This study, coauthored by DEPC Senior Researcher Peter Leasure and Affiliated Researcher Meghan M. O'Neil examined whether primary drug of choice is associated with risk of being injured or threatened by a gun. Analyses showed marginally and statistically significant differences in firearm victimization risk between individuals identifying alcohol as their primary drug of choice and those identifying cocaine, heroin/opioids, or crystal meth. Individuals identifying marijuana as their primary drug of choice had the lowest risk of gun victimization. Firearm victimization was common among people receiving addiction treatment, though less frequent among those preferring marijuana. Risk did not differ significantly by race or ethnicity. More than 40% of participants reported gun victimization, underscoring firearm violence as a major public health concern for this population and by association, their families.

Stigma is a major barrier to treatment for people who use drugs (PWUD). This study, coauthored by DEPC Professor Tasha Perdue, analyzes how different forms of stigma affect experiences after an overdose and perceptions of postoverdose interventions among a sample of PWUD in Dayton, Ohio. Interviews with 23 individuals revealed that enacted, anticipated, internalized, and structural stigma hinder access to treatment and support. These stigmas manifest through medical mistreatment, mistrust, mental health impacts, and lack of long-term treatment options. Understanding these barriers can improve public health interventions to reduce stigma and overdose deaths.

In 1962, Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that drugs be proven not only safe, but effective, before FDA approval. Over the past 60 years, this efficacy requirement has faced challenges, leading to debates on various drugs. Recently, proposals have emerged to lower or eliminate this standard, arguing it delays access to treatments. However, these proposals are seen as dangerous and unnecessary, as the current flexible approval standard already allows for case-by-case determinations. Critics argue that lowering the standard misunderstands the FDA's role and risks public health, emphasizing the need for rigorous preapproval effectiveness evidence.