Journal of Student Research 2019

Journal of Student Research 122 pain management—SEPS may be able to prevent future opioid deaths as users would potentially begin substituting heroin for medical marijuana. Criteria for Evalutation To evaluate policy feasibiliy, I will be using four criteria for evaluation. First, technical feasibility refers to issues of effectiveness. Can this policy realistically happen? Second is economic feasibility. Policies may be created, but without economic support, they are ultimately useless. Budgets further restrict this category as scarcity and finite amounts of spending limit how much can actually be achieved, regardless of the importance of a specific policy. Both of these lend themselves to the third criteria, policital viability. Data can provide enormous clout for a policy’s success, but politics are often value and culture based. One of the most salient factors to political viability is the constituents that will be impacted by the policy: those who benefit and those who do not. Connotating the affected constituents of the policy as criminals will limit the political clout needed for success. The emphasis of users as patients is thus vital to the success of the chosen policy. Finally, legality and ethics must be considered in all aspects of the criteria, but are pertenant to recognize in their own right. These substances have been categorized as highly illegal and thus users of these substances are demonized, which greatly affects current users and recovering users’ lives. The acknowledgement of the connotations opioids hold and the stereotypes of opioid users is purposeful to create a different narrative of the substance and it’s users to craft a alternative policy. may affect or be useful to the state of California to deal with heroin deaths and it’s opioid crisis. Some, like those proposed by the Trump Administration, may be out of California’s control to implement themselves. Yet others, which deal with legalizing and decriminalizing opioids, have been established in other countries with significant results. The advantage of an outside policy analysis and proposal is the freedom to speculate something that may seem to be beyond the possibilities for politicians, and to ponder what the future could potentially hold for constituents. Using this criteria, I will examine several existing policy proposals to halting the opioid epidemic, examing the pros and cons of each. One policy proposed by the current Federal administration recommends convictions for high-intensity drug traffickers, including the death penalty. The plan proposed by President Trump identifies three areas to control opioids: law enforcement and interdiction, prevention and education, and improving the ability to fund treatment through the federal government (Merica, Gray, & Drash, n.d.). Policy Alternatives There have been several proposed and implemented policy alternatives that Federal Policy Proposal

123 A Case Study of California’s Syringe Exchange Programs on Illicit Opioid Use Congress has allocated $6 billion to address the opioid crisis, making this policy economically feasible. The main controversial, and therefore problematic, component is the death penalty for “high-intensity” drug dealers. Besides the value conflict this involves, there is also a huge economic cost. One study specifically highlights the economic problems associated with the death penalty. Costs do not only include the normal trial—$365,296—and execution methodology costs that the general public thinks of, but there is extra cost involving the multiple trials the death penalty entails, as well as the price experts cost to recommend such a fine: $30,269/prosecution (Spencer, Cauthron, & Edmund, 1998). Historically and politically, this option is neither technically nor economically feasible as over time the death penalty is not an enforced option in many courts. As far as the educational advertisement campaign is concerned, this is similar to previous tactics to cut generational ties to drug abuse. Both President Trump and first lady Melania Trump have worked together on this section of the policy (“Trump’s opioid,” n.d.). Mrs. Trump wants to focus on the normative aspect of drug use. An official in the CNNPolitics article further explained, “The First Lady wants to focus on the well-being of children with ads that lay out you are a somebody, not a statistic, don’t start with drugs, and educate them”. “The President is more shock the conscience. He wants to shock people into not using it.” This sounds like the policies of Richard Nixon and later Ronald Reagan, who coined the term ‘War on Drugs’, and whose wife Nancy Regan played a critical role in infamous advertisement campaigns. A continuation of this normative struggle that demonizes drug users as criminals does not provide technical nor political viability to lower opioid deaths. Treating addiction as criminal, rather than a public health matter, perpetuates the problem rather than dedicating energy to achievable, concrete solutions to lower opioid deaths. Finally, the description of the third aspect of the new federal policy proposal includes improving access to funds for treatment through the federal government, but not enough information is available in the CNNPolitics article to complete a technical or economic feasibly prediction. Could the unique rehabilitative aspect of this policy be the beginning in a conntative and rehabilitative shift in the judicial process of illicit opioid users? Or is the nascent discussion of this section of the policy purposeful to further the more pragmatic aspects? On the other end of the spectrum, the second alternative proposes that the state of California legalize opioids in an effort to allow users to gain better access to treatment. This would make the sale and consumption of illicit opioids like heroin and fentynal legal under state law. It would also legitimize, formalize, and create guidelines for the current illegal opioid market. Historically, this has proven to be Legalizing Opioids

Table of Contents

Table of Contents