Table of ContentsIntroductionStudyConclusionIntroductionGlobal opioid epidemics are creating significant infrastructure and regulatory challenges within governments . Suboxone is a medication recently introduced to help drug addicts fight their addiction. Addiction has increased exponentially as more users report chronic pain to the point of depression. Cathy Reisenwitz, a fellow at the Foundation of Economic Education, suggests that the DEA is responsible for the opioid epidemic in the United States. For the purposes of this article, we will examine the relationship between policing and recent lobbying efforts in the U.S. Congress. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"? Get the original essay After the study's conclusion, the paper concludes that Reisenwitz's claim that the DEA is responsible for the drug crisis opioids is inaccurate, due to many of its research findings giving rise to false law enforcement tropes rather than being rooted in fact. The best way to address the opioid crisis is to introduce Suboxone, as it is affordable for mass distribution and has been shown to be effective in other societies. Study Numerous studies and medications have been designed to try to end the problem of opioid addiction, but nothing appears to be stopping their rise in America. One such drug, Suboxone, was recently introduced in another attempt to help addicts recover. Substance abuse has increased exponentially as many users become addicted to painkillers to combat conditions ranging from chronic pain to depression. According to the CDC, 28 states saw their heroin overdose rates increase between 2010 and 2012. Additionally, the overdose death rate increased. from 6.2% to 9% in the space of a decade, according to the CDC. As a result, many governments are responsible for experimenting to determine which medications are most effective in helping patients recover, while posing the least risks. Cathy Reisenwitz, a fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education, believes the DEA is responsible for the opioid epidemic in the United States. Reisenwitz hypothesizes that America's growing opioid addiction crisis is not being managed effectively, due to the overly regulatory nature of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. She uses studies to prove that suboxone and methadone are much more effective drugs to counter the addiction crisis, rather than maintaining the status quo established by the DEA which emphasizes psychological treatments and regulations. In order to truly understand how to counter the opioid epidemic, a government must identify the key demographics of its users. Reisenwitz cites that "a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that half of all soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from chronic pain" (Foundation for Economic Education). By identifying a large population of people who use drugs, Reisenwitz is then able to identify how problems arise in the treatment of that population. She suggests that the DEA is responsible for this population's growing role in the opioid addiction epidemic. She cites how "in the 1970s, DEA reporting requirements caused many doctors to decide to stopprescribe painkillers” (Foundation for Economic Education). By citing historical precedent, Reisenwitz is able to prove that the DEA continues to promote habits that are dangerous to patients. a significant period of time. She then continues her assertion by stating that the DEA continues to regulate, "deciding to require that patients visit their doctors in person each month in order to obtain refills of hydrocodone medications" (Economic Research Foundation) . Reisenwitz suggests that this is a problem, but there are many problems with this approach. If this population decides to circumvent the legal framework for the acquisition of these painkillers, who is to say that their behavior is not inspired by that of other drug addicts who have never served in a war? It is difficult to determine whether the chosen population (military veterans returning from war with chronic pain) truly reflects the overall drug-using population worldwide. In other words, is Reisenwitz really effective in using military veterans as a population, when they actually represent only a small sample of the total drug addict base? A clinical trial conducted at Harvard Medical School in the mid-1990s demonstrated that a majority of people with drug addiction and non-psychotic unipolar depression who did not respond to conventional antidepressants and electroconvulsive therapy could be successfully treated with the suboxone (Bell 2004). Clinical depression is not currently an approved indication for opioid use (White 2017). Alternative forms of suboxone are currently under investigation, as they are currently in phase III clinical trials in the United States for the antidepressant treatment of treatment-resistant depression (White 2017). 2017). Reisenwitz does point out that opioids also have problems with the way they work inside the body. Opioids work by “mimicking chemicals produced naturally by our brains. The problem for long-term users is that the brain stops producing them if it doesn't have to. Stopping treatment leaves patients “constantly sore, sensitive to pain, depressed, tired but unable to sleep” (Foundation for Economic Research). As a result of this finding, we can understand that most returning veterans become attached to opioids because of the potential for extreme pain if they are forced off them. But how does the DEA come into play? Reisenwitz points out that “after the DEA rules changed, [an Army veteran’s] VA doctor couldn’t see him for almost five months. » (Foundation for Economic Research). Therefore, we can conclude that if veterans are involuntarily forced to give up their opioids, they will likely find another way to combat chronic pain due to their withdrawal symptoms. These regulations force veterans to turn to the black market for other drugs that, when mixed with opioids, can create a deadly mixture. It is believed that the combination of methadone and suboxone may get the user high, but simply activates receptors in the brain. sufficient to prevent withdrawal. Reisenwitz even points out that "France allowed doctors to prescribe methadone and buprenorphine when they deemed it necessary during the 1995 HIV epidemic." In the years that followed, France reduced the number of overdose deaths by 80 percent. (Economic Education Foundation). It is in this area that Reisenwitz's use of studies begins toborder on the search for opinion. The first problem Reisenwitz faces is that she cites no sustained studies in the United States that could prove that DEA regulations were causing the increase in opioid overdoses. She later claims that the opioid epidemic can be accelerated toward resolution by dismantling the DEA. Once again, his conclusion raises extreme statistical concerns. Can we say, with a sufficient confidence interval, that dismantling the DEA would solve the opioid epidemic? Although the study subjects are honorable people, the pain they suffer causes them to behave like a street opioid addict. The sample of people used to qualify the study is relatively random and we cannot capture the general behaviors of drug users. -abuse the population through this group. How can this be improved? I think a group of army veterans can be used as a control group because their behavior can be safely considered cautious. The study should be expanded to opioid addicts outside the military, to see if using methadone and suboxone actually decreases their desire to continue abusing opioids. Can we say, with a sufficient confidence interval, that dismantling the regulations built into the health care law would not allow more abuse and more opioid addicts across the country? Most of the data Reisenwitz uses is rather qualitative when discussing how the opioid epidemic is being addressed in the United States. She moves to quantitative numbers when discussing how methadone and suboxone are financed in other countries, but fails to recognize that the global economy is very different from ours. In terms of the budgetary impact of implementing methadone and suboxone, Spain has recently captured this issue by commissioning a study to assess the economic impact of bringing suboxone and methadone to market. During the first three years of the study, “86,017 patients would be included in a study for an opioid agonist treatment program” (Suboxone in Spain 14). It is safe to say that the study's estimate of the number of people who would be used in their study is more than sufficient to capture the true effects of the drug on a group of people. One of the controls they insert into the experiment is the effect of introducing suboxone and methadone into the sample. They estimate that there would be “no increase in the number of patients expected with the introduction of the B/N combination” (Suboxone in Spain, 16). Reisenwitz's findings in his study support this idea, as there is worldwide evidence that Suboxone and methadone help reduce the overall number of opioid addicts. The research group estimates that “the budgetary impact (drugs and associated costs) of opiate agonist treatment during the first year of the study would be 89.53 million euros” (Suboxone in Spain, 22). This figure is an important statistic for the study, because subtracting the new figure from the old treatment investment figures will show how much it costs, and the effectiveness of the drug is determined by the cost of implementing it per person. Later in the study, the researchers state that "during the first year of use of B/N, the budgetary impact would increase by 4.39 million euros (4.6% of the total impact) , with an additional cost of 0.79 million euros (0.9% of the total impact). the total impact). The budget increase would be 0.6% (increase of 0.48 million euros) and 0.6%.