The opioid crisis is one that continues to astonish the public. From the lack of accountability, poor government oversight, inconsistent enforcement, and an all-out failure to bring it to a head, the crisis is a never-ending disaster seemingly playing on loop. The question that experts ask and fail to answer is what remedies courts should consider in future settlements beyond monetary damages and whether the suggested remedies would help in preventing a recurrence of another opioid-type public health crisis. While this question is important and deserves an answer, it is not the correct question that needs to be asked presently.
As the adage goes, “a bad tree does not yield good apples.” As such, experts should first ask why the opioid crisis has been able to grow at an alarming rate since the introduction of Purdue’s OxyContin in 1995 and continues to grow twenty-seven years later. Only after answering this initial question can the question of what can be done to prevent another opioid-type public health crisis be answered permanently. While it is hard to grasp such a large-scale failure with multiple facets needing to be looked at and evaluated, the opioid crisis is the epitome of the “Pareto Principle,” and the resolution of one cog, which in this case is the Controlled Substances Act itself and its enforcement, will create a resolution to the opioid epidemic itself.