My understanding is that Narcan reverses the effects of an overdose and saves lives.
The question was whether it is wise to publicly fund the use of such a drug on addicts who overdose repeatedly. Perhaps, some say, this represents moral hazard. I disagree.
When someone attempts to lose weight after receiving treatment for diabetes, we don't cut off treatment for the diabetes if the person "falls off the wagon" and eats some chocolate cake.
When someone attempts to quit smoking after being diagnosed with any number of health ailments, we don't cut off treatment for the ailments if the person "falls off the wagon" and has a cigarette.
If someone's house gets burglarized multiple times, we don't stop prosecuting the crime.
I would like to say this as clearly as I can: DRUG ADDICTION IS NOT A MORAL FAILURE.
Rest assured, I will do my best to ensure that my own children never dabble in hard drugs. Mercifully, I avoided that calamity myself. However, as an ex-smoker, I understand that addiction can be brought to bay but can never truly be beaten. I am addicted to cigarettes for the rest of my life, no matter how long it has been since I had my last one. I can only assume the same for other addictions.
The sooner we address drug addiction as a health problem and not a moral failure or criminal justice problem, the sooner we can get a handle on it as a society.
In closing, I would also like to point out that the punitive approach that has been the hallmark of the War on Drugs has been an abject failure. As some have wryly noted, "The War on Drugs is over. Drugs Won."
Perhaps I wouldn't put it that bluntly, but the chart below is revealing.
"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein |
No comments:
Post a Comment