Regarding the 'Opioid Crisis' ... while very real, the pain and suffering it is responsible for being very large - as a 'talking point' in a political context, it is very much a construct that has emerged only very recently (especially in the context of how long these drugs have been available and detrimental to communities)

In Canada for example, CBC radio which i listen to - covers the issue extensively and it is clear that the government is pushing it as an issue, directly and with long-form podcast type pieces about related issues.

It is clear that this is propaganda at the State level.

Reasoning for this approach is clear: One having citizens nodding off across the socio-economic spectrum is costly. Two: It is very easy to build consensus that addressing this is 'A good thing', in the same vein - prior recurrent talking points in the Canadian context are issues regarding native peoples. Three: The need to build consensus is a correction(carrot) for the failed 'the war on drugs'(stick) - itself a piece of political theater. Four: A successful approach to this problem will make the government look good.

Essentially, a solid 'problem' for 'government' to 'solve'. But perhaps other more systemic issues are being ignored ... and we are being distracted by the State's shallow performance of magnanimous and utilitarian care.

Examples of tackling more substantive and more divisive issues would be penalizing the pharma companies, doctors or the profit-driven market they operate in. In terms of the endless hand-wringing over the plight of native-peoples - addressing systemic racism with reparations...

So to re-iterate - the recent injection of the 'Opioid Crisis' in Zuckerberg's PR narrative is an action that is rooted in the State's performance of a 'duty-of-care' at the level of propaganda. It is hardly likely to have come from his cursory tour, and rather from careful study of Facebook's omnipotent data feed and its close relationship with the secret services and those responsible for Propaganda in this country. Basically it represents the capitulation of a very powerful private organization to the forces of state-hood. Something that Zuckerberg's clear ambition for political power might address. At the very least it represents how the State and Facebook are assimilating have already assimilated.

In terms of the substantive issues that would represent a non-capitulation, or non-assimilation, I have written about that here: https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.htm...