The opioid crisis is getting worse, but there is also good evidence that solving this crisis will require careful strategies because the problem is more complex than many might imagine. First, let’s look at the crisis. Americans are showing up in emergency rooms from opioid overdoses in record numbers. According to the CDC, suspected opioid overdoses increased by 30 percent from July 2016 to September 2017.

But as soon as you look at the statistics in various states, you see how complex this issue is to solve with a simple solution. For example, prescription opioids are driving the epidemic in some states. In other states, illicit opioids are driving the epidemic. And in a few states, it is both.

That is only part of the complexity. Opioids, when used correctly, can be highly effective pain medications. They can make the difference between a functional life and a dysfunctional life. Jacob Sullum writes about how doctors who are tired of the scrutiny have booted all their opioid patients and relegated them to a pain-racked existence.

His article in Reason Magazine challenges the current perception that the use of opioids always leads to addiction and death. He explains that “opioid-related deaths do not usually involve drug-nave patients who accidentally get hooked while being treated for pain. Instead, they usually involved people with histories of substance abuse and psychological problems who use multiple drugs, not just opioids.”

He argues that we should not conflate two groups: opioid addicts and patients using opioids responsibly under a doctor’s care. We will need wise and careful policies to not only treat the epidemic but also help patients dealing with chronic pain.

This weekend students will hold demonstrations demanding gun control legislation. As I have said in previous commentaries, these young people have every right to express their views. And since they are making their arguments in the public arena, we have every right to discuss, debate, and correct what they say.

Jonah Goldberg, writing in USA Today, focuses on a broader concern. We seem to be resurrecting “an old American tradition of celebrating young people as inherently wiser and more moral than adults.” He adds that this is an ancient confusion, for a number of reasons.

First, we celebrate that young people see the world with fresh eyes. In some ways, that is a plus because they cut through some of the fictions of modern life. We all remember the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. The child didn’t understand you were supposed to placate the king’s vanity.

The other side of that is that young people are not, as a group, wiser and better informed than older people. You can prove that with lots of social science research, but Jonah Goldberg has a simple test in the form of a question. Were you wiser and smarter when you were half your current age? I doubt very many people would answer in the affirmative.

Some of the student leaders blame the previous generation for the problems they face. Again, they are free to do so. But they ignore the many blessings they have inherited. Former President Barack Obama put it this way, “If you had to choose a moment in time to be born, any time in human history, and you didn’t know ahead of time what nationality you were or what gender or your economic status might be, you’d choose today.”

This weekend when these students take to podiums to criticize politicians, corporations, and the previous generation, they might also want to express some gratitude for the freedom and opportunities available to each of them.

Harvard University placed a Christian group (Harvard College Faith and Action) on “administrative probation” because they “pressured a female member . . . to resign in September following her decision to date a woman.” Andrew Walker, writing in The Weekly Standard, makes the issue very clear. He says, “Harvard is disciplining a Christian student group for the group’s expectation that its student leadership follow basic Christian ethical teaching on sexuality in accordance with Christianity’s 2,000-year-old doctrine on such matters.”

This is not the first time a university has asserted its right to tell a Christian group what they can and cannot believe. You might remember the case that came from Hastings College of Law at the University of California. The Christian Legal Society required members to subscribe to a “Statement of Beliefs” and refrain from certain proscribed behavior. But the university had a policy that required campus groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain recognition.

Of course, there are some differences between these two cases. The Christian Legal Society wanted to have members agree with the basic tenets of Christianity. The Harvard group merely wanted members to refrain from sinful behavior.

The Christian leaders made this important distinction. “We reject any notion that we discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in our fellowship,” the co-presidents wrote. “Broadly speaking, the student in this case was removed because of an irreconcilable theological disagreement pertaining to our character standards.”

Once again we see how universities try to maintain the pretense that they are dedicated to diversity and tolerance until a Christian group tries to maintain some ethical standards for members and leadership in a Christian organization.

Teenagers are sending sexually explicit images and videos to each other at an alarming rate. That is the conclusion of a study posted recently in the journal Pediatrics. The journal article, “Prevalence of Multiple Forms of Sexting Behavior Among Youth,” is a meta-analysis of 39 worldwide studies that included 110,380 participants. They found that sexting is more common than most parents would even imagine.

The studies focused on teens between the ages of 12 and 17. The researchers estimated that about one in seven kids sent sexting messages and more than one in four received them. The authors suggest that the discrepancy in these numbers is due to the fact that some teens send sexting messages to multiple people.

One of the conclusions of the study is something you would probably already know if you talked to any teenagers. They found the girls are often pressured by boys to send a sexually explicit photo. I sit on a board with an adolescent psychologist who often asks a teenage girl why she sent a photo. The answer is always the same: she was pressured to do so. Sometimes the pressure involved threats to post other pictures.

Parents need to communicate lots of things to their children in light of this new research finding. First, we should remind them of the permanence of these images. They may think they are sending these pictures and videos to a trusted friend. But we hear so many stories about images that were then passed on to others. Then these images are passed on again. Soon the sexually explicit images can be found all over the Internet.

Second, we should tell kids never to send a sexting message to anyone. But we also must tell them not to ask for them. The research shows that boys are four times more likely to pressure girls to send sexting messages. Parents need to talk to their daughters and their sons.

Sexting is more common than we ever would have imagined. That’s why parents need to get involved.

You may start seeing the phrase “opinion laundering” more often in news and commentaries. Journalists have used the phrase to identify something that has been taking place in the public relations industry. Politicians and journalists try to get legitimate third parties to validate their policy positions. That way they don’t have to look like they are taking a position. Instead, they use someone else to express their opinion.

Kyle Smith documents the latest way this is being used in his article, “Opinion Laundering in Parkland’s Wake.” Many journalists have been using the students affected by the Parkland shooting as a “mouthpiece for the gun-control message.” Two of the students from the Parkland shooting have become instant celebrities on television and have a huge number of Twitter followers.

First, let me state the obvious. These students have the right to express their ideas and opinions. What they have experienced has affected them and given them a platform to speak out against gun violence.

Second, they have entered into the public arena with their ideas and opinions. That means we can agree with them or disagree with them. We can point out flaws in their arguments. Such critiques should be done carefully and graciously.

Finally, a wise and discerning consumer of media should also recognize that media outlets like CNN and MSNBC are using these students to promote their own ideas about gun control. And they ignored other students who weren’t promoting the gun control message.

These media outlets were willing to promote a few of the students because they were seen as sympathetic victims. And those same media outlets warned that we should not criticize or correct anything the students say.

It is a difficult balance. We should acknowledge the pain and grief these students feel. But we cannot let nave clichs and inaccurate conclusions go uncorrected. This is the challenge we face when students are exploited for opinion laundering.

We are a divided nation in trying to decide what to do with immigrants who have come to this country illegally. That is why Congress has not passed legislation that will clarify the status of illegal aliens. That is also why we now have a number of sanctuary cities and sanctuary states.

I have always wondered how far liberal politicians would go to protect these immigrants. Now we know. Look at what happened in Oakland, California two weeks ago. The mayor warned the immigrant community that ICE agents would be conducting operations in the area. She further warned business owners that California was a sanctuary state and that it was therefore illegal for them to assist federal immigration authorities in any way.

It turns out that ICE agents did conduct sweeps through the area. Of the suspected immigrants they caught, 150 had prior felonies or “significant or multiple misdemeanors” on their records. But they also estimated that more than 850 targets of the operation escaped because the mayor tipped them off.

The mayor has been unapologetic and argues that it was her “duty and moral obligation as mayor to give those families fair warning.” She says it is a myth to believe that “immigrants are dangerous criminals.” Many are not dangerous, but what about those who have already committed felonies? Tony Brass is a former federal prosecutor who is concerned. He says her actions “put agents in danger. You put the police in danger and you put your neighbors in danger.”

Take the word “immigrant” out of the equation for a moment. Would you be concerned if the mayor of a city warned felons that a police raid was about to show up at their apartment or home? I hope so. That is why the actions of this mayor are so dangerous.

Proponents of gun control would like to ban (or at least significantly restrict) the manufacture, sale, and distribution of semi-automatic rifles. They usually refer to them as “assault rifles” and “weapons of war” in order to enhance their argument. Lawyers for the cause argue that even though the Heller case decided by the Supreme Court prevented governments from banning handguns, it still might allow banning other weapons like rifles.

Most supporters of the Second Amendment argue that it protects an individual’s right to self-defense and also protects citizens against state tyranny. In the interest of time, let’s just focus on that first idea.

The Second Amendment exists so that you can protect yourself against robbers and terrorists. That means we can reject the idea that the amendment only applies to muskets and flintlock pistols. Any intruder will have firepower much greater than that. In fact, it is likely that the robber or mugger will have a semiautomatic handgun or a semiautomatic rifle.

By the way, that is one reason why most police no longer carry revolvers. They want to have a gun that has a high-capacity magazine. Why? Because that is what bad guys usually have. Police want to have in their hands enough ammunition and firepower to counter what will be in the hands of a criminal.

You really cannot just ban or restrict an AR15 without affecting all other rifles that use high-capacity magazines. And those same types of magazines are also found in other handguns and rifles. If you also ban them, you are just left with revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and bolt-action rifles. A law enforcement officer or a homeowner with these few weapons would be outgunned by any criminal.

The Second Amendment is about more than just self-defense. But that is reason enough to see the difficulty in banning or restricting semi-automatic rifles.