The rush to curb a heroin/opioid crisis

Congress, in rare bipartisanship, passes a law that will help support the many local efforts to end a heroin ‘epidemic’ and a prescription opioid crisis. Still left undone: a consensus on whether addiction is a ‘disease.’

AP Photo
Janice McGrory, who lost her daughter, Liz, to a heroin overdose in 2011, is hugged by her other daughter, Amy, after she spoke during a March 14 signing ceremony of sweeping legislation aimed at reversing a opioid addiction crisis in Massachusetts. Applauding at far left is Boston Mayor Marty Walsh.

In a rare case of bipartisan consensus, Congress has approved a sweeping measure to address the national crisis in heroin use and prescription opioids. The new law, when fully funded, will allow Washington to support what many states and cities are already doing to prevent and treat such addiction.

For all the divisions in the United States, a great deal of unity now surrounds efforts to free people from drug dependency.

In June, the United Nations announced that the US has a “huge” heroin epidemic. Heroin-related deaths have increased five-fold since 2000. In addition, the 2016 election has pushed political candidates to respond to an acute opioid crisis in many states, such as New Hampshire and Ohio.

For his part, President Obama took several steps in March to provide better access to drug treatment. Medical schools are also training students in how not to overprescribe powerful painkillers. Many police departments are adopting the practice of not punishing drug addicts if they come forward for help.

Most states now have two types of laws to deal with the crisis. One is a so-called Good Samaritan law, which grants immunity to a drug user who calls an emergency number when a friend is overdosing. The other tracks prescriptions to make sure addicts are not “doctor shopping” for new opioid scripts.

While more funding is needed for treatment and prevention, one big question that still dogs these efforts is whether drug addiction should be tagged as a chronic disease, treatable by a combination of medical means and rehabilitation. The US National Institute of Drug Abuse advocates for the disease model. Other experts say such an approach only creates a sense of helplessness in these “patients.” They contend drug habits are learned and can be unlearned by intense self-examination and a supportive, loving social environment.

One advocate of the nonmedical approach is neuroscientist Marc Lewis, who was once a longtime drug addict. As he wrote in a 2011 memoir, an addict has fallen into the trap of believing a drug can meet a cluster of needs, such as safety, freedom, and the warmth of close ties. He tells addicts they must “learn to say no in a way that can catch hold, and support it” with a different view of themselves. They must fill their life with meanings richer than the effects of a drug.

While government-backed programs can rescue people in an acute drug crisis, and steer them toward treatment, much of the long-term healing takes place through the quality of an individual’s thinking and relationships. At the very least, the many efforts to curb opioid use have sent a signal of hope to addicts that there is a path to freedom from drugs.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.