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.

President Obama’s time in the White House is coming to an end, but he’s staying busy. He has made an effort to get as much done as possible before leaving; such as announcing the biggest protected marine monument in the world, signing the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights, and commuting the sentences of 944 inmates. Now, John Legend has another suggestion.

The Grammy Award winning musician wrote an open letter to Obama, published in Rolling Stone, asking him to pardon federal inmates who are jailed for non-violent drug offenses before January. In the letter, Legend praises the Obama administration for doing so much to end juvenile solitary confinement and to reduce the use of private prisons. As it is unclear what will happen when Donald Trump takes office, he urged the president to “bring justice to the thousands of families of non-violent drug offenders who have waited far too long for Congress to act.” He wrote:

In 2014, you set out to reinvigorate our country’s approach to clemency. Your actions to commute the sentences of 944 individuals, including 324 life sentences, is unprecedented in the modern era. Nonetheless, more action is needed to dismantle the unjust policies of the past 40 years.

He also said that approximately 36,000 non-violent drug offenders currently behind bars have asked Obama for pardon under his clemency initiative, and it’s unclear how many will be reviewed in time. That’s why he is suggesting categorical commutations, to end the injustices.

I wrote a letter to the President: https://t.co/gIIFVSp8CA

— John Legend (@johnlegend) December 9, 2016

Legend points out that drug addiction is not a moral failing, but a chronic health issue. There is also a big discrepancy in how slight variations in drugs are treated differently before the law. Crimes involving crack cocaine, which is more commonly used by black users and sold on the streets, are punished more severely than those involving powder cocaine, which is more expensive and more likely to be used by white people.

And for Legend, it’s also a personal issue. His mother struggled with depression and drug abuse, and ended up in prison when he was a teenager. Earlier this year he started the initiative Free America, with Assistant District Attorney Adam Foss of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, in an effort to change criminal justice policies and keep teens out of prison. He told the Guardian in July:

You begin to realize how much trauma and pain and abuse [the inmates] have been victims of themselves before they got to prison, and since they’ve been in prison. And you realize that it’s just a cycle that keeps repeating,

Hopefully, Legend’s efforts will not be for nothing when the next administration takes office.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Legend Urges Obama to Pardon Non-Violent Offenders appeared first on Law Street.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, the Senate managed to pass a bill that would create new block grants for states and government agencies to fund prevention, education, and treatment for opioid addiction. These efforts come as drug overdose deaths reached the highest level in history in 2014, surpassing traffic and gun-related deaths. Opioid overdoses, which involve drugs like prescription painkillers and heroin, make up the majority of drug overdoses and were involved in 28,647 deaths in 2014 based on data from the CDC.

The increase in drug deaths has been driven by a rise in painkiller and heroin overdoses, which were the cause of six in 10 overdose deaths in 2014. Opioid-related deaths have been steadily increasing for over a decade, going up 200 percent since 2000. Heroin overdoses alone tripled between 2010 and 2014.

In light of the epidemic, Congress may now be taking important steps to prevent these deaths. The Comprehensive Addition Recovery Act (CARA) passed the Senate on Thursday with a 94-1 vote. The bill aims to help fund education, treatment, and prevention programs to combat overdose deaths. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Rob Portman have done much of the work to push the bill through the Senate and make drug addiction a national priority.

A central goal of CARA is to increase the availability of Naloxone, a life-saving medication that can counter the effects of an overdose. Expanding law enforcement and first responders’ access to Naloxone can have significant effects on efforts to combat overdoses. Based on the CDC’s analysis of Naloxone training programs, between 1996 and 2010 about 53,000 people were trained to use the drug, resulting in over 10,000 overdose reversals.

The bill also prioritizes aid to states with laws that reduce liability for people administering Naloxone, which may encourage states to adopt similar laws in order to encourage responders to use the drug without fear of a lawsuit in the event of complications.

Provisions in CARA also seek to reduce misuse and overprescription of painkillers, which is a large contributor to drug overdoses. The bill would create a task force to issue new standards for painkiller prescription as well as implement safeguards to ensure proper disposal of unused medications to prevent children from accessing them.

One of the most important aspects of the bill is its focus on treatment. Not only would it help increase funding for evidence-based treatment programs, it would also reinforce the idea that drug addiction should be viewed as a disease that should be treated rather than punished. By funding treatment alternatives to incarceration, the bill could help shift drug policy toward efforts that reduce dependency rather than merely penalizing it.

While CARA has broad-based bipartisan support, it still has some challenges. It initially faced difficulty in the Senate after New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen attempted to add a Democratic-backed amendment calling for $600 million in additional emergency funding. The Republican leadership in the Senate holds that sufficient funding already exists for the legislation. The bill will also need to pass the House, where an identical piece of legislation is currently in committee. Relative to most bills, CARA has a decent chance of passing as it has been well received by both parties and the White House, but election year politics could end up derailing these efforts.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Passes Bill to Fight Opioid Addiction and Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

Mallory Loyola became the first pregnant woman to be arrested and charged with assault on her fetus under Tennessee’s new controversial law criminalizing the illegal use of drugs during pregnancy. Loyola was arrested July 8, 2014, one week after the law went into effect. The 26-year-old tested positive for methamphetamine (not technically a narcotic) before being released on bail. If convicted Loyola could be incarcerated for up to a year.

According to the new law, “a woman may be prosecuted for assault for the illegal use of a narcotic drug while pregnant, if her child is born addicted to or harmed by the narcotic drug.” If a woman does not enroll in a treatment program for the narcotic, she would be charged. According to RH Reality Check, a reproductive health news group, “the law was promoted by prosecutors against the recommendations of medical professionals.” Governor Bill Haslam says that the legislation is intended to encourage women to go to treatment centers; however, the effect of the bill may be different from its intended purpose.

Outcomes of Criminalizing Pregnancy

Imani Gandy of RH Reality Check suggests that Black women will be targeted by the law’s enforcement at a disproportionate rate. Based on ugly stereotypes with roots in Reagan-era “crack baby” rhetoric, more scrutiny would be placed on pregnant Black women, Gandy says. Whether or not these prejudices are acted on, there is a structural problem for disadvantaged, minority women.

State Senator Mike Bell explained that in his rural district “there’s no treatment facility for these women there, and it would be a substantial drive for a woman caught in one of these situations to go to an approved treatment facility. Looking at the map of the state, there are several areas where this is going to be a problem.” Healthy and Free Tennessee notes that the state has 177 addiction treatment facilities; yet only two “provide prenatal care on site and allow older children to stay with their mothers, and only 19 provide any addiction care for pregnant women.” For impoverished women, accessing and enrolling in treatment centers will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

There is a discrepancy between the intention of the bill, as suggested by Haslam, and the likely effect of the bill. While it may have been passed to incentivize enrollment in treatment programs, it will likely result in the incarceration of women who cannot access those treatment centers. Because Tennessee did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, the costs of such treatment may be overwhelming. Women who know that they cannot access addiction services will be discouraged from seeking help, lest they be charged with assault and have their children taken away.

Other Approaches 

In response to prenatal substance abuse, Tennessee passed the Safe Harbor Act about a year ago. The 2013 legislation, also signed by Haslam, was designed to ensure that women can access treatment centers without fear of incarceration or having their children removed. The more recent bill not only negates the benefits of the Safe Harbor Act, but regresses Tennessee even further.

This heavy-handed approach to prenatal substance abuse hints at another discrepancy: addiction is viewed by some as a disease, and by others as a crime. While the state and the governor embrace the latter with the passage and enforcement of this law, the federal government has taken a different approach.

Michael Botticelli, acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, spoke about the federal government’s broad strategy in response to the recent Tennessee law: “Under the Obama administration, we’ve really tried to reframe drug policy not as a crime but as a public health-related issue, and that our response on the national level is that we not criminalize addiction.” The politics of considering substance abuse a criminal offense rather than a disease is amplified by the politics of federal-state relationships.

Support for the Law

The Tennessee Medical Association was supportive of the Safe Harbor Act, yet its president, Dr. Doug Springer, recently spoke out in favor of the new law. “The misdemeanor means it can be expunged by a judge, it means that the [Department of Human Services] doesn’t take your baby away. It has nothing to do with an application for a job because it doesn’t interfere with your job prospects, and that’s really important,” says Dr. Springer. Obviously, if a mother is incarcerated, she and her baby could not be together. But if the law makes it easy for the offense to be expunged, incarcerated mothers may not have to go through as many obstacles as other ex-convicts.

Because the law is so new, Mallory Loyola’s outcome will set precedent. The law is set to expire after two years, at which time Tennessee will evaluate its effects.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Greyerbaby via Pixabay]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Pregnant Woman Arrested Under Controversial Tennessee Law appeared first on Law Street.

Stories about marijuana and alcohol abuse on university campuses seem to consume the media, but what about prescription drug abuse? Students who abuse prescription pills tend to be overlooked because many of them do not fit the “criminal” profile; yet Adderall and other medications can be incredibly dangerous and very addictive.

Although many cases easily slide under the radar, in April of 2014, University of Colorado officials decided to crack down when two students were arrested for selling Adderall at their school. Christopher Valentine and Graham Hankin will be facing felony criminal charges for selling their prescriptions, at $4-$5 per pill.

According to CNN, “researchers estimate about 30 [percent] of students use stimulants non-medically.” This is becoming an epidemic in universities, and has even trickled down into middle school and high school communities.

These teens and young adults are not drug addicts; they are students with motivation and goals. As a matter of fact, many of them go to Ivy League schools and have professional plans. But good intentions can quickly turn bad when an innocent pop of a pill becomes a dangerous addiction. The scary thing about prescription drugs is that one might assume that they are safe because they are regulated by the FDA. However, assuming that prescription drugs are harmless is very dangerous–Adderall is an amphetamine, comparable to cocaine or speed, and when taken in non-regulated doses it can be lethal.

How Does Adderall Work?

Adderall creates a constant flow of dopamine. It continuously sends a supply of the feel-good neurotransmitter to the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which regulates behavior, emotional processing, and cognition. According to Synapse, Penn’s Undergraduate Medical Connection research center, “stimulating this region of the brain predictably causes increased alertness, wakefulness, and concentration.”  These chemical reactions cause the high that students report feeling.

What are the Side Effects Associated with Unregulated Use?

The side effects of excessive usage are not pretty. Because of the “speed” like qualities and caffeine in Adderall, it has been linked to “cardiovascular complications.” In extreme cases Aderall abuse can lead to a stroke. More common side effects include heart palpitations and a rapid heart beat. Physically, Adderall can cause teeth grinding, and since it’s an appetite suppressant, it can cause extreme weight loss.

Psychological disturbances such as depression, paranoia, and anger have also been reported. When a regular user decides to quit the drug, they will experience symptoms similar to those felt by recovering narcotics addicts. According to a source from Study Drugs, “I slept an hour a night for a week straight [while on Adderall.]” Once she stopped taking the drug, she slept and ate non-stop for several days in a row to compensate for her loss of sleep. At the rate at which her brain was processing information, the source claims that, “she wasn’t living in the moment.”

To hear three personal perspectives from students check out this clip:

How do so Many Students get Their Hands on Adderall?

Many students are prescribed Adderall for ADHD; yet those students can sometimes function without their medication, so they sell their prescriptions for an elevated price. The dealer makes a profit, and the student buyer has a steady dose of Adderall to get them through exams and papers.

Here’s a shorts news clip and interview on the fad:

Just as any fad catches on, someone who tries Adderall talks about the success that they have with the drug and their grades. The word spreads, and other students begin to seek out someone who has a  prescription. Students that have never even touched alcohol or narcotics want the drug for its practical purposes. They have very little knowledge of what they are taking; or even if they do, they feel that the positive effects of the drug outweigh the negative health and psychological effects. Sometimes it’s too late, and similarly to any addiction, the users’ decision-making becomes overpowered by their desire to have the drug.

Who is to Blame for this Epidemic?

According to the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids:

Recent media reports underscore the massive surge in the prescribing of prescription stimulants to our nation’s children. Combine the existing daily damage from prescription opioid abuse together with a range of other medicines that are abused, and we ourselves have created this crisis.

In 2009, youth abused marijuana the most, but prescription drugs ranked second. Acquiring prescription pills is not difficult for the average student. Students can easily go to a psychologist and claim that they are experiencing ADHD-like symptoms and receive a prescription. Whether the student abuses their own prescription or buys from a friend, prescription stimulants are not regulated or penalized nearly as often as they should be.

How do we stop it?

On June 11, there was a conference held at Temple University in Philadelphia to promote the safety and regulation of prescribed pills at universities.  Michael Botticelli, the  director of National Drug Control Policy, led the conference and spoke about methods to manage the abuse of prescription pills. A few of his tactics included pharmaceutical regulation and personal assessment of the distributor and the situation. He also suggested the importance of “disposal programs,” which emphasize throwing away prescriptions after the patient is finished with the bottle.

A less passive way to regulate the illegal sale of Adderall would be to crack down on the overall drug trafficking on campuses. Search and seizure policies have led to students being kicked out of universities for many years. If campuses crack down, there will be a large number of students who will face either educational consequences, or in more extreme cases, criminal convictions. Legal action will cause students to take the issue more seriously; they are more likely to stay away from these illegal behaviors if there is a clear consequence.

—

Madeleine Stern (@M3estern) is a student at George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Simone via Flickr]

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Adderall Epidemic: Speed for Success 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.

The state of Wisconsin has a law that has been dubbed the “cocaine mom” law. The idea, in theory, is supposed to protect fetuses from mothers who have drug or alcohol problems and may harm their unborn children. The law contains specific language that the provisions in this law are only supposed to be used in a situation in which a mother may harm her child to a severe degree. In addition to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota have these laws in place, while 20 other states have tried and failed to pass them.

A New York Times article by Erik Eckholm published earlier this week explored the horrifying implications of this law. The editorial focused on the story of a twenty-eight year old woman named Alicia Beltran. Fourteen weeks into her pregnancy she went in for a prenatal checkup. She was honest with her doctor about an addiction to Percoset, a prescription painkiller. She had kicked that addiction a few months before. She had also briefly taken a medication called Suboxone, which is intended to help addicts kick their addictions. It is safe even for pregnant women. She borrowed it from a friend, and did not have a prescription for it, because she could not afford one. But she waned herself off of it a few days before she even went in for pre-natal care.

After explaining her situation to her doctor, she took a urine test that showed only traces of Suboxone, which she had disclosed to her doctor. Later tests showed no drugs in her system. The physician’s assistant she had seen for her check-up report told her that if she wanted to continue to take Suboxine, that she should get a prescription. That decision was backed up by the OBGYN Beltran had also briefly seen at the clinic. Beltran explained that she no longer intended to take the drug, and that a prescription would not be necessary.

The physician’s assistant was concerned about the patient, and reported Beltran. A few days after her check-up appointment, a social worker showed up at her door. For Beltran, that was when the real nightmare began. The social worker said that she needed to restart Suboxine to prevent her from taking any other drugs, or be court-ordered to do so. Beltran explained that she did not want to restart Suboxine, and that she was not at risk for restarting her Percoset addiction. She admits that the social worker upset her deeply, and when she slammed the door, she said something about considering an abortion.

A few days after this incident, a sheriff showed up at Beltran’s door and placed her under arrest. She was brought to court, and the terrified young woman was introduced to a lawyer that had been assigned to her unborn fetus. She asked for a lawyer for herself, but wasn’t given one. She was then remanded to a 78-day stay at a drug addiction facility to treat a problem that, as later urine tests showed, she simply did not have. She reports that she was given an option between the treatment facility and jail.

Now, Beltran is fighting back. She is part of a federal suit that aims to declare the Wisconsin “cocaine mom” unconstitutional. Lynn M. Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women told the New York times about the ramifications of these types of laws, saying “this is what happens when laws give officials the authority to treat fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as if they are already completely separate from the pregnant woman.”

The future of this case in court may have interesting effects on the large and vast fetal personhood argument that has been occurring for the past few years all across the United States. If the Federal Court decides that a woman can be held against her will in the name of protecting a fetus; namely that the life of a fetus supersedes the rights of a mother—that decision could have an important effect on the forward movement of fetal personhood cases nationwide. On the flip-side, if they rule that the law is unconstitutional, that precedent could be used as an argument to block fetal personhood efforts in some states.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [alenka_getman via Flickr]

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 “Cocaine Mom” Law’s Horrifying Effects appeared first on Law Street.