The Real Opioid Crisis Isn't Prescriptions—It's Prohibition
West Virginia's overdose data prove it: Officials misunderstood the problem, and patients paid the price.

Purdue Pharma recently reached a $7.4 billion settlement with all 50 states and the District of Columbia over its alleged role in fueling the opioid crisis through aggressive marketing of OxyContin. Regardless of the case's merits, this landmark deal highlights what can happen when an expedient narrative replaces data-driven public policy.
Nowhere is the gap between narrative and data more clear than in West Virginia, the hardest-hit state in the country. While a wave of books and Netflix docudramas has promoted an oversimplified and often misleading storyline, new data from the West Virginia Department of Health cast a glaring spotlight on the human cost of "prescription opioid prohibition"—a policy that has failed in every tangible way.
Overdose deaths in the state have doubled as illicit fentanyl and other street drugs have replaced the much safer prescription pills. Meanwhile, policymakers and regulators have demonized pain medications, causing real harm to patients. Many patients can no longer access legal prescriptions and instead turn to the streets, where they have an increased risk of death from taking adulterated or counterfeit pills. Policymakers addressed the wrong problem with the wrong tools—and made the crisis worse.
West Virginia Department of Health data illustrate this deadly shift. From 2015 to 2023, as prescription opioid access declined, overdose deaths in West Virginia soared—even though overdoses from prescription medications declined slightly—because users and abusers turned to riskier street drugs.

From 2015 to 2023, despite a decline in opioid prescriptions in West Virginia, overdose deaths doubled. Overdoses involving prescription painkillers such as oxycodone and hydrocodone decreased sharply, replaced by less potent buprenorphine—an opioid used to treat addiction—Celexa, an antidepressant, and gabapentin, which is ineffective as a substitute for pain prescriptions. Even more concerning, methamphetamine and cocaine surged in prevalence, along with fentanyl and xylazine, a veterinary tranquilizer.
West Virginia may be the clearest example, but it's far from the only one. National data show the same pattern. Opioid prescribing peaked in 2010 and has since fallen to levels not seen since the early 1990s. Meanwhile, drug overdose deaths have continued their steady exponential climb—a trend that began in 1979, accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, recently returned to pre-pandemic levels, and now appears to be rising again.
The data suggest a clear conclusion: Doctors prescribing opioids like OxyContin were never the main driver of the overdose crisis. Supporting this, a study published in the Yale Law and Policy Review, which used data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), found that "only 9.0% percent of nonmedical opioid users in 2001 reported ever using OxyContin in their lifetime."
Policymakers adhere to a narrative that conflicts with the data. The data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the SAMHSA reveal no connection between the amount of opioids prescribed and the rates of nonmedical use or addiction. People who misuse opioids aren't the same as patients who rely on them for real pain. Policymakers keep conflating the two, and patients are paying the price. Furthermore, the addiction rate to prescription pain pills among adults aged 18 and older remained below 1 percent during a period when prescription rates doubled, peaked, and then started to decline.
In the early 2000s, nonmedical users sought diverted pain pills. But when policymakers slashed prescribing and dried up the supply, dealers stepped in with heroin, then fentanyl. This was never a crisis of prescribing. It was a crisis of prohibition. And pain patients became the unintended casualties of a failed drug war.
We can't undo the past, but we can prevent further compounding of the mistake. The data are clear: Prescription opioids weren't the main cause of the overdose crisis. Policymakers mistook the harms of drug prohibition for the harms of medical prescribing—and patients paid the price. It's time to reject moral panic and adopt policies based on facts, not fear—policies that address pain without punishing patients.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well yeah ... but, but, but the [WE] mob packing pitch forks got personal 'moral standards' for power inflicted commie-land that are so much more important than any one of those 'icky' individual people's pain problems. /s
Horseshit, you just treat that 9% like they are collateral damage.
. But after a few moments, she bent down, picked up another starfish, and hurled it as far as she could into the ocean. Then she looked up at the man and replied,
“Well, I made a difference for that one!”
======================
I don't know how many REASON readers are like me but I am damn tired of your "well only 10 % die" Or "yes, a million were injured but that's the price of progress" PUT PEOPLE FIRST
Myths of Drug Legalization
This paper challenges the arguments of those who favor legalizing drugs as the most beneficial strategy for society.
Corporate Author
California Narcotic Officers' Assoc Address24509 Walnut Street, #201, Santa Clarita, CA 91321, United States
GROW THE HELL UP, GET A HEART
Those of us who THINK instead of FEEL know that the ten percent of drug abusers who die during the War on Drugs would have been only five percent without the War on Drugs. But by all means keep feeling your bullshit if it gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling.
How does a bald assertions sams evidence mean you're thinking instead of feeling? Did deaths go up in Portland or not?
Again, heartless
https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/colorado/research/housing-and-our-community/the-consequences-of-drug-decriminalization
Overdose deaths are linked with legality.
Do you know the difference between legalization and decriminalization?
Your starfish analogy is incomplete. To make the analogy more apt, you've have to have a process where to save the one, you not merely ignored the others, you actively fished out and killed ten others.
"Put people first" also means paying attention to the unintended consequences of your "noble" cause and looking honestly at the harm it does.
Your cited paper, by the way, is garbage. It's a propagandist piece published in 1994 by a drug warrior attempting to morally justify his job. It is filled with half-truths, untruths and outdated assumptions.
People are laughing at you
filled with halftruths, but none you mention
filled with untruths but none you mention
all assumptions outdated but not your assumptions
Here is another study you won't be able to treat with disdain. Readers, this is your clue that I am posting excellent stuff, the mindless non-replies
https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/colorado/research/housing-and-our-community/the-consequences-of-drug-decriminalization
So wait, you're saying a world in which there are 90% fewer overdoses is worse because those overdoses had once used legal opioids? Are you serious.
Where's your heart for all the extra people your preferred policies are killing?
(And do note, those 9% are not 'overdosed on legal painkillers', they're 'overdosed AND had used legal painkillers at least once before'. If i had to guess, most of those weren't overdosing on legal painkillers, but on illegal ones when they could no longer get the legal ones).
I’m sick of not being able to get even small quantities of mild opiates because of all this stupidity. And I have chronic vertebrae problems that are obvious and proven with a simple x-ray.
And I don’t give a shit if some people are abusing their pain medication. Why the fuck is that MY problem? It certainly shouldn't have any bearing on how my medical care is handled.
No, I said the opposite, that to say the dying are necessary to die if we are to have drug legalization , is morally wrong AND the opposite of the facts
Legalist INCREASES drug deaths
https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/colorado/research/housing-and-our-community/the-consequences-of-drug-decriminalization
How is it that supposed lubbertarians, who supposedly believe in individual responsibility, won't say the obvious: The opoid "crisis" is entirely caused by the people taking the pills. No pill jumps on your face and rams itself down your throat. The column proves that -- no matter what the policy, people still took the pills.
Gun homicides are entirely caused by the people using/misusing a gun to end someone else's life. True. But we shouldn't ban all guns because some people abuse that right to have them.
Drugs (opioids) are neutral--just as guns are neutral. They can be misused/abused with terrible consequences or they can be a lifesaver for those in extreme pain. Regardless, you own your body and have a right to put in it whatever you want. People will make good decisions, and others will make bad decisions. Just as you can choose to eat fast food for every meal of your life and die at 50 of obesity-related illnesses. But it's your right to decide what you put in your body when you're an adult. The government banning drugs/guns/Big Macs is an infringement on your liberty and a violation of the NAP.
Also, drug prohibition, even if the motivation is good (I don't think it is), exacerbates the problems with drug abuse and addiction.
Illicit Drugs
Excerpt from the novel, Retribution Fever:
Seven. In the matter of drug abuse, such abuse represents a willful action not a passive happening. Prohibition has proven a failure. It had failed with alcohol. It failed with other recreational drugs. It only increases the price of such drugs and promotes corruption of political officials and law-enforcing agents on a vast scale; thereby, destabilizing entire social systems . . . foreign and domestic. Unless we make possession itself a capital crime as is the case in Southeast Asia, it will continue to fail. So-called rehabilitation has a low rate of long-term success at high cost, representing a poor investment.
Will decriminalizing recreational, “mind-altering” drugs increase their abuse? There exists little credible evidence that long-term it does . . . however, it remains the official policy of the federal government to discourage abuse of any class of recreational drug including alcohol. Accordingly, distasteful as it may be to many, we shall abolish federal criminal penalties for all recreational drugs. All recreational, “mind-altering” drugs previously deemed illegal under federal law, such as heroin and marijuana, no longer will be. States will be free to pass their own laws in this regard, including setting age-limits. Previously illegal drugs will be manufactured or imported only through the usual, legal channels and sold only through licensed pharmacies and medical clinics. Competition will set prices.
All recreational, “mind-altering” drugs will be subject to a federal tax proportional to the direct costs incurred by the federal government as a consequence of their abuse. Proceeds will be used only to offset direct costs for the following: Effective medical treatment in federal hospitals and clinics of drug-overdose not ineffective treatment of drug-abuse itself, penal incarceration in federal prisons for crimes committed directly related to the abuse of these drugs, and social services by the federal government for those rendered unable to support themselves as a consequence of having abused these drugs. In the future, we expect such costs to the federal government to be minimal. Each State may impose its own tax and regulations regarding usage.
"Policymakers adhere to a narrative that conflicts with the data."
I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you, to discover that policymakers don't care about facts, logic, reality, principles of cause and effect or actual outcomes. All they have to do is wave their magic expert authority wands and declare that the world would be much worse off without their policies.
Regardless of the case's merits, this landmark deal highlights what can happen when an expedient narrative replaces data-driven public policy.
These are completely contradictory, but leave it to shills to miss that.
an opioid used to treat addiction
https://tinyurl.com/y49p3eeh
The data are clear: Prescription opioids weren't the main cause of the overdose crisis.
Yes they were. Hop on the causation train with me.
Prescription opioids prescribed.
Opioid addiction begins.
Prescription ends based on lack of medical necessity.
Addiction demands opioids.
Legitimate medicine refuses.
Addict turns to black market.
Black market sells without constraint or quality assurance.
Addict ODs.
You want opioids, go inpatient. Otherwise, you don't get them. The drug-addled population has proven in spades that they CANNOT be trusted with self-medicating. If you are in so much legitimate pain that you can't go without them, you need to be admitted to a hospital.
If you aren't, then you're abusing them for mere discomfort, hoping to displace it with a high. THAT'S what needs to stop.
Except...that didn't happen.
And the aim of effective pain treatment is so you don't need to be hospitalized, and can lead a productive life.
And the aim of effective pain treatment is so you don't need to be hospitalized, and can lead a productive life.
And yet, instead of leading to a productive life, it leads to addiction and death. Yaaaay. 😐
Also, again, we're not talking about "effective pain treatment." If you're in regular, legitimate, crippling pain - go to a hospital and be admitted. You can't lead a productive life that way in the first place.
You're talking about discomfort, but equating it with pain. They are not the same thing. Stop pretending otherwise.
Except ....confusing medical needs with the needs of a hophead is dishonest. Almost nobody against drug legalization takes the view you ascribe to them. My son in law died from opiods , it's not theoretical to me.
Legalizers set themselves back decades by passively aligning with the decriminalization effort over the past 15 years.
The decrim thing morphed into decrim of addict criminal behavior, and granting addicts control of the streets. That's what everyone "knows" will be the results of legalization.
Fentanyl addicts are going to die of addiction related causes. We know that.
But we want our cities back.
What could legalizers have done to not "passively align" like that. Thats how passive alignment works; when you have no power over policy, you get swept up in it like everyone else. Do you have to shut up and express no opinions because you can't control what others will do and say?
You just passed over 'we want our cities back" . My son in law died of opioids, AND I want my city back
There are two problems these days caused by addiction
1. The effect on fentanyl addicts themselves, often death.
2. The effect on cities where addicts are allowed to lounge.
The best we can do for addicts isn't particularly effective in achieving recovery, but if you look at recovery stories, they all involve hitting the bottom. The bottom usually has two words: dopesick, jail.
The best we can do is that once a person falls into a zone where they need other people to sustain their addiction, instead of finding such assistance, they find misery. They find dopesick in jail. And they find it frequently.
That doesn't require making drugs illegal. It does require enforcing laws criminalizing addiction related behaviors, the 1st one being public intoxication.
Legalizers have to assert an overall plan which includes how cities will manage addicts.
The legal alcohol model has been developed over time, and should serve as a reasonable starting place. No city ever granted control of the streets to alcoholics.
Legalizers must join the advocates of civilization in opposing tolerance of street addiction, or they get seen as the problem rather than the solution.