Type: Advocacy

States have enacted multiple types of laws, with a variety of constituent provisions, in response to the opioid epidemic, often simultaneously. This temporal proximity and variation in state-to-state operationalization has resulted in significant challenges for empirical research on their effects. Thus, expert consensus can be helpful to classify laws and their provisions by their degree of helpfulness and impact. Overall, experts rated laws and provisions that facilitated harm reduction efforts and access to MOUD as most helpful. Laws and provisions rated as most harmful criminalized substance use and placed restrictions on access to MOUD. These ratings provide a foundation for evaluating the overall overdose policy environment for each state.

While the health impacts of mass incarceration have been explored, less attention has been paid to how the “war on drugs” in the United States exacerbates many of the factors that negatively impact health and wellbeing. This paper examines the ways that “drug war logic” has become embedded in key SDOH and systems. We argue that, because the drug war has become embedded in these systems, medical practitioners can play a significant role in promoting individual and community health by reducing the impact of criminalisation upon healthcare service provision and by becoming engaged in policy reform efforts.

ASTHO, with support from CDC’s Overdose Data to Action (OD2A) cooperative agreement, developed an interactive resource visualizing state and territorial laws that support harm reduction activities as of January 1, 2023. This report highlights the public health importance of three harm reduction policies and practices to reduce overdoses: Facilitating community distribution of naloxone; Facilitating community distribution of fentanyl test strips (FTS); Overdose prevention centers.