Mother Jones
NY Times
The Hill
White House Press Release
Washington Post
Image: Mother Jones
Recently, Trump declared the opioid crisis -- which was responsible for 64,000 deaths nationwide in 2016 -- a public health emergency and announced that the federal government would begin “a massive advertising campaign to get people, especially children, not to want to take drugs in the first place.”
The Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission was originally formed by Trump in early March. This month, the commission released a final report of 56 recommendations to combat the epidemic, which includes Trump’s aforementioned advertising campaign. Other recommendations include block grants to states and allowing emergency responders to use naloxone, an opioid overdose antidote.
Although the national attention given to the opioid epidemic will surely bring some positive change, the true effectiveness of drug advertising campaigns is suspect. Previous efforts to stem drug use in the US -- such as Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign -- are known to have been ineffective. Additionally, as the New York Times mentioned, these campaigns could “create a false sense that drug use is more common than it is, making those who don’t use drugs to feel socially abnormal.” Trump’s proposed advertising campaign also likely won’t be cheap -- for instance, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign took up approximately $1.5 billion total, bringing into question the worthwhileness of this initiative.
Interestingly enough, the commission specifically refused to support the use of marijuana as a painkiller, with Chris Christie claiming in the report that there is a “greater chance that [a] marijuana user would become an opioid user and abuser,” while also asserting that the lack of data on marijuana makes it unsafe. This argument runs counter to studies that suggest that marijuana might decrease the number of deaths caused by opioid.
Discussion Questions:
What are your thoughts on the use of advertising campaigns to combat the opioid epidemic? What other steps could the government take to decrease the number of opioid deaths?
Also, what do you think about the commission’s rejection of the use of marijuana for pain -- do you believe that Christie’s concerns are justified?
8 comments:
I think using advertising campaigns would still be a good idea to help combat opioid abuse because informing the public about an important issue is hardly ever a bad thing. Even though this may be an expensive plan to carry out, I can't agree with the idea that campaigning against opioid abuse would increase the abuse of the drug until I see hard facts and research, so I would say that for now, since it's not proven to be detrimental to society, advertising campaigns would be a good start in attempting to combat opioid abuse. Also, I know that people on both sides of the debate of whether marijuana should be legalized and used for pain present strong arguments, so I would say that Christie's concerns are definitely justified, as his concerns are shared with many people throughout the nation. Saying that there is a "greater chance" marijuana usage leads to opioid abuse may have crossed the line a bit and could be refuted by scientific research, but his concerns for marijuana being used as a pain killer, I would say, are debatable, yet justified.
While I see the merits of large advertisement campaign to prevent drug usage, the historical context for that -- like Lily mentioned, Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign -- leaves me skeptical as to the success of a solution that requires significant federal spending. I hope the federal government looks into the use of block grants or even categorical grants to help incentivize and fund state rehabilitation facilities.
That being said, this is a difficult issue to combat with multiple solutions that may require a combination of previous proposal. I'm glad the Trump administration is addressing a national health crisis, but I am concerned about his willingness to use federal funds to try to solve it. I read in a NY Times article that Trump was hesitant to provide federal financial support, but his position may have changed since.
As for Christie's stance, I too see the danger of possible drug abuse, but am more inclined to side with research and studies than with Christie's mildly unfounded position. If research from a majority of studies and a variety of research teams reveals a direct correlation between marijuana use and opioid abuse, I will reconsider my position.
I'm in agreement with Juliet, this whole situation has a slight "war on drugs" kind of vibe to it. With that being said, I don't think this campaign will be anymore successful than its predecessor. Funding will be used up, creating hundreds of campaigns against opiod use, but to little avail. Trump genuinely trying to fight against a dangerous substance is uplifiting, but I'm skeptiacal as to whether it will lead to any good results. To address the Christie question, I'd have to say that I'm heavily against their position on weed as a medicinal substance. Marijuana is used to ease the sufferings of those who are severly ill or in unending pain. Without it, they'll be stuck getting using synthetic medicine- such as opioids- to try and ease their agony.
It's definitely good to bring attention to this issue, but a campaign against opioid usage could be extremely ineffective. The government supposedly wants to begin "a massive advertising campaign to get people, especially children, not to want to take drugs in the first place," but it could be extremely difficult to target those who are already using drugs such as opioids or marijuana. Secondly, the primary method to target children is to increase health education, but this wouldn't affect the less or non-educated population, which is probably more likely to start using drugs in the first place.
Advertising is definitely a great way to spread the message. Many of the people who abuse taking pain killers have little knowledge of the potential harmful effects. But I also feel like campaigning is not enough. The government needs to create an alternative toward opioids that is not as addicting. Advertising will increase awareness; however, it is not enough to end the crisis. I think that Trump should consider a different method of approaching the problem, yet leaving campaigning as an option. The less-educated group tend to be the ones that abuse the drugs the most, so finding a way to figure that problem out would be more effective.
I'm about to introduce a new perspective here on how to solve the opiod epidemic, although I'm not making any statements advocating nor criticizing this strategy.
Recently, some Latin American countries have legalized opiod use and possession in small amounts. At first, this might sound incredibly dangerous and immediately contradicting the entire purpose of raised advertising efforts. However, the concept behind this perspective is to take opiod abuse out of the shadows of illegal action, so that it can be more closely regulated by the government. Addicted users can seek professional medical assistance in abandoning addiction without fear of imprisonment. Within these Latin American countries, government workers provide clean needles to opiod users and dissuade them from continuing the use of such drugs. Indeed, within certain Latin American countries this has lead to a substantial decrease in opiod abuse rates, compared to prior situations. Additionally, a controversial bathroom in New York has already begun to enforce this system by providing a "safe space" for opiod abusers to take in drugs.
Whether or not the US will consider adopting this strategy as a weapon in the war against opiods will be another substantial topic for debate.
I believe a campaign combating opioid usage would not be a bad idea at all. Many people are still uninformed about what opioids are and the effects they have on an individual. Shedding light on this issue could potentially be helpful. I can think of Mothers Against Drunk Driving as a clear indication that bringing an issue to light does not cause more people to perform that action. I do not believe this campaign would make people feel socially abnormal, but instead raise awareness. I think the strategy Frank mentioned is quite a good idea. Since opioid and drug abuse is already a clear issue, acknowledging that it is an issue would be the first step in the process. Illegal activity is definitely a huge part of the problem and bringing it out into the open would make it easier to "treat." In the end any type of action that brings this issue to the attention of the country is beneficial.
While I agree that a campaign combating opioid usage is positive and effective in theory, it has too often not been so in practice, as advertising campaigns have been unable to solve past crosses despite calling attention to them. I find the approach that Frank mentioned in his comment very interesting, as other nations have taken the same steps towards solving drug issues and have seen positive results when legalizing the drug. As Frank stated, this allows addicts who need help to not be deemed as criminals and to feel open, and be accepted, to receive the help that they need and deserve. This being said, I think that the main problem with advertising campaigns as they too often highlight the negatives of the drug crisis instead of offering direct outlets to help addicts. You can often see advertisements that depict the negative effects of drug use, such as people passed out in cars and with mangled-up faces, that warn against drug use and attempt to dissuade people from using them. These types of advertisements do almost nothing to solve the crisis, as they do not stop drug users from continuing their use, and they also offer no sort of help or support for addicts who could recover. With all of this in mind, I think that the government should seriously consider following the actions of other nations and legalize these drugs in order to open up legal doors to connect with and help addicts. The money being used towards this new advertising campaign should be used to open up facilities to help drug users and towards funding the distribution of medications and other services that can aid them in their recoveries.
Post a Comment