugs, for the federal government has no authority whatsoever under the Constitution to ban any substance: not drugs, not moonshine, not hazard chemicals, not elephant ivory, not Cuban cigars.
Third, it is not the proper role of government to keep people from harming themselves. This was recognized even by President Ronald Reagan: “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” If the government can prohibit drug use in order to prevent a man from harming himself, then, to be consistent, the government should also prohibit people from using chainsaws or bungee jumping.
Fourth, restrictions on legal opioids increase the demand for illegal and stronger opioids. Because legal opioids are available only via a doctor’s prescription and doctors are under government pressure to limit the quantity and potency of what they prescribe, some patients may look to the black market for high-potency drugs to satisfy their demand for pain management. Increasing the supply of legal opioids gives people access to lower-potency and therefore safer opioids and eliminates the chances of consuming opioids laced with fentanyl or nitazenes.
Fifth, the drug war is responsible for the increase in drug overdoses from synthetic opioids. Although this sounds counterintuitive, it is nevertheless true. Drug prohibition tends to increase the potency of illegal drugs. This is because drug suppliers—who, above all things, want to stay out of jail—may produce smaller quantities of more potent drugs because it then becomes easier to avoid detection. Legalizing opioids would therefore save lives.
The libertarian position on nitazenes is the same as the libertarian position on any other drug—from fentanyl on down to marijuana:
There should be no laws at any level of government for any reason regarding the buying, selling, growing, processing, transporting, manufacturing, advertising, using, possessing, or “trafficking” of any drug for any reason. All drug laws should be repealed, all government agencies devoted to fighting the war on drugs should be abolished, and the war on drugs should be ended completely and immediately. There should be a free market in drugs without any government interference in the form of regulation, oversight, restrictions, taxing, rules, or licensing.
So again, I say, legalize nitazenes—along with fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and every other drug.
