A discussion of critical errors in a longitudinal study on the deterrent effect of drug‐induced homicide laws on opioid‐related mortality across 92 counties and the District of Columbia in the United States

Author:

Carroll Jennifer J.12ORCID,Bevis Leah3,El‐Sabawi Taleed45,Figgatt Mary67,Dasgupta Nabarun67,Beletsky Leo89,Leiberman Amy J.10,Dennis Ashleigh10,Davis Corey S.10

Affiliation:

1. Department of Sociology and Anthropology North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA

2. Warren Alpert School of Medicine Brown University Providence Rhode Island USA

3. Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA

4. Florida International University College of Law Miami Florida USA

5. O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law Georgetown University Washington District of Columbia USA

6. Gillings School of Global Public Health University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill North Carolina USA

7. Injury Prevention Research Center University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill North Carolina USA

8. Health in Justice Action Lab Northeastern University School of Law Boston Massachusetts USA

9. Bouvé College of Health Sciences at Northeastern University Boston Massachusetts USA

10. Harm Reduction Legal Project, Network for Public Health Law Edina Minnesota USA

Abstract

AbstractDrug overdose claimed more than 100,000 lives in the United States in 2021. Drug‐induced homicide (DIH) laws create specific criminal liability for individuals who provide drugs that cause or contribute to the death of another person. DIH prosecutions in the United States have increased substantially over the past decade despite the absence of meaningful evidence of their individual‐ or community‐level impacts. Recently, Lee et al. analyzed the impact of DIH laws on county‐level opioid overdose mortality across 92 counties in 10 states and concluded that DIH laws are associated with significant reductions in rates of opioid overdose death. In this commentary, we present evidence demonstrating that the Lee et al. study is fundamentally flawed. Specifically, the legal data used by Lee et al. to define their treatment condition (the presence or absence of a state‐level DIH law) is incorrect in almost every aspect. We also describe significant methodological weaknesses, including flawed sampling strategies that resulted in a biased sample of county overdose rates as well as flawed modeling strategies that cannot effectively evaluate the hypothesis that DIH laws negatively impact opioid overdose mortality. More research on the individual‐ and community‐level impacts of DIH laws is needed. In the meantime, we advise policymakers to strengthen state 911 Good Samaritan laws, as DIH laws appear to erode the efficacy of this proven overdose‐prevention strategy.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Health Policy

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3