Politicians Want to Put Combination Locks on Pill Bottles to Fight Opioid Epidemic

 Two Tennessee legislators are proposing a new policy that would put  combination locks on pill bottles. The lawmakers say that pill bottles  containing opioids are too easy to open, thus making them easier to  steal. It is likely, however, that opiate pills are sold voluntarily far  more often than they are stolen. The Pilfering Prevention Act, introduced by Senator Richard Briggs  and Representative Matthew Hill, would make the new combination lock  pill bottles mandatory in the state of Tennessee. Senator Richard Briggs claims that citizens of his state are accidentally overdosing because they don’t know how powerful the drugs are:   

“Too often well-meaning Tennesseans are completely  unaware of the highly addictive, and potentially lethal, prescriptions  drugs sitting in the family medicine cabinet. This is where drug  addiction starts, and often where accidental overdoses occur. These  drugs are being manufactured and prescribed in record numbers, and so it  shouldn’t be a surprise that drug-related deaths are at an all-time  high in Tennessee. We must explore every tool to combat this epidemic,  and my bill is a practical and important step in the right direction.”

Representative Matthew Hill said that this new policy could prevent drug abuse: 

“Currently there is little distinction between the  way commonly-prescribed drugs and highly-addictive and dangerous drugs  are dispensed in Tennessee. If we’re going to be serious about  addressing our obvious prescription drug problem in Tennessee, we have  to implement safeguards that differentiate certain dangerous  prescriptions and divert the possibility of abuse. That’s what my bill  aims to do.”

Similar efforts have been made to mandate combination lock pill  bottles in other U.S. states including Michigan, Colorado and Maryland,  but the legislation has failed. Lawmakers who voted against the bill  cited cost, with the new bottles adding an estimated $5 onto an average  prescription. 

 The overall sentiment is that this will prevent teens from getting  their hands on their parent’s opiates since most addictions begin in  adolescence. However, this attitude overlooks the fact that opiates are  extremely easy to source, even for children. This policy is putting a  band-aid on a larger problem that politicians are refusing to address. The decades long drug war has increased addiction and drug related  crime despite the increase in both enforcement and punishment. Evidence  indicates that ending prohibition of even the most controversial drugs  like meth and heroin, would actually reduce crime and addiction.  However, politicians continue to turn a blind eye to real solutions and  instead advocate for revenue-generating punishment-based policies.

In 2001, Portugal became the first country in the world to end the drug war within its borders. In the short time since, the country has seen a radical improvement in their society.  Drugs now have a smaller impact on Portugal’s society as a whole than  they did prior to the end of prohibition. 

There are now fewer  drug-related deaths, fewer children getting ahold of drugs, and fewer  people doing drugs in general. Many other factors that are often  overlooked including the fact that infectious diseases spread through  needles and dirty drug practices have declined rapidly in Portugal since  the end of drug prohibition. Also, there are far fewer conflicts with  citizens and police than there once were and many prisons have even shut  down because there is not enough crime. 

The drug war is one of the most misunderstood subjects in the  mainstream political dialogue today, even among those who are  sympathetic to the plight of responsible drug users. It is rare for  someone to publicly admit that all drugs should be legal, but according  to the evidence, this is the only logically consistent stance on the  issue. 

To say that some drugs should be legal while others should not,  is giving credence to the punishment paradigm and overlooking the  external consequences of drug prohibition—or prohibition of anything,  for that matter. As was previously described by The Anti-Media,  there are many external factors that are affected by the drug war that  aren’t often taken into account. 

That is because when you carry out acts  of violence, even in the form of punishment, you create a ripple effect  which extends far beyond the bounds of the original circumstance and  end up affecting many innocent people down the line. This list  delves into those external factors to illustrate how drug users and  non-users alike would be far better off if prohibition ended  immediately.