The United States faces a tragic realty in today’s society: opioid abuse is on the rise. The number of opioid-related deaths in the United States has quadrupled since 1999 (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). While this may seem like an issue that, because it does not affect everyone personally, will eventually solve itself, that is far from the truth. The epidemic has even spread to my hometown of Hanover, Pennsylvania, making this issue one that hits close to home. Hanover has seen deaths of countless young adults due to overdose, but the community is weary to call for change. Educating the youth about the risk factors and dangers of opioid use is an effective prevention strategy that should be implemented in order to stop the opioid epidemic in its tracks.

Contrary to popular belief, addiction cannot be solely attributed to the chemical makeup of drugs. Psychological factors contribute to addiction as well, making certain people more susceptible to addiction. Johann Hari, a writer in the field of drug addiction, discusses the complicated nature of addiction in his 2015 TED Talk, and the scary idea that it is not what it is presumed to be. Hari points out that most people do not feel the need to use drugs, suggesting: “It’s because you’ve got bonds and connections that you want to be present for. You’ve got work you love. You’ve got people you love.” The main contributor to drug addiction is a lack of connection. Humans crave personal relationships and a feeling of purpose in society, and without either, resort to a synthetic version of this, whether it is overeating, gambling, or using drugs. Hari goes on to say, “And a core part of addiction, I came to think, and I believe evidence suggests, is about not being able to bear to be present in your life.” Understanding the idea that drug addiction goes deeper than just the way that drugs are made is crucial to stopping the opioid epidemic. Implementing an education in primary schools about opioid addiction will allow children who are already feeling disconnected from society to know that they are at risk for becoming addicted. These programs will give the youth the proper tools in order to take care of themselves in a productive manner, rather than resorting to drugs or other vices. Students who have yet to face feelings of disconnect will be aware of the risk factors associated with drug addiction, and will know the proper way to handle these feelings if they ever do arise.

The opposition argues that in order to treat drug addiction, jail time is necessary. Ed Gogek, a psychiatrist in the field of substance abuse, claims that addicts need to go to jail in order to scare them out of continuing to use drugs. Sending addicts to jail, however, will not give them the proper relationships and purpose that is necessary in order for them to remain clean. The Prison Project, conducted in 1998 to examine prison conditions across the country, reported, “Because of relatively short stays (in theory, at least) few institutions provide meaningful work or educational opportunities” (Human Rights Watch, 34). Without the opportunity to gain something meaningful out of their time in jail, such as having a consistent job or getting an education, addicts will continue to use as soon as they can get access to their drug of choice. Instead, addicts should be sent to a rehabilitation program in order to reestablish a sense of purpose in their life and make lasting relationships, which, as Hari suggests, will make all of the difference.

In recent years, in order to combat prescription drug abuse, doctors have significantly cut back on prescribing painkillers to patients with chronic pain. However, this change brought unwanted results. Patients whose pain was not being treated clinically resorted to street drugs, particularly heroin, in order to be able to do their jobs (Park and Bloch). These pseudoaddicts have faced increased opioid-related deaths due to this, both from a lack of knowledge regarding the appropriate amount to take, and from obtaining a drug that is laced with something stronger than expected. In order to rectify this issue, doctors should be willing to discuss the patient’s symptoms before prescribing painkillers, and if they still choose to do so, should then council them about the appropriate way to take the prescription. The patient should be monitored throughout the course of the prescription to ensure that they are reacting well to the medication and that they are not at risk for becoming addicted. 

Furthermore, The American Psychiatric Textbook of Substance Abuse Treatment, 5th Addition highlights a substance abuse prevention program, Positive Action, that was successfully implemented into primary schools. The program included lessons in classrooms from kindergarten through twelfth grade, kits to be used in small groups and family settings, home lessons that promote parents to become involved in school activities, and materials for schools and communities to utilize (Clayton). Self-reports marked the program with learning and achievement outcomes, as well as “significantly reduced developmental declines in the number of positive behaviors associated with social-emotional and character development in each of the three trials” (Clayton). A program such as Positive Action has shown that prevention strategies that are implemented in multiple capacities throughout a community can have a real difference in the lives of high-risk children, specifically defined by poverty (Clayton). By having both a school-wide curriculum as well as supplemental material for use in small groups and at home, children learned the best ways to deal with situations that they currently face, or may encounter in the future. Prevention programs give the youth exposure to realistic situations and allow them to discuss coping mechanisms before having to actually face such an issue, thus reducing the chance that they will resort to drugs.

Similarly, the B.E.S.T. Teen Program was implemented into primary schools in Hong Kong in order to help students develop skills that are necessary to prevent addiction. The program consisted of five components: promote addiction education as well as cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral competence (Shek, Yu, Leung, Wu, Law). An objective outcome evaluation concluded that the program was partially effective in reducing addictive behavior (Shek et al). Although the program warranted mixed results, the authors developed suggestions regarding the implementation of future prevention programs. It is proposed that prevention strategies should take a holistic approach by incorporating risk and protective factors of addiction (Shek et al). Education at any early age will allow the youth to gain skills that will not only reduce the risk that they will become an addict, but also skills that are essential in their adult life. 

As opioid overdose related deaths continue to increase, personal testimonies have emerged from family members who have been affected by the epidemic. The New York Times shared a story of a mother who lost her son to a heroin overdose, and, as a result, is now the executive director of a nonprofit group in the community whose mission is to stop heroin addiction (Park and Bloch). Ms. Weiss-Burke asserts that addiction is spreading towards younger people, making it difficult to treat due to their lack of urgency to get sober. Young people often feel as though they have time to get their life on track, and it does not necessarily have to be right away. They use the excuse of being young to continue their destructive behavior, and act as if nothing bad would ever happen to them, especially when their judgement is clouded by drugs. Unfortunately, some teens realize this too late, and never get the chance to regain control of their life. Because it is so difficult to change the mindset of a teen who has already began using drugs, it is essential to teach young adults about the risk factors of addiction, its effects, and strategies to avoid resorting to drugs. As opioid abuse becomes more common among young adults, prevention needs to be implemented at an earlier age in order to educate the youth before they are confronted with a situation in which they are exposed to drugs. 

In response to the increase in opioid-related deaths, Doctor Michael Landen, an epidemiologist in New Mexico, shared his findings: “Addictions have shifted to younger people and to more affluent communities” (Park and Bloch). With this knowledge, preliminary prevention programs should be targeted to communities that are affluent, as well as lie in regions that reflect the height of the problem, such as the Midwest and Appalachia (Park and Bloch). While that is not to say that the epidemic does not affect everyone, initial implementation of prevention programs should take place in communities that show high rates of addiction and overdose. Once these programs begin to put the brakes on the epidemic as a whole, areas with smaller amounts of abuse can adopt similar programs and adapt them to fit within their specific community. With this approach, prevention is less likely to fail because communities that desperately need help will receive it first, and then the strategies that are used in the higher-risk areas can be modified in order to be successful on a smaller scale.

With an issue such as the opioid epidemic, government involvement is necessary. Prevention programs will cost a significant amount of money to implement and maintain, and many of the communities that would benefit from the programs cannot afford the upfront costs. The government already began the process of getting involved in the epidemic in 2014 when Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick declared a public health emergency in the wake of the increasing opioid addiction problem in Massachusetts (Haffajee, Parmet, and Mello). It was heavily debated whether an epidemic such as opioid abuse falls under the responsibility of the government, or if emergency powers should be used exclusively for situations such as severe weather or a pressing threat to the state. However, with the vast extent of the opioid epidemic, it is imperative for the government to become involved, and Deval Patrick has only started the necessary process. President Trump recently followed in Patrick’s footsteps by declaring the opioid epidemic a public health emergency in the United States; however, Trump has yet to provide the monetary funds that are necessary to make the changes that are needed to stop this spiraling issue. The government should be held responsible for prioritizing the opioid epidemic as a significant threat to Americans as a whole, and implementing the prevention programs necessary in order for the epidemic to be stopped.

The scary reality in the United States is that each day 91 Americans die of an opioid overdose (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). In order to stop this number from increasing, a series of steps need to occur. Americans need to understand the factors that contribute to addiction, not only so that we can look out for ourselves, but also so that we as a country can be cognizant of the fact that those around us need our support. The government also needs to become involved in stopping the epidemic by funding prevention programs throughout the United States that will serve to teach the youth about the risk factors and dangers of opioid use, which will be the key in stopping the epidemic from continuing to spiral. It is up to us as Americans to hold those in power responsible, and to be willing to ask for necessary change before it is too late.
