I'm sorry, but the rules have changed, and policy needs to adapt.
In the spaces I've worked in, so far as I can tell, Fentanyl in accurately measured dosages dings the addict neurons not a whole lot harder than the other chemicals in the family; by that point the user is desensitized to the point that they're surfing the border of lethality already regardless of what they're using. It's not particularly more addictive than good Oxys.
Fentanyl's taken over the entire market not because it's some sort of super junk (all synthetic N02As are "super junk" in terms of addictive potential) but because it is cheap cheap cheap cheap, cheaper even than meth and cat at the height of that craze. Also, and this can't be understated, the synthesis is flexible and has broad precursors. Unfortunately, fent has an LD50 of, like, a molecule, so street chemists don't do so good when they're dosing. Especially if they're some asshole spraying it on fake weed or gas station dick pills. And there's no telling how good the mix is by the time it gets to Dr. Feelgood, anyway. There's zero telling what's got Fent in it right now, although I understand someone's making test strips.
I'm not so hot on the "tax and sell" by private parties. Jesus, we had enough of that. More like the "give it and track". The important part is to just know who's using - being a regular fent user these days is basically like being a combination underwater welder and base jumper, at the same time, as far as mortality goes, so that needs to be known by basically everyone. Along with the "track em", of course, social services- watch 'em like cats (put em in mandated housing if they're a problem), decent rehab, employment workshops, shit that doesn't involve learning how to suppress your gag reflex in an American prison aka "How to brutalize a population in five easy steps".
I'd wage that the civil liability would be extremely high for all involved, even if it were legal.
De-regulation has very little to do with the drug users themselves or their harm to society, and everything to do with destroying the economy that those drug users support. The cartels are beyond regulation, but the Sacklers could be put in court. That's a pretty big difference.
If fentanyl is a life sentence in the way you say it is, the cost to society is less if we (ethically) let people kill themselves with regulated fentanyl usage in supervised zones rather than unethically in the streets with drugs of questionable purity purchased through questionable money.
If those people are desperate enough to commit crimes to pay for their mental escapism, then giving them their fentanyl without the crime, while ethically complicated, could have better outcomes for society.
Having pro America institutions (health care) interfacing with people is going to have better outcomes than anti-American (drug cartels and foreign powers) institutions interfacing with people.
Have you ever seen a needle on your sidewalk, in the park your kids play in? Have you ever seen people use dirty needles in front of you? Prohibition doesn't work in America. You can't just make it illegal to leave a needle in a park and expect needles to disappear. Making it easier to do a less bad thing is a different kind of policy than paying more for enforcement (in the form of more taxes in order to pay for more police officers).
Having freedom means being able to make the wrong choice. Keeping freedom is about making responsible choices. If you believe in freedom, then you have to figure out how to help people make responsible choices and have a plan for people making the wrong one.
Monopolizing the supply chain of drugs allows you to dis-empower and destroy cartels as well as offers a "hook" (in the programming sense) to be able to influence the path of those affected.
So you're right that "tax and regulate" makes sense for weed and not fentanyl, but I also don't think you see that there are other forces at work in terms of power. If america is the supplier, america has power. If cartels are the supplier, the cartels have power. If China is the Supplier, then China has power.
If China has that power they can use it to foment misery. If America has that power, they can use it to mitigate the problem.
The argument around legalize, test and regulate would help ensure the safety of recreational drugs in general, and reduce the black market’s ability to lure people to more addictive and thus profitable substances.
We've heard this line of reasoning before during the crack epidemic. Policy makers are addicted to authoritarianism. The prison industrial complex profits. Black-marketeers profit. Intelligence agencies profit. Law enforcement agencies are given bigger budgets. Those wishing to use cartels to geopolitical ends profit in the political economy.
Just like with the drug addict, strong malign incentives exist for the continued addiction to authoritarian policy.
Of course, there's no need to go that deep. Simply invoke something scary sounding like, "think of the children", "this new drug is horrifying!" or any of the other stock tropes used to rationalize further expansion of state power. The same faulty lines of reasoning are used in attempts to prohibit encryption.
As long as people are sufficiently scared, there's no need to have a rational debate. Fear is a powerful emotion. Empathy for drug users, not so much. How effective has the last century of prohibition been? No, I don't agree that this is the best solution. Cheaper and more optimal policies exist, but we are stuck with this due to entrenched interests.
The US war on drugs has not done well. But there are other countries which in fact have almost no drug use — Singapore, Taiwan, China, among others. There demonstrably are ways to wage a war on drugs in a democracy that work.
But yes, I think a death penalty for dealing fentanyl is appropriate.