Nearly 300 Americans die every day from a drug overdose, but instead of confronting this tragic public health crisis politicians from both parties are spreading misinformation about the goal of harm reduction programs—thereby endangering the Biden administration’s addiction policy. The latest fracas erupted after a conservative newspaper alleged that federal funds would be used to distribute “crack pipes” as part of safe smoking kits, which contain clean syringes, fentanyl testing strips, as well as sterile pipes to encourage addicts to switch from intravenous drug use to smoking, as that is considered a safer option. Yet instead of applauding this science-backed approach to help those struggling with substance use, politicians accused the administration of handing out "crack pipes" to Black communities—a racist trope in itself going back to the crack epidemic. There’s no evidence whatsoever that Biden wanted to do any such thing; no matter, this led to frenzied media activity and the introduction of legislation to curb the distribution of the kits, and the first federally-financed harm reduction programs. Harm reduction by itself is not a panacea for addiction or the overdose crisis, but it is a critical step to save lives, and ideally, engage patients in drug treatment programs.
Meanwhile, the Sackler family says it’s offering another $1 billion to sweeten the deal to end sprawling opioid litigation against Purdue Pharma, bringing the total to about $6 billion. But there’s a catch: the billionaire family members still insist that the settlement include a provision to shield them from any further civil liabilities—a demand that has already been rejected by 8 states and the District of Columbia (more than 30 states have said ok to the offer). It’s not clear if the extra $1 billion will help persuade the holdouts to settle, leaving the litigation in limbo, while at the same time, other opioid cases against drug distributors and pharmacy chains head toward a conclusion. While this settlement money—to be doled out over more than a decade—is badly needed by states and local authorities to pay for drug treatment and prevention programs, and to compensate victims’ families, it should not be a substitute for a massive increase in federal funding that can help people right now and reduce overdose deaths.
And finally, although there’s no scientific evidence showing that medical marijuana is effective to treat opioid addiction—that isn’t stopping a number of cannabis companies in Pennsylvania from saying it does and promoting pot as a substitute for opioid withdrawal medications. An investigation revealed that the companies use a wide range of misleading tactics, cherry-pick data, misrepresent only parts of studies, and make broad claims without citing scientific research. Most alarmingly, they suggest that medical pot can be a viable substitute for buprenorphine, one of three FDA-approved drugs to treat opioid use disorder, which health experts say can be dangerous for patients. If states are going to legalize marijuana, they must closely monitor and push back against false marketing claims that may be detrimental to consumers.