There's a middle ground there. Cutting back on the number of new opiod prescriptions is definitely a good thing, but you've got to be careful of how you handle existing patients who have already been pulled into the problem.

From a harm reduction perspective, taking a patient who is, say, addicted to legal oxycodone because they were overprescribed it. Now what do you do from the perspective of what's best for the patient? Is it a good thing that they're addicted to it? No... but is it more harmful to cut them off cold-turkey? Or is it better to help work with them to figure out how to get off it in a way that doesn't result in them seeking out street drugs to handle the withdrawal?

Judging by the quotes around overprescribe, I'm assuming the parent comment is skeptical of the idea that we were over-prescribing. Also, they're likely criticizing the whipsaw fashion in which we allowed drug companies to convince everybody these opioids were totally safe, then drastically cut off the supply without doing anything to help people who had already become addicted.

I think the comment says that if there was overprescription before you can't just cut off supply without negative consequences. Yes, prescription rates go down but the already addicted will find other ways to get their fix.

sampleinajar is stating that when doctors were over-prescribing the patient became addicts. When those patients were cut-off from legally buying the drugs, they turned to black market where the quality of the drug is unknown which leads to overdose.

Personally I'm all for government suppled morphine. Pure, set & clear doses, clean needles. Would save a ton of money (and you know save lives but there is a lack of compassion on this issue)