#1 I don't understand what you're saying.
#2 that's true. If the person truly needed such strong painkillers then they are definitely going to be messed up from such a policy. On the other hand if they didn't need such strong drugs and weren't careful to only take non addictive painkillers then it's their fault*.
At the end of the day how many people like that are there?
#3 100% but they would also have to discontinue manufacturing the other addictive drugs (which might be impossible due to the black market).
#4 Not necessarily to die out just to not have children. So future generations won't be so prone to start taking drugs.
True. If I wanted I could answer that not doing it will kill more in the long run.
What I wrote to exgingi.
There's another person at fault. The patient.
*(If anybody here is addicted to anything. I don't mean to be mean so don't be offended.)
Oy, where do I start?
People generally listen to their doctor's and other medical professionals when they tell them what they need to get better. It's rarely the fault of the patient when they get addicted to opioids. Doctors often prescribe stronger medication for longer than necessary, do some research, the numbers are out there. Large pharmaceutical companies successfully changed the way drugs are prescribed in this country and that, along with some poor government regulations, (which ironically make it easier to get for those who don't need it and harder for those who do ie. hospice patients) has been a major factor in the causing the opioid epidemic that we now have. The average person who gets addicted to pain meds is not "not being careful", they're just not educated on the risks and dangers of taking opioids for extended periods of time. As for how many of those people are there? You'd be surprised, it's a lot. Speak to someone who's involved in the field, the number of people who have had their lives ruined because of prescription medication is high, too high.
To address your point in #4- I'm not sure if you really understand how this works. Some people are more genetically predisposed to addiction in general, it's a physiological thing. But that applies to addiction in general, there's no distinction there between opioids, caffeine, nicotine, or any other thing that you can get addicted to. Some people are just more likely to get addicted and to do so faster than others. That could be you though and you'd never know. This does not mean, however, that the people addicted to some sort of opioid right now are genetically predisposed to addiction, AFAIK there's no reason to think that the average addict is any different than the average non-addict. Statistically it makes sense that a slightly higher percentage of addicts will be more disposed but I still don't think that that is enough of a reason to say that it's better that these people shouldn't have kids. Of course having kids grow up in a house with drug addicts is a horrible situation and dangerous for the children.
The fact that you think it would be better for addicts to either die out or not have their line propagated is, IMO, pure רשעות. Why you would want that, as apposed to helping addicts overcome their addiction and lead healthy productive lives, is totally beyond me.
What I do find interesting is the direction you took to get to what is, IMO, one of the best ways we probably have to combat drug addiction and make it easier and safer for people to get help. Not to mention regulate the drug trade so we don't have people dying from cartels and laced drugs. Legalizing and regulating all drugs or at least many more may very well be our best shot at this but unfortunately it's highly unlikely to ever happen in today's political climate in the US. There is such a wrongful stigma attached to addiction in general and specifically drug and opioid addiction, that it is very hard for addicts to get help and tradition into productive, healthy members of society. Anything we can do to change that is something we should pursue, especially in our community where the stigma is doubled.
