Firstly, the epidemic of opioid prescription and addiction is not as profound in all parts of the world. The BMJ is international but UK based and the authors of this piece seem to be British.
Secondly, how in the hell id the position "The war on drugs has failed, we need policies that promote harm reduction and ethics over failed punitive actions" taking a soft stance?
That's part of the whole reason we fail so hard and keep failing, that people have this weird idea that actually tackling the problem is 'soft' and presumably continuing to beat our collective heads against the wall, despite a continuing lack of it acheiving anything, is what? Tough? Hard?
I've published letters in The BMJ so I am familiar with the audience, which is worldwide - particularly the letters / editorials.
I don't disagree in any way that policy reform is badly needed and the war on drugs has failed: My point was more that the messaging seems to be very conflicted these days for physicians in the United State. To me - as a layman - there appears to be no "middle ground" for both policy reform and bringing the opioid addiction under wraps. That is the disparity I am trying to point out and what I find to be conflicting / frustrating.
I'm afraid I'm really not sure I see a conflict between "we need a new approach on drugs, the war has failed to reduce harm" and "we are causing harm with our prescription policies and should probably stop handing out hardcore opiates like candy"
Unless you are subject to the sort of black and white thinking that means any change in policy necessarily means a completely open market for all drugs, that is.
Many middle ways are possible - legalise and regulate access to less harmful drugs like cannabis (as is happening in much of the US), and offer maintenance and treatment to addicts of more harmful and addictive substances without criminalising them. Not a scenario that requires giving out oxys by the fistful.
There doesn't need to be a middle ground, because the logic of abandoning the war on drugs is that it actually lowers drug use more effectively by providing healthcare rather than punishment. This policy reform and lowering opiate addictions aren't at opposite to each other, the former would help the latter.
Secondly, how in the hell id the position "The war on drugs has failed, we need policies that promote harm reduction and ethics over failed punitive actions" taking a soft stance?
That's part of the whole reason we fail so hard and keep failing, that people have this weird idea that actually tackling the problem is 'soft' and presumably continuing to beat our collective heads against the wall, despite a continuing lack of it acheiving anything, is what? Tough? Hard?
It's fucking stupid is what it is...