Why Laws that Equate Drug Distribution to Murder Are Counterproductive

More than 80,000 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in 2024, down from more than 100,000 annually in preceding years. Although too many people are still dying, experts credit this promising shift to a wide range of factors—especially expanded access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and lifesaving tools like the overdose-reversal medication naloxone—and urge lawmakers to continue investing in a health-oriented approach to the crisis.

Nonetheless, criminalization remains top of mind for many state and federal lawmakers. One growing and potentially dangerous trend is the rise of drug-induced homicide (DIH) and similar policies. These laws automatically add murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter charges to drug distribution charges when someone dies from an overdose. Although criminal law principles generally require evidence of intent, DIH laws “are strict liability offenses, requiring no intent toward the resulting death.” 

There has been a surge of law-and-order legislation in recent years; in fact, two-thirds of states now have DIH or similar laws on their books. At the federal level, there is the new “Fentanyl Kills Act,” introduced in August 2025. This bill would automatically add “attempted murder” to charges of fentanyl trafficking—broadly defined to include the manufacture, sale, or distribution of fentanyl regardless of quantity or money involved.

The popularity of these laws makes sense. More than 40 percent of Americans know someone who died of an overdose, and many want someone to blame. But current evidence does not support the efficacy of DIH-type laws. There has been very little population-level research, and although the only large-scale longitudinal analysis of the health effects of DIH laws did report an association between those laws and overdose deaths, that study was pulled from publication due to significant methodological errors.

However, qualitative research (in the form of case studies) suggests that DIH and similar laws endanger the very people they are intended to protect: people who use drugs, especially those with an SUD. Research has also shown that the overcriminalization of drugs comes with a wide range of unintended consequences.

Here, we will explain why and how DIH-related laws are an ineffective and counterproductive addition to drug law and suggest health-focused policies that will actively reduce harms—including overdose.

Increased criminalization discourages people from calling 911.

Lay rescuers—often other people who use drugs—play a fundamental role in combating the overdose crisis. Because these friends, family members, and acquaintances may be present during drug use, they are the ones most able to respond quickly, administering naloxone and calling for help.

However, when people are afraid of law enforcement or worry they could face criminal charges, they are less likely to call 911 in these emergencies. DIH laws increase the likelihood that law enforcement officers will treat overdose scenes, which require medical response, as homicide scenes. This would add to people’s fear of arrest, erode trust in first responders (including law enforcement), and deter people from calling emergency services. Even worse, increased criminalization could encourage people to use alone, thereby removing the potential for any rescue response in case of an overdose.

Most “drug dealers” aren’t kingpins.

Adding murder or attempted murder charges to drug trafficking charges makes the dangerous assumption that the person selling drugs is intentionally perpetuating harm. But the realities of drug sales and use are complicated, and there are more effective ways to reduce demand for drugs than law enforcement crackdowns.

First, although many DIH laws claim their intent is to help take down “kingpins,” most drug laws are enforced against low-status and low-power members of the drug distribution chain, such as street sellers, couriers, and mules. Many of these individuals are young, the majority have at least a history of drug use, and almost half meet the criteria for an SUD. For them, selling drugs is often a way to afford their own use, and they have little control over the supply.

Furthermore, drug distribution and use are not always simple business transactions—often, they are embedded in people’s regular social networks. What a DIH law calls a “dealer” may be an overdose victim’s friend or acquaintance who has better access to illicit drugs. They may act as a broker in exchange for additional drugs or a small profit to support their own substance use or SUD. Alternatively, the so-called dealer may be a friend or significant other who is simply sharing their supply rather than looking to make money. Indeed, drug-induced homicide laws often target friends and family of the overdose victim and have even been used to send teens to prison for sharing fentanyl.

To make matters worse, it is unclear whether incarcerating these low-level suppliers does much to stop the flow of drugs. Because individual sellers are replaced easily, the drug distribution chain just continues operating. However, incarceration does increase suppliers’ risk of overdose death, and even compulsory treatment has mixed outcomes.

Street-level crackdowns can increase overdose risk.

In addition to targeting the wrong people, DIH laws and the associated crackdowns on street-level sellers may increase overdose risk among Americans who use illicit drugs, including the roughly 27 million living with an illicit SUD and the 15 percent of high school students who report having tried heroin, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and other drugs.

First, DIH laws disrupt known drug supply networks. The short-term loss of a trusted source can drive opioid-dependent people into withdrawal and simultaneously reduce their tolerance, all within days. Both of these factors increase the chances a person will overdose and die. These risks are exacerbated by the potency of the current supply, which is rapidly changing. Even minor differences between what a person expects to consume and what they actually consume can be the difference between life and death. Additionally, the fear of encountering law enforcement has been shown to discourage people from taking precautions—such as checking their supply with a fentanyl test strip or carrying naloxone—to reduce their overdose risk.

To save lives and reduce demand for drugs, we need a health-oriented approach.

Tens of thousands of Americans die each year from a drug overdose, and millions are living with an SUD. While policy has an important role in combating this crisis, decades of evidence teach us that increasing criminal consequences, especially at the street level, is ineffective and potentially harms people who use drugs as well as their friends, families, and communities.

Instead, lawmakers wanting to stem the overdose crisis and reduce drug use and related harms in their communities should prioritize health-oriented policies. For example:

• Reducing regulations on medications for opioid use disorder would improve treatment access and retention, thereby reducing the demand for drugs.
• Robust Good Samaritan and naloxone access/liability laws encourage individuals to call 911 in response to an overdose and establish a layer of trust in the medical system.
• Continued investment in community-based naloxone distribution while supporting innovation that meets the needs and priorities of end users ensures people have access to a life-saving tool.

Both state and federal governments have banned many of these substances in the United States, including illicitly manufactured fentanyl. Thus, criminal enterprises take on the role of running drug-trafficking operations, thereby potentially bringing violence into communities. In these cases, drug-related law enforcement can play an important public safety role by focusing on high-level traffickers or working to dismantle the networks themselves. However, DIH laws target an ineffective level of the drug supply chain and pose a range of harms to individuals and communities. Health-focused policies represent a more effective complement to public safety-focused law enforcement activities by keeping people alive, reducing drug use, and driving down the demand for illicit substances in the long term.