The drug policy debate’s common ground: better treatment and recovery

Few public policy debates are as polarized as drug policy, which is often framed around two competing visions — prohibition and decriminalization. Both camps are passionate about their positions, and both make valid arguments. But they frequently overlook the same prerequisite for success: a system capable of meeting the country’s growing demand for addiction treatment and recovery services. 

Prohibitionists point to the extraordinary dangers posed by today’s drugs, which are often far more lethal and addictive than in the past, and suggest they must be outlawed to protect public health and safety. They have a point. Synthetic opioids like fentanyl can be more than 50 times as potent as heroin and were involved in more than 55,000 overdose deaths in the last 12 months, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provisional data. These drugs are deadly, and demand strict controls. 

Drug reformers note the failure of the so-called “war on drugs” to curb drug trafficking, use and overdose deaths, and support a new approach grounded in “evidence, health, equity, and human rights.” They have a point. After over 50 years of prohibition, drugs are cheaper, stronger and easier to get than ever, despite massive investments in interdiction and enforcement. Now is the time to change course and treat illicit drugs primarily as a public health issue.  

Whatever one’s preferred approach, both prohibition and reform depend on the availability of effective treatment and recovery services. 

Take prohibition. History shows that increased regulation has at times resulted in unintended consequences. In 2005, for example, the U.S. government introduced strict controls on the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to disrupt domestic methamphetamine........

© The Hill