The Department of Health and Human Services has declared widespread opioid abuse to be a serious public health issue. Officials across the country are searching for ways to combat the epidemic and are increasingly calling for “public health responses, not a war on drugs.” However, reports indicate the Ohio city of Washington Court House has begun charging people who survive opiate overdoses with “inducing panic.” Although city officials claim the new practice is not meant to worsen the conditions of those struggling with opioid addiction, the policy directly opposes the prevailing logic regarding addiction and rehabilitation.

In the past month, police used Naloxone, a drug that reverses the effects of opioids, to revive seven people before charging them with a misdemeanor. In an interview with the city’s local ABC affiliate, Washington Court House officials argued charging overdose survivors “gives [the city] the ability to keep an eye on them, to offer them assistance and to know who has overdosed.” The court summons is meant to ensure the city is able to “follow up” with overdose survivors and show them the city cares and wants to help them, not jail them, the officials said.

Nonetheless, those charged with “inducing panic” could face up to 180 days in prison or a $1,000 fine. Regardless of whether or not Washington Court House attorneys plan on convicting the addicts who have been charged, the move is misguided. The criminal justice system is not equipped to assist drug addicts, and attempting to address addiction by using the system only perpetuates the criminalization of drug addiction and addicts.

The U.S. has a long history of criminalizing drug addicts rather than providing them the medical assistance they require. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, those found guilty of drug related offenses constitute 46.4 percent of the prison population. In a 2010 report, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse estimated 65 percent of the prison population “meet medical criteria for substance abuse or addiction” but only 11 percent receive any kind of treatment for their addiction. Furthermore, the availability of drugs within prison walls is well documented, and relapses are common.

There is an expert consensus that addiction is a medical condition and ought to be treated as such. While officials throughout the nation are recognizing the need for cogent and compassionate public health responses, Washington Court House continues the detrimental criminalization of drug addiction.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ohio Town Charges Opioid Overdose Survivors with “Inducing Panic” appeared first on Law Street.

Addiction has become a gigantic problem in the United States. According a recent report by the Surgeon General, one in seven Americans will suffer from sort of addiction disorder over their lifetimes, and only 10 percent will receive any sort of treatment for their addiction. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released the “Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health” for the first time ever yesterday. The report outlines the issues with substance abuse in the United States, and provides guidelines for how to remedy them. But will President-elect Donald Trump actually follow them?

The numbers are shocking: 74 Americans die from prescription painkillers and heroin overdoses every single day; drug abuse is now the leading cause of accidental death. That’s one American dying from an overdose every 19 minutes. And according to USA Today:

Nearly 21 million Americans struggle with substance addictions, according to the report. That’s more than the number of people who have all cancers combined.

And while those numbers are shocking, they shouldn’t necessarily be surprising. Coverage, particularly of the heroin crisis, has gotten more intense than ever. Photos and videos of individuals overdosing have become almost the norm on social media and in the news, in an attempt to shed real light on the epidemic.

Murthy’s suggestions include treating addiction–particularly opioid addiction–as a public health issue, by veering away from the abstinence-only solutions that became popular during the War on Drugs. Murthy points out that addiction is a “disease of the brain, not a character flaw,” and advocates for implementing preventative measures early, like addressing children still in school. The Surgeon General also pointed out the need to invest in life-saving measures like suboxone, which can counter overdoses.

President-elect Trump talked a lot about substance abuse–particularly opioid addiction–on the campaign trail. He obviously talked a lot about stopping the drug trade from South America, which wasn’t on Murthy’s list of recommendations. But he also spoke about drug courts, treatment, and prevention, which could be steps in the right direction, if he is able to pay for them.

The substance abuse addiction crisis is a real problem in the United States. We’ll have to see if Donald Trump is able to follow through on his promise to fix it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. Has a Massive Substance Abuse Problem: How Can We Combat it? appeared first on Law Street.

After a few months of debate on whether or not Utah would be considering porn a public health crisis, the state has finally pulled the trigger. Governor Gary Herbert signed a resolution earlier this week declaring porn a public health crisis.

While this bill does not in any way inhibit porn usage in the state, it does call for the:

Recogni[tion of] the need for education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level in order to address the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.

However, that education, prevention, research, and policy change could be difficult considering the state hasn’t laid out any kind of legislation or proposal as to what to do about this epidemic. In addition, the resolution doesn’t allot any kind of funding toward anti-porn education or anything of the sort–so how is this resolution helping with the so-called epidemic at all?

This resolution was created by one of the state’s Republican Representatives, Todd Weiler, with the goal of increasing awareness of the potential dangers of porn. Weiler claims that he wants default internet settings to be changed in order to make viewing porn more difficult than it currently is. The senator maintains that he is not trying to ban porn in the state of Utah, but rather make it less accessible for children and teenagers. Weiler was quoted saying that:

If a library or a McDonald’s or anyone else was giving out cigarettes to our children, we would be picketing them, and, yet, our children are accessing pornography on their tablets on these sites and we seem to be OK with that.

He is very concerned with how accessible pornography is on the internet because it leads to the corruption of children and young teens:

This is a $7 billion industry. Help us protect children from your evil, degrading, addictive, harmful substances. If adults want to do that, that’s their choice, but we’re talking about developing adolescent minds of our nation’s future.

Even after being mocked repeatedly when they first announced the state’s plan in January, the Utah legislature and governor are sticking to their guns and standing firmly by their decision to have porn listed as a public health crisis. Senator Weiler and Governor Herbert, along with several others, firmly believe that pornography is a danger to society because of how addicting it can be and the consequences that can come with a porn addiction.

One thing is for sure, if Utah wants to decrease porn usage in the state, they may as well just block the entire internet because, as we all know, porn is the one thing the internet is really made for!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJvdGcb7Fs

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post It’s Official: Utah Declares Porn a Public Health Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Mayor Svante Myrick of Ithaca, New York has proposed the United States’ first supervised heroin injection facility. This is a bold move in the current struggle to fight the serious heroin problem in many of America’s cities and towns.

Ithaca, New York is home to Cornell University and Ithaca College, and has a population a little over 30,000. Yet despite that relatively small population, it has a relatively big heroin problem. In one three-week span in 2014, the city saw three fatal overdoses and 13 non-fatal overdoses. Those incidences prompted city officials to look into new ways to deal with the problem–it has become clear to many that the traditional “tough on crime” approach isn’t really working to stem rising heroin use in the U.S.

A supervised heroin facility would allow addicts to use the drug while being supervised by nurses, and they would be free from arrest. The logic behind the idea is that it will prevent deaths via overdose, stem the spread of disease through sharing used needles, and help heroin addicts be funneled into programs that will help treat their addiction and deal with other health issues. This approach treats heroin addiction as a public health issue rather than a crime. This approach has been taken in parts of Canada, Europe, and Australia–but it would the first time a city in the U.S. has tried it.

While normally the proposal would have to go through the state legislature, Myrick is hoping to bypass that process if the state health department declares the heroin problem in New York a public health crisis.

The supervised heroin injection facility is just one part of a larger plan that Ithaca is releasing in an attempt to combat drug use. Entitled “The Ithaca Plan: A Public Health and Safety Approach to Drugs and Drug Policy,” it contains a four-pillared approach of treatment, harm reduction, public safety and prevention.

Myrick seemingly realizes that there’s going to be a lot of pushback to the plan, but he told The Ithaca Journal’s Kelsey O’Connor:

I think it makes sense. What we’re proposing is different, and different is scary. And you don’t want to seem like you’re condoning drug use. So I think even people who oppose this are opposing this with good intentions. They want people to get healthy and they don’t want people using drugs, and neither do I. The only thing I can say to people who oppose it, it’s not enough to be angry about the problem if all you’re going to do is what you did before. If you keep seeing the same problems and proposing the same solutions, then you’ll never make progress. So it’s not enough to get angry, you’ve got to get smart, and you’ve got to be willing to try.

There’s still a lot up in the air about whether the plan will move forward, but the comprehensive proposal and innovative (for the U.S., at least) ideas being considered in Ithaca are a step in what will hopefully be the right direction.

Read More: Perverse Incentives: Are Needle Exchanges Good Policy?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mayor of Ithaca, New York Proposes Heroin Injection Facility to Combat Addiction appeared first on Law Street.

I came across an article on Reddit (yes, college boys in my large lecture class, I know how to use Reddit too) with a headline claiming that Utah was banning porn. At first, I was shocked. Was this a joke? Could they actually enact legislation to ban pornographic material across an entire state? Isn’t there some kind of freedom of speech issue there? So, I started to read up on this law and Utah’s porn history–it’s all thankfully less NSFW than you might anticipate.

Here are the facts: Senator Todd Weiler, a state senator in the great state of Utah, introduced legislation this past week in attempt to have the state consider porn a “public health crisis.” Ironically, this is kind of along the same vein as what happened with the Zika virus recently, but on a smaller scale since it would only be statewide. The main concern Weiler seems to have is how accessible porn is becoming, especially to young teens, as he claims it “perpetuates a sexually toxic environment.” The proposed bill lists around 18 points describing the negatives affect that porn could have on society including, but not limited to, marriage failure, the fact that it treats women as objects, and that it can impact brain development and cause addiction.

So, Utah is not quite banning porn. Senator Weiler seems to be more interested in getting the potential negative effects on everybody’s radar; in fact, one of the specifically stated goals of the bill is to do just that:

This resolution recognizes the need for education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level in order to address the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.

To be fair, this whole thing may be a little overblown. “Epidemic” and “public health crisis” seem like strong words to be using when we’re just talking about porn, right? Honestly, after looking at some of the data behind porn addiction in the U.S., it seems like it’s a pretty scary reality for some people. On top of addiction, according to some studies, the average age of exposure to porn may be as low as 11 years old, which certainly doesn’t seem like a good thing.

Utah in particular has has an especially interesting history as far as porn is concerned. In 2005, Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. signed H.B. 260 into law, which essentially required internet providers to block pornographic websites at the request of consumers and heightened penalties for distributing porn, especially to minors. Then, in 2009, a man by the name of Benjamin Edelman conducted a study on which states consumed the most porn and why. The results? Almost every way you look at it, Utah came out on top, whether it was users per thousand people, per thousand homeowners, or per thousand broadband users.

In 2013, satire sites made fun of Utah by spreading a story that one of its cities had implemented a 30-day in jail minimum for first offense porn watching. The best part of this satirical news? People believed it, and, for a while, the nation thought Utah had really implemented jail sentences for watching porn–which is obviously ridiculous. The good news for Utah residents is that their laws to decrease porn use and subsequent embarrassment for being the country’s highest porn consumer led to some overall changes, and they have now slid back down the scale to a more moderate consumption of adult videos per capita–as you can see below in a graphic drawn up from Pornhub data in April of 2014.

All in all, I don’t really think this bill is the draconian First Amendment violation that it originally appeared to be. What Utah is trying to do is educate people on the potentially harmful effects that porn can have on children, teens, and even adults (when they get too attached). The senator seemingly has the stats to back up his claim and porn problems seem to be a lot more prevalent in our country than I ever really assumed they were, so maybe some public awareness could be a good thing. Then again, with the attention grabbing and misrepresentative headlines this legislation has been getting, I expect this bill to have some stiff opposition.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Is Utah Really Trying to Ban Porn? appeared first on Law Street.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just conducted the annual National Youth Tobacco Survey and discovered that e-cigarettes are being heavily marketed to American teens.

The study, which was released Tuesday, concluded that seven out of 10 middle and high school students are being reached by e-cigarette companies through advertising. The concepts and themes being used by the companies mirror those used in cigarette advertising in the past. The CDC report stated:

E-cigarette ads use many of the same themes — independence, rebellion, and sex — used to sell cigarettes and other conventional tobacco products.

Right now, there aren’t a lot of regulations dictating how e-cigarettes can or can’t be marketed. For example, e-cigarette producers can advertise on TV, which traditional cigarette manufacturers haven’t been able to do since laws were passed to prevent exactly those practices four decades ago. According to CDC Director Tom Frieden,

The e-cigarette advertising we’re seeing is like the old-time Wild West…No rules, no regulations and heavy spending advertising the products.

However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working on finalizing rules to govern sales to minors–it first proposed them in April of 2014, but they haven’t gone into place yet.

At the same time that more American teens and pre-teens are seeing e-cigarette ads, their use of e-cigarettes is also steadily climbing. More U.S. teenagers are using e-cigarettes than traditional cigarettes–13.4 percent reported e-cigarette use in 2014, but only 9.2 percent reported using traditional cigarettes. While e-cigarettes are believed to be less dangerous than traditional cigarettes, there’s a pretty serious concern that they could become a gateway to traditional cigarette use for young people. A study that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2015 concluded that freshmen in high school who used e-cigarettes were 2.5 times more likely to try traditional cigarettes down the road.

This news from the CDC comes at a time when many parts of the United States are trying even harder to keep young people away from cigarettes. For example, the state of Hawaii just made history by becoming the first state to raise the legal smoking age to 21. Yet some serious work needs to be done if e-cigarettes are also going to be kept from teenagers.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CDC: E-Cigarette Companies Targeting Teens Through Advertising appeared first on Law Street.

Roger Goodell’s job may be harder than it looks. The ongoing debate over the Redskins name-change seems to have reached its apex under Goodell, and the commissioner’s decision to police illegal hits by increasing fines and penalties has left him with few fans among active players. Still, Goodell’s largest challenge may be satisfying the former players.

Last May several ex-NFL players filed suit in federal court claiming the NFL recklessly and illegally fed players painkillers as a means to keep them on the job. Several players, including ex-Bills star Marcellus Wiley have argued that the amount of painkillers consumed during his playing days left him with partial renal failure in his kidneys. Other players argue that the culture of painkiller dependence turned them into drug addicts upon leaving the league. Former lineman Ross Tucker has defended the NFL, arguing that the plaintiffs are deflecting personal responsibility and just looking for handouts from the League’s deep pockets. But most ex-players don’t feel that way, and that’s a growing problem for Roger Goodell.

While America remains fixated on the record-setting deals for young NFL stars, its often forgotten that many of its old stars are struggling, both physically and financially. The painkillers suit comes on the heels of the League’s concussion suit, another multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by former players. Retired NFL players also recently met with Congressional members to discuss the difficulties they and their caregivers have faced in retirement. Many of their issues stem from the fact that NFL contracts generally remain non-guaranteed, and players’ health benefits expire five years after defection from the League. These issues, combined with the grim reality of the neurodegenerative disease now plaguing many ex-players, have forced retirees to take their former employer to court.

Can Goodell win this game? Experts say that the suit faces numerous hurdles, like obtaining class certification and proving causation. But even if this latest suit is dismissed,  NFL retirees are not likely to go away without a fight.  The National Football League is the world’s top-grossing sports league, (which also happens to be insulated from paying income tax), and Goodell himself was paid more than $44 million as recently as 2012. At some point the NFL is going to have to share a larger part of that pie with its former players by rebooting their pensions. If not, Goodell and his League’s public image may go down faster than a Cadillac off Alligator Alley.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Tom Woodward via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Old People Continue to Harsh NFL’s Mellow appeared first on Law Street.