Looks like we've got a new demon in the drug war...

 

I'd never heard of nitazenes, but apparently they're a growing threat to illicit drug users.  They've even made an appearance in this part of North Texas, which is way out in the sticks compared to the big cities as far as drug dealers go.  It looks bad.

While politicians and policymakers amp up calls for more brutal crackdowns on fentanyl smuggling, a “new” class of synthetic opioids has been showing up in overdose victims with the potential to make America look back on the fentanyl crisis as “the good old days.”  

Chemists refer loosely to this category of drugs as “nitazenes,” even though the term is incorrect; it should be “benzimidazole-based opioids.” The Swiss drug maker CIBA, now part of Novartis, developed the first nitazenes in the late 1950s as potential pain treatments. However, none was approved because they were too dangerously potent.  

In 2020, the World Health Organization reported that isotonitazene (which drug users call “iso” or “tony”) began appearing in forensic toxicology reports in six European countries, Canada and the United States. In 2022, the Tennessee Department of Health reported that overdose deaths from synthetic opioids classified as nitazeneshave increased fourfold in just two years. 

. . .

These drugs are not only appearing in adulterated opioids. A U.K. drug testing service determined that, since September, nitazenes have been found in 20 samples of black-market benzodiazepines (common tranquilizers such as Xanax) taken from all parts of the country.

People who purchase benzodiazepines on the black market wouldn’t expect nitazenes to be a contaminant and could become overdose victims.

. . .

News reports about the growing presence of nitazenes among the mix of street drugs should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with what has come to be known as “the iron law of prohibition.” Drug policy analysts often phrase it as, “The harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs.” 

Drug prohibition drives the creation of more potent drug forms to enhance business efficiency. Smaller drug packages simplify smuggling, enabling dealers to subdivide stronger forms into smaller portions for sale, improving their risk/benefit ratio.

The "iron law" explains the rise in THC concentration in cannabis, the shift from powdered cocaine to crack cocaine, and the progression from cracking down on black market prescription pain pills to the emergence of heroin and, subsequently, fentanyl. 

There's more at the link.

The article appears to be written from the perspective that prohibition of drugs is bad;  that the "War On Drugs" has not worked, and should therefore be reconsidered.  I can't argue with the truth of the underlying premise.  "Hard" drugs are cheaper and more easily obtained today than at any time in the past, and there doesn't seem to be any improvement in sight.  What's more, an entire "industry" has grown up around the War On Drugs, with tens of thousands of people employed and millions of dollars spent every year in a (so far) fruitless effort to stem the tide of illegal narcotics flooding our streets.

The problem with abandoning prohibition as a policy is that it does have its successes - they just aren't publicized as widely as its failures.  Without the laws making street narcotics illegal, and giving our law enforcement authorities the legal tools to crack down on them, I think the situation would be a lot worse.  On the other hand, I also have to accept that "drug money" has corrupted many law enforcement personnel and agencies, to such an extent that we're no longer surprised to find officers on trial for distributing drugs and protecting drug dealers.  Where there's almost unlimited money to be made, that works on both sides of the street.  Furthermore, too many law officers have learned to "throw their weight around", to bully the rest of us because the law provides them too much protection from the consequences of their actions.  That's as destructive to a law-abiding society as drugs themselves.

I come at the problem from the perspective of the victims.  Being a retired pastor and prison chaplain, I've seen the effects of ruined lives and destroyed families that drugs leave behind them.  I've seen the survivors of people killed while under the influence of drugs, or murdered by someone on drugs, and I know their anguish.  I don't think we dare take off what restraints there are, because if we did, those problems would be multiplied instantly and many times over.  We can't prevent them, but we can at least minimize them compared to what they'd be without anti-drug laws and actions.

What's the answer?  I have no idea.  I've heard many say that we should simply abandon Naloxone, the drug to "bring back" victims of fentanyl overdoses, and let them die, because that's the only way to solve the demand side of the "supply and demand" equation.  Unfortunately, that won't stop the problem, because dealers and pushers will continue to distribute their product, and pressure or tempt people into trying it (the drug-dealer advertising stickers saying "First fix is free!" aren't a joke;  they're real - I've seen them in more than one inner-city area).  There are also those who say that mandatory execution for drug dealers would fix it, but it hasn't in the past.  Where there's a demand, and there's money to be made from it, somebody will fill that demand.  If it's costly or dangerous to do so, they'll simply raise their price until it's worth it to them to take that risk.

I wish I could see a way forward.  The only thing I can realistically, practically counsel is to avoid using such drugs ourselves, and see to it that our kids are protected from their temptation until such time that they're mature enough to understand the dangers.  Yes, that may mean taking them out of the school system altogether and home-schooling them.  That's part of the price we pay for allowing things to get this bad over time.

Peter