As others have pointed out, RESTRAINT on drug-related prosecutions can help reduce overdose and other drug-related harms
This includes absurdly punitive efforts like drug-induced homicide prosecutions that make ODs into homicides and litigation to block harm reduction facilities
But we also highlight opportunities for DOJ to address structural drivers of OD/addiction MORE AGGRESSIVELY:
- Prosecute patient abuse in "rehab industrial complex"
- Challenge zoning, housing discrimination
- Change regulations to promote medication access
- Facilitate research
- Restructure to abolish the failed DEA
- Advocate for reforms that align science and the law
- Focus on economic crimes like wage theft that drive problematic substance use
- Attack environmental crimes that cause conditions that cause poor health and problematic substance use
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"We can't arrest our way out of this problem" became a mantra of overdose crisis response. Leaders from all sectors, incl CJ, readily served it up, highlighting contrast with hyper-punitive and racist drug crises of the past (e.g. crack)
So the safe consumption discussion got me thinking: what has the DOJ, and especially the DEA, done to address the crisis they claimed will be "worsened" by the introduction of a proven public health measure? Stand by for some news
So in thinking about what has the DEA done to address the overdose crisis, the tally is...not very positive. It does appear that the agency has done far more harm than good. Here's my take, in tomorrow's @nytopinionnytimes.com/2018/09/17/opi… … w @JeremiahGoulka. Thread to follow
To be fair, the DEA never got a fighting chance. A brainchild of Nixon’s War on Drugs, it was mostly a bigger, badder version of its fed predecessors whose mission was to dismantle drug trafficking at home and abroad. See @mattpembleton's excellent history umass.edu/umpress/title/…
Been following @jenniferdoleac@anita_mukherjee naloxone paper w trepidation since learning about it last summer. Frustrating to watch how few constructive conversation emerged from the paper's recent broad exposure. My attempt to remedy w long #threadpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
First, let me just say criticizing the paper or its authors for doing what is standard in their field (e.g. publishing online before formal peer review) is patently unfair. Whether or not those academic conventions make sense is a different, longer conversation
But please learn the facts and don't critique people for things they aren't responsible for. Goes without saying, there's definitely no room for personal attacks, including those baselessly questioning the authors' intelligence, competence and professionalism