Trump Administration's Incomplete Approach to Opioid Crisis

Corruption is another factor of the opioid crisis, a lesson suffered by the Qing dynasty of China in the mid 19^th century. No matter what limit is imposed upon an addictive product, there will be a corrupt official stationed at the midpoint, enriching himself. This brief essay intends to demonstrate the logical chain-of-events that occur when an addictive medicine undergoes prohibition.

The American opioid crisis is different from the crack epidemic in one essential respect, unacknowledged by Trump’s administration in the August 8^th press conference: opium is a medicine, whereas crack is not. No one needs crack to survive, therefore: the administration’s approach to the opioid crisis is incomplete. Full press conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCL_FLdukPA

            What about people with chronic pain? There is a culture of suspicion surrounding opiates and the treating of patients as suspects. Doctors and pharmacies fear regulations and punishment and often play detective, or worse—drug-dealer.

What about economic and moral incentives to drug dealers? For example, in the state of Georgia, there is a limit imposed on how many opiate products a pharmacy may have in stock. This creates a gap in supply and incentivizes a host of issues:

1) Limiting the supply of opiates incentivizes pharmacy-owners to choose not to fill prescriptions for patients needing only opiates. Pharmacies would rather fill prescriptions for patients needing opiates as well as other drugs, in order to make more money. People turned away must look elsewhere.

            2) The legally-run pharmacy suffers when it must turn away legal customers; poor towns and communities cannot support more than a few pharmacies. Limiting the amount of opiates is less efficient since more pharmacies must exist to provide the same amount of product.

4) Since supply is limited, demand for opiates goes up. The lucky patients who receive prescriptions of opiates are left with a disproportionately more valuable product. Meanwhile, people in pain will search at all costs for treatment, and…

5) The drug dealer steps in and saves the day. Limiting opiates ultimately makes a hero out of the drug dealer—oftentimes dirty pharmacies— that fill in the supply-gap.

The “Dirty Pharmacy” is one logical conclusion to prohibition of opiates. There lies a great concentration of a limited product, addictive, of which many people want and sick people need, difficult to obtain and creating its own demand. The business-owner of a pharmacy, unfortunately, has the incentive to sell to drug dealers for cash—untaxed. I learned of this tactic from a pharmacist, who claims to know and disapproves of dirty pharmacies doing this and making up to $3,000 dollars a day.

Is this what is meant by “those who are closest to those in need know best"?  @5:43  

Meanwhile, chronic-pain-patients are ignored, treated with suspicion, unacknowledged, forced to consider criminality and given every incentive to do so.