The Epidemic of Opioid Addiction in the US

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The selected article, titled “Banning a promising cure for opioid addiction is a bad idea,” was written by Richard Schiffman and was published in Wired magazine in 2016. This opinion piece discusses the epidemic of opioid addiction in the United States and suggests that kratom should not be banned by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). In fact, the purpose of the article was to convince that DEA’s decision to place this plant that was successfully used in South-East Asian countries to treat heroin addiction was wrong (Schiffman, 2016). Although the author presents facts about kratom benefits, the article still lacks scientific evidence, likely due to insufficient research in this area, so it may not convince the reader that this herb should be legal.

The anti-drug war was declared at the times of President Nixon, but the addiction rates has not dropped significantly since that time. The author laments that DEA’s actions in this battle with illicit compounds went too far when the agency added kratom to the same category that cocaine and heroin belonged to (Schiffman, 2016).

Indeed, Schiffman (2016) states that the DEA’s justification for banning this plant is wrong because it is not an opioid but an alkaloid with medicinal benefits. The author is right about the latter, but it appears that he lacks medical and scientific knowledge and understanding about the former claim. The problem with this explanation is that if a compound is an alkaloid, which is a plant-derived compound, it does not mean that it cannot be an opioid. This argument seems invalid, weakening the possibility for the article to attain its purpose.

Another statement that the author should be cautious about is that kratom’s opioid effect on the brain is weak, so there is no real risk of addiction. Indeed, this plant is often used in South-East Asian countries for treating heroin addiction and is successfully implemented for pain relief (Schiffman, 2016). However, it is premature to declare its soothing effects since overdosing on this herb may lead to cardiac toxicity, edema, pulmonary congestion, and death (Tay et al., 2019). Although kratom is only mildly addictive, its uncontrolled intake may have severe consequences for individuals.

Nevertheless, the author’s claim about the unfairness of listing this medicinal plant together with other illicit drugs is reasonable because there is a lack of studies to do that. Since kratom is now officially banned from use, “drug companies have shown little interest in a plant remedy that cannot be patented” (Schiffman, 2016, para. 17). It is impossible to understand the harm or advantages of this herb until sufficient evidence comes from research. In fact, studies should be undertaken in order not to lose one potential drug candidate that may benefit millions of people with chronic pain or addiction. However, its use and dosage should be strictly regulated by healthcare organizations.

In summary, the selected article aimed to show that banning kratom was unreasonable and unfair, but the author may not reach its purpose. Although several rhetorical elements support the thesis, some facts are scientifically inaccurate. The author claims that this herb is classified as an alkaloid, not an opioid, which are not mutually exclusive terms because it acts on the same receptors in the brain as other opioids. Still, there was no equally sufficient evidence for banning this compound. Therefore, more research should be conducted in this field to find the true answer.