The Opioid crisis within the United States is a serious problem, which is killing over 40,000 a year, and causing damage to the lives of numerous others. It is clear that it is a problem that needs to be addressed, with new efforts and policies for preventing future addiction, changing prescription policies, increasing treatment, and combating the predatory criminal elements and corporate interests who have profited off harming their fellow man. People generally agree about the severity of this problem, and many politicians will at least proclaim their support for tackling the matter.

Now let us consider this hypothetical scenario. Say there was a politician who supported the opioid crisis. A politician who supports the widespread, common, and regular use of opioids as a recreational substance. A politician who uses the prestige of his position to publicly promote opioid use. A politician who uses the power of his position to try to pass laws to reduce restrictions on opioids, to give massive tax cuts and monetary grants to the companies that produce and distribute them, and to create programs that use taxpayer money to promote recreational opioid use. A politician who refuses to acknowledge the harmful effects of opioids and who if they were confronted with the reality of its effects, would downplay and dismiss them. One who would hide behind the vacuous excuses; claiming that “personal choice” should give companies the unrestrained ability to sell their product regardless of its effects on people, and that the economic activity of these businesses outweigh the human cost they take. A politician whose intentions are questionable, given the money they gets from the industry whose product they are promoting; but regardless of their motives still pushes to promote opioid use and the opioid industry regardless of its effects on people and society.

What would you think about such a politician and what they are doing. Now me, I would think that they are being a terrible politician; that they have abdicated their responsibilities as a public servant, have chosen selfishness and corporate interests at the expense of the public good.

Now, let us consider another politician. This politician, is like the one in the first scenario. Only instead of promoting opioid use and the opioid industry, he promotes the use of a different substance and the interest of its industry. This substance is even more devastating in its scale than opioids are. This substance has more people addicted to it than opioids, with an estimated 1 in 7 adults in the United States overtaken by it. It kills over 88,000 Americans a year, over twice as many as those killed by opioids. This substance costs the nation over 253 billion dollars a year in dealing with the social, medical, and economic damages that come from the effects of this substance.

Now what would you think of that politician? Would you think that this politician is as bad or worse that the one in the first scenario? That his promotion of this substance and its industry, his use of his position to secure government support for it, and his denial of the harms caused by it are unconscionable and unbefitting of a public figure?

Well the substance promoted by the politician in the second scenario is called alcohol. And unfortunately there are many politicians who use their position to promote alcohol use and the alcohol industry. For instance, this year, 47 the members of the senate has cosponsored a bill and 254 member of the house have cosponsored a bill that would give the alcohol industry over half a billion in tax breaks and would reduce federal restrictions on the alcohol industry. Here and in many other instances, you have politicians who have chosen to support the profits of the alcohol industry at the expense of the health, safety, and lives of the people they are supposed to be serving.

The opioid epidemic and the alcohol epidemic are both significant problems, and should be confronted. It is important that the public be made aware of these matters, and the actions of their representatives in regards to them. For it is through public awareness and the positive voices of citizens that politicians are pushed toward progress. Those public figures who have been gone astray from their responsibilities need to be addressed; either they be convinced to change their ways, or the citizens should use their electoral power to replace them. The principles of protecting life (enshrined the Declaration of Independence) and of promoting the general welfare (written in the Constitution) have a greater importance than the capriciousness, selfishness, and greed of individuals and corporations.