FURTHER THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE OPIOID CRISIS

Interested in the opioid crisis?  This blog has addressed this tragic calamity facing the nation in past postings.  This posting can list the titles (and dates) of previous postings that have highlighted this topic, but can more efficiently draw the reader’s attention to an online site in which this blogger has listed, in the form of factoids and insights, useful information concerning this epidemic.  That site’s URL is https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11635&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AFhwqIF3ZhONVK8 .

          That site not only has information regarding the various types of opioids but also information regarding different related aspects of its sell and distribution including governmental reactions to the problem.  The individual bits of information are sourced so the reader can further investigate the information.

          This posting aims to add to those listings and it uses a recurring source the above site uses.  That source is Beth Macy’s book, Dopesick:  Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America.[1]  This more recent book serves as a good follow up to Sam Quinones’ book, Dreamland:  The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic.[2]  Both are “good reads” and they do an effective job at humanizing this plague on the nation.  They also portray how this drug abuse exposes the lack of a federalist mindset among Americans – a mindset that prevailed before World War II.

But before sharing the factoids and insights, a word on why this format is used is helpful.  Earlier in this blog, several postings make the case that a main instructional strategy this blog supports is an approach it calls historical dialogue-to-action (HD-to-A).[3]  As its title indicates, discourse plays a central role.  Beyond that, the approach commits a teacher to spend time developing students’ abilities to utilize logical arguments in that discourse. 

In turn, the approach relies on Stephen Toulmin’s logical model of argumentation.[4]  In that model, the function of factoids (called datum statements) and insights (called warrant statements) play crucial functions in the formulation of a logical argument.  Interested readers are directed to yet another former posting, “Toulmin’s Elements of a Logical Argument.”[5] 

With that context here is this posting’s list of factoids and insights – they are identified as examples of each type of statement.

Factoid:  A more recent type of opioid has been found among the public.  That is carfentanil.  Macy reports that it was originally developed as a sedative for elephants.  It is one hundred times stronger than the strong opioid, fentanyl, which, in turn, is 25 to 50 times stronger than heroin.

Factoid:  The state of West Virginia – through its burial-assistance program – was at the time of a cited report running out of funds dedicated to burying opioid victims.  West Virginia is not alone in this problem; similar reports come from a variety of states from Florida to California.  Generally, the epidemic moved from rural areas to urban areas.  Of special interest is the urban corridor between Baltimore and New York City.

Factoid:  Macy judges the nation’s response to the epidemic to be very slow and very impotent once it began.

Insight:  Unlike the spread of other drug consumption patterns, the opioid problem started in isolated areas such the Appalachian area or the Midwestern rust belt region.  This is attributed, at least in part, to the downward trends the local economies of those areas experienced especially after the introduction of competition from low income countries from around the world.  Not only were the economies of these areas under stress, but they were already known to be politically powerless areas that lacked appropriate medical facilities to meet the crisis.

Insight:  Also adding a causal effect to an overall lack of a reaction to the epidemic was the “stigma and shame” one attaches to the resulting addiction.  People and families affected were highly reluctant to come forward and let their problem be known.

Insight:  “Because the most important thing for the morphine-hijacked brain is, always, not to experience the crushing physical and psychological pain of withdrawal:  to avoid dopesickness at any cost.  [This leads to] … many users recruit[ing] new customers. … [creating a cycle, which] too often ends in jail or prison or worse …”[6]

          These factoids and insights will be added to the online site.

---

[1] Beth Macy, Dopesick:  Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America (New York, NY:  Riverhead Books, 2018).  In terms of Macy’s book, this posting is not the first time this blog has cast an eye on it.  For example, the posting, “More Information on Opioid Crisis,” was posted on July 23, 2019.  See Robert Gutierrez, “More Information on Opioid Crisis,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, July 23, 2013, accessed February 13, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019/07/more-information-on-opioid-crisis.html .

[2] Sam Quinones, Dreamland:  The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic (New York, NY:  Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015).

[3] Robert Gutierrez, “Turning to Action – A Model,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, March 5, 2019, accessed February 13, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019/03/turning-to-action-model.html .

[4] Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (London:  Cambridge University Press, 1969).

[5] Robert Gutierrez, “Toulmin’s Elements of a Logical Argument,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, August 22, 2017, accessed February 13, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2017/08/toulmins-elements-of-logical-argument.html .

[6] Beth Macy, Dopesick, 9.

WELFARE, FREEDOM, AND VIRTUE

One recurring argument this blog has proffered is that civics education should recommit to moral or values related objectives.  That is, it should ask students to deal with moral dilemmas one finds in the political landscape.  Not only should such analysis target governmental policy – at whatever level – but address the moral actions of citizens and interest groups.  After all, these entities are partnered within the compact-al arrangement that the nation’s constitution sets up.

          Probably, no other concept lies at the bottom of this concern than does justice.  Fortunately, the thoughts of Michael Sandel are out there to assist any discussion over which moral issues should be addressed.  This posting reports on the related priorities he poses that serve to organize his contribution.[1]  Specifically, he highlights the function justice plays in determining what values to which one should ascribe.

          To begin, he points out that justice has to do with distribution, especially the distribution of assets, but also with punishments that often restrict or confiscate assets.  In short, questions of justice and their resolution affect how much or how many assets a person or group receives or should be able to protect.  These assets take various forms that include goods, welfare, freedom or liberty, and those associated with virtue. 

Along with visualizing them as cherished objects, they can be ideals and, in turn, they are placed in priority.  These determinations can reflect various ways of considering moral issues and/or of developing moral principles.  As a matter of fact, people tend to use the last three listed asset categories – welfare, freedom or liberty, and virtue – as central concerns in their moral thinking.  This is no more the case than in how they pertain to political realities and their related issues.

          Sandel uses these to organize his thoughts and starts with the ideal, welfare.  With that concern one is guided to consider economic factors, not only on how the economy might affect individuals, but also how the factors affect the whole society or polity.  One can readily agree that no single ideal captures more attention in the political realm of discussion and debate than the concerns over welfare. 

Maybe the famous quip, “it’s the economy, stupid,” oversimplifies things, but there is a reason it became famous.  Generally, the give and take over the economy refers to or asks about various questions.  They include,

·       What should a society’s economic goals be?

·       If, and one cannot see it being otherwise, that includes avenues toward prosperity, who should share in any achieved success and to what degree?

·       And, what policies – both in the public and private sectors – lead to the highest level of economic growth possible? 

It turns out these are not isolated concerns; how one answers one, economic theory states, affects how the others are also answered.

And prosperity is not just a nice thing to happen; it adds to or makes possible the realization of acceptable levels of overall welfare.  That is, as utilitarianists point out, welfare is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number.  While one does not need to buy into the utilitarianist argument, it is hard to disagree with the notion that the greatest good for the greatest number is not something to avoid, all other things being equal.

The second ideal is freedom and here one’s attention is drawn to how freedom is defined.  For most, it relates and emphasizes how and why individuals are respected, i.e., to what degree does the individual enjoy rights.  Now, not all who study such things agree either as to what are rights, or, once defined, which rights are important.  But one can note, most theories about rights place them in some hierarchy of importance.

For most who ascribe to the notion that history bends toward justice (which does not necessarily pertain to this blogger), they buy into some general listing of importance as indicated in the US Bill of Rights or the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights.  These listings include the right of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religiosity, etc.  These listings generally serve to place limits on the power of majorities to curb individual prerogatives which often lead to highly contentious politics.

This concern over rights demonstrates how concerns over welfare and freedom affect one another.  The question, for example, arises:  Do certain freedom policies enhance or restrict welfare by either inducing or restricting the performances of businesses?  And here is where one finds a recurring area of concern within this nation’s – or just about any nation’s – political discourse.  What should be the relationship between the business sector and government?

This question solicits two basic answers.  One, is the laissez-faire argument.  That argument holds that welfare – economic performance – reaches its highest levels when economic actors are free to do their thing.  Any interference – mostly emanating from government – only hinders the economy from preforming at its full capacity. 

On the other hand, government interventionists question the laissez faire conclusion – where’s the evidence for such a sweeping bias?[2] – and point out economies that run without strong oversight and regulations lead to economic disasters – such as the Great Depression.  Such hands-off policies also leads to unjust distribution of economic goods – such as income and consequently wealth. 

This latter concern seems to be of prime importance to those who favor intervention while laissez-faire advocates minimize its importance as long as the ground rules for any results are judged to be fair – let the chips fall where they may.

And with that, Sandel turns to the concern about virtue.  He also uses the term, good life, to describe this ideal.  Here, probably, of the three listed ideals, one finds the highest levels disagreement among those who consider these three ideals.  It also engenders the most motivation to “get involved” in the political goings on of one’s locality.  Often this concern relates to religious beliefs or beliefs over human worth.

Sandel cites those who have notoriety for involving themselves over issues of virtue ranging from Martin Luther King, Jr. to the Taliban.  This variance indicates that there is a wide array of beliefs associated with virtue including:  what constitutes virtue, what is/are its origins, and who has it?  It most directly is concerned with what constitutes a just society (a bit circular?).  And such concerns range from disagreements at the societal level, with its political realm, to debates individuals have within themselves – the questions can be that unsettling to those involved in any of a multitude of related issues.

Surely, any thinking human being will confront dilemmas in life whose origins deal with a concern over what is virtuous and what is not.  They can include:  how one provides for elderly parents, where one sends his/her children to school, how to react to incidences of injustice one might observe in public spaces such as on a public bus, etc.?  Professional moral-thinkers, such as Sandel, analyze moral situations and gleam from them generalizable questions and proffer thought-out responses to those questions.  This blog will look at this topic again.

---

[1] Michael J. Sandel, Justice:  What’s the right thing to do?  (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2009).

[2] See Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times (New York, NY:  Public Affairs, 2019).