People in Oregon who are arrested while in the possession of small amounts of drugs will no longer face felony charges. Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed HB 2355 into law on Tuesday, reducing the classification of possession of certain quantities of drugs from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Individuals convicted of the misdemeanor now face up to one year in prison. Prior to this move, those same individuals faced up to five years in prison for possession of any amount of cocaine and methamphetamine, and up to 10 years for heroin and MDMA, according to the Huffington Post.

Per the new law, individuals may be charged with a misdemeanor if they are found to be in the possession of less than two grams of cocaine or methamphetamine, less than one gram of heroin, less than 40 pills of oxycodone, less than one gram or five pills of MDMA (also known as ecstasy), or less than 40 units of LSD. Individuals possessing larger amounts of those drugs can still face felony charges.

The law also contains a provision to combat profiling of people “based solely on the individual’s real or perceived age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, homelessness or disability.”

In 2014, California became the first state to defelonize minor drug crimes after voters approved Proposition 47. The ballot measure also included the reclassification of other felonies such as certain theft and fraud charges as misdemeanors.

In recent years, the U.S. federal government has begun to rethink sentences for some drug-related crimes. CBS reported in 2016 that more than 26,000 federal drug offenders had received shortened prison terms as a result of sentencing guidelines changes that the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved in 2014. The reevaluation of drug penalties is not just occurring in the U.S., but has become a global effort. Countries are working to lessen the power of organized crime and promote rehabilitative treatments for drug users.

Changes to federal drug policies in the U.S. may be slow to progress under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. But states like Oregon could play a significant role in ending the “war on drugs” through drug defelonization and rehabilitating drug users rather than imposing harsh penalties on them.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Possession of Small Amount of Drugs No Longer a Felony Offense in Oregon appeared first on Law Street.

The state of Ohio took a stand against its crippling opioid epidemic Wednesday, filing a lawsuit against five leading pharmaceutical companies that make addictive painkillers.

Ohio’s attorney general, Mike DeWine, accused the companies of “fueling” the opioid epidemic by intentionally misleading doctors and ignoring evidence regarding the addictive nature of the pain medications.

“We believe the evidence will also show that these companies got thousands and thousands of Ohioans–our friends, our family members, our co-workers, our kids–addicted to opioid pain medications, which has all too often led to use of the cheaper alternatives of heroin and synthetic opioids,” DeWine said in a statement. “These drug manufacturers led prescribers to believe that opioids were not addictive, that addiction was an easy thing to overcome, or that addiction could actually be treated by taking even more opioids.”

The defendants in the case include Purdue Pharma, Endo Health Solutions, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Johnson & Johnson, and Allergan. They are accused of Medicaid fraud and violating the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, among other charges.

Dewine said that, in 2014 alone, the companies spent $168 million on advertising branded opioids to doctors.

The drugs the companies sold include OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid, Butrans, Hyslingla, Targiniq, Percocet, Percodan, Opana, Zydone, Actiq, Fentora, Duragesic, Nucynta, Kadian, Norco, and other generic opioids, according to the press release.

According to the lawsuit, 793 million people were prescribed opioids in 2012–enough to supply every man, woman, and child in the state with 68 pills each. In 2016 that number had dropped to 2.3 million patients–still roughly 20 percent of the state’s population.

The lawsuit was filed in Ross County as Southern Ohio is likely the hardest hit area in the nation by the opioid epidemic.

In 2014 and 2015, Ohio had the greatest number of deaths in the nation from synthetic opioids, according to the lawsuit–with 1 in every 14 deaths from synthetic opioids in the United States occurring in the state. In 2015, a record 3,050 Ohioans died from unintentional drug overdoses–2,590 of those deaths came from opioids.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, earlier this month, two Democratic candidates for governor, Sen. Joe Schiavoni, (D-Boardman) and Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, separately called for action against drug companies.

In 2015, Kentucky settled a similar lawsuit with Purdue Pharma for $24 million. And in April the Cherokee Nation tried something similar, filing its own lawsuit against six distribution and pharmacy companies, claiming that they unjustly profited through over-prescribing and selling opioids.

DeWine is seeking accountability from the pharmaceutical companies and unspecified damages on behalf of the state.

“It is just and it is right that the people who played a significant role in creating this mess should now pay to clean it up,” DeWine said.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ohio AG Sues Pharmaceutical Companies Over Opioid Epidemic appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, John Kelly, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said that marijuana “is not a factor in the drug war,” contradicting the hard-line stance of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. While Kelly does not have the same authority as Sessions in enforcing the country’s drug laws, his department does deal directly with cross-border issues like marijuana trafficking.

Kelly does not seem to see marijuana as the same community-wrecking terror that Sessions does. In March, Sessions compared marijuana to heroin, which is ravaging communities across America. Referencing the proposal that medical marijuana could be used to treat opioid addictions, Sessions said he was “astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana–so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that’s only slightly less awful.”

Marijuana and heroin are both classified by the Drug Enforcement Administration as Schedule I substances. But while there were more than 50,000 heroin overdoses in the U.S. in 2016, “no death from overdose of marijuana has been reported,” according to the DEA. Kelly’s assessment of the dangers of marijuana run more in line with the DEA’s findings than Sessions’ does.

Kelly expanded on his comments, saying if the U.S. seeks to staunch the flow of drugs into the country, it should focus on three things: “It’s three things. Methamphetamine. Almost all produced in Mexico. Heroin. Virtually all produced in Mexico. And cocaine that comes up from further south.” And although Kelly, unlike Sessions, does not have the authority to determine how the country’s drug laws are enforced, and how punishment is doled out, he weighed in:

“The solution is not arresting a lot of users,” he said. “The solution is a comprehensive drug demand reduction program in the United States that involves every man and woman of goodwill. And then rehabilitation. And then law enforcement. And then getting at the poppy fields and the coca fields in the south.”

Sessions has a tougher stance on drug users; he once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” Though he said the Cole Memo, an Obama-era directive that prioritizes state drug laws over federal laws, is “valid,” the Trump Administration has signaled that a crack-down could be forthcoming. Twenty-eight states have legalized medical marijuana, while eight states and D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly: Marijuana “Not a Factor” in Drug War appeared first on Law Street.

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.

Mel Brooks Tried Pulling Down President Obama’s Pants

Why? Because he’s Mel Brooks. Best known for his films “Spaceballs” and “Blazing Saddles,” the 90-year-old director was at the White House last night accepting the National Medal of the Arts from President Obama. Which is pretty awesome!

Anyway, Mel Brooks, like many 90-year-olds, doesn’t give a shit about social conduct. So he decided to pull a gag, by pretending to pull down Obama’s pants.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 23, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

This Fake Doctor/Con Man Must Be Stopped…Stat

Nope, it’s not Martin Shkreli! Malachi Love-Johnson is back in the news. Love-Johnson gained national attention in February after he was charged with practicing medicine without a license.

This past weekend Malachi was arrested at a luxury car dealership for attempting to buy a Jaguar for $35,000 using his godmother’s credit. Thing is, Love-Johnson’s godmother did not know that the teenager was using her name to co-sign a Jaguar and had done so TWICE before in the same week.

Love-Johnson had also conned his way into buying two iPads and a cellphone using his godmother’s credit card. Man, this poor, oblivious woman.

Fla. teen ‘Dr. Love’ arrested at Va. car dealership; ‘He fooled me at first,’ employee says https://t.co/jpy9wlZPy8 pic.twitter.com/GRQESodWm7

— WTVR CBS 6 Richmond (@CBS6) September 11, 2016

Love-Robinson is being held on charges of Identity Fraud, False Statements to Obtain Credit, and Obtaining Money by False Pretenses.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Why Are People Overdosing On Anti-Diarrhea Drugs?

It seems like America’s drug problem has reached a bizarre new low. People are taking crazy high doses of anti-poop meds, like Imodium, to get high. Sounds like the plot of a comedy sketch, I know, but this is serious. The appeal comes from users being able to achieve heroin-like highs from taking 300 mgs of the meds at once. National poison control centers are reporting a 71 percent increase in calls involving anti-diarrhea drug overdoses, but the FDA doesn’t have enough information yet to tackle the issue.

WARNING: It’s a heroin like high, all from taking anti-diarrhea drugs. FDA issues warning. https://t.co/mxXMYoFaMg pic.twitter.com/RRBi8oXY9L

— Tim Williams (@realtimwilliams) June 8, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

What if heroin overdoses were not classified as accidents, but as homicides?

That is what one Pennsylvania coroner is starting to do.

According to Penn Live, in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, coroner Charles E. Kiessling wants to call the issue like it is. Rather than have the death be classified as either a suicide or accidental, labeling heroin overdose deaths as homicides holds the drug dealers accountable for their actions.

“If you are selling heroin to someone and they die, isn’t that homicide?” he said to Penn Live. He added that ruling the deaths as accidental downplays the true severity of the situation.

This issue has garnered both positive and negative comments. Some argue that this will become a slippery slope where car dealers are blamed for car accidents. However, as explained in Penn Live, a coroner’s report is not legal finding, therefore a death being classified a homicide on the report does not mean in the eyes of law enforcement it will immediately be taken that way.

This same argument has been presented in previous years regarding fast food chains and obesity. In one 2002 case against McDonald’s, two teenagers blamed the fast food chain for their obesity, arguing that they were not provided with the necessary nutritional information. Lawyers for McDonald’s made the case that it was really a case of a lack of individual responsibility.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention handbook states that a death should be designated a homicide if it is from “… a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.”

The second part of their definition is crucial because in these cases of heroin overdoses, there may not be explicit intent to kill.

The coroner’s decision comes as heroin related deaths are increasing across the state, along with a personal connection after he said he pronounced a friend’s son dead from heroin, according to Penn Live.

“This hit me very personally,” Kiessling said to Penn Live. “I don’t care if I offend people. Drug dealers are murderers and belong in state prison.”

A hole in the slippery slope argument, though, comes when opponents argue that then a doctor would need to be charged with homicide if one of their patients overdosed on prescription medicine. However, unlike drug dealers, doctors have licenses and their medicines are administered in methodical and specific amounts, making it more difficult for patients to overdose accidentally. When it comes to drugs, the buyer may not even know what chemicals are in the drugs and this unknown lends itself to issues.

With that being said, is it really plausible to call all drug dealers “murderers?” The same language can be used as was used by McDonald’s lawyers: it is the individual’s choice to consume certain foods or drugs, meaning that drug dealers shouldn’t be held liable for what happens to their consumers.

With any overdose, the situation is very sensitive, and the classification of the death could mean different implications for not only police but also for the families of the victims.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pennsylvania Coroner Labels Heroin Overdoses ‘Homicide’ appeared first on Law Street.

In light of the prescription drug abuse epidemic, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is cracking down on the labeling of opioid painkillers. According to the FDA, immediate-release opioid painkillers will now carry what is called a “black box” warning, which will warn about the “risk of abuse, addiction, overdose and death.”

The new labeling will also state that prescribing immediate-release opioid painkillers “should be reserved for pain severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate or not tolerated.” There will also be clearer instructions for dosage and dosage changes throughout treatment.

Immediate-release opioid painkillers include almost 175 different brands and generics, including Vicodin and Percocet. According to the Chicago Tribune:

Those medications, which often combine oxycodone with lower-grade medications, are among the most commonly used drugs in the U.S. and account for 90 percent of all opioid painkillers prescribed.

The extensions of these warnings apply particularly to the immediate-release painkillers; the FDA already upped labeling restrictions for extended-release painkillers in 2013. Extended-release painkillers were thought to be a bigger risk for addiction, but after the labeling changes in 2013, increased cases of overdoses, addiction, and death continued. In 2014, there was a high of 19,000 deaths related to the misuse of opioid painkillers, according to the CDC.

There’s also a worrisome connection between opioid painkillers and heroin use–given that some individuals who have become addicted to painkillers eventually turn to heroin once they are no longer able to access painkillers, or because heroin is often cheaper. If you combine deaths from opioid painkillers and heroin, the number of fatalities in 2014 jumps to almost 29,000.

Despite the fact that this labeling comes with a very good intention–cutting down on the abuse of opioids and resulting tragic deaths. However, some experts say that the FDA isn’t going quite far enough. Dr. Andrew Kolodny, the executive director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, pointed out that the new labeling still does not recommend maximum amounts. According to the New York Times Dr. Kolodny stated:

Without an upper dose or maximum duration of use on the label, I don’t think the change will have much of an impact.

As heroin and prescription drug abuse remain huge issues in the U.S., it’s laudable that the FDA is trying common-sense approaches to address them. The Obama administration is pushing for action by federal agencies and governors, so we should probably expect to see more efforts to combat drug addiction in the coming months.

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 FDA Cracks Down on Painkiller Labeling 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.

America’s addiction to opioids and heroin have reached epidemic levels. Right now, 78 people die per day from use and overdose of such drugs, forcing the conversation of governors and party leaders to address a strategy that involves treatment of addiction in conjunction with punishment for use and possession of illicit drugs.

The shift in focus as it pertains to treatment rather than solely punishment is something that politicians from the likes of Bernie Sanders to Mitch McConnell can get behind–further highlighting the fact that current solutions and implementations are not working. Read on to learn more about the growing epidemic, brainstormed strategies and example case studies, and what the 2016 presidential candidates are saying America can expect in the future.

Heroin Growth Across the U.S.

The United States represents 5 percent of the world’s population, yet utilizes 80 percent of its opioids, which are known to be the gateway to heroin use. The death toll, reported in 2014, had reached the staggering level of 47,055/year.

No population is immune from the epidemic. Figures show a consistent upward trend from urban and inner-city communities to rural areas in the same fashion. The use and subsequent dependency on legal opioid painkillers has contributed to the growing problem. Workplace accidents and injuries, cyclical familial use, post-surgery procedures, and experimentation with drugs available in the home all serve as contributing factors to the outbreak of heroin use and overdoses in the United States.

States and Municipalities Take the Lead

One prevalent public health worry is that some heroin users use in public. You can find examples readily in the news–in Philadelphia, a man on public transportation during rush hour injected heroin into his hand in full view of all other individuals on the bus. A couple traveling from Indiana who had stopped at a Cincinnati McDonald’s collapsed in front of their children from an overdose. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, a church closed its public bathrooms after several individuals overdosed in those facilities. Drug users are utilizing parks, restaurant bathrooms, hospitals, libraries, vehicles, city transit, churches, and other public places to shoot up, and in turn, are losing consciousness or dying in those public places.

Due to the increasing display of overdoses coupled with the cheap and extremely accessible nature of heroin, states, local authorities, and local organizations are being forced to take action in an effort to battle the widespread heroin use.

Taking Action: Vermont

Governor Peter Shumlin (D) of Vermont took the first step in admitting that Vermont was not equipped to handle the outbreak and consequences of heroin, stating, “I found we were doing almost everything wrong.”

Initially, Vermont began its fight by addressing non-violent offenders, who were provided with an opportunity to enter into a treatment facility instead of serving jail time. Not only did this policy change reduce the number of individuals incarcerated for non-violent drug crimes, but also addressed the need for treatment and long term solutions over punishment. The facilities work with courts and provide the requisite treatment along with ensuring appropriate steps for assimilation back into society and on-going care.

Further, Vermont has taken steps to protect individuals seeking medical assistance from prosecution from possession or intent to sell. Finally, it was the first state to legalize the over-the-counter sale of naloxone–a drug used to “reverse overdoses” and effectively save lives.

However, Schumlin is not naive to believe that the battle will not come with some difficulty. He has already addressed the shortage in supply for doctors and qualified medical personnel and is working diligently to help treat those on waiting lists. Most importantly, Schumlin recognizes the need to more rationally and safely administer prescription drugs, such as OxyContin, which often serve as the gateway to heroin when prescriptions become too difficult to obtain and OxyContin becomes scarce.

Big Steps: Ithaca, New York

While most states share in the challenges faced by Vermont, politicians are taking different approaches to fight the heroin epidemic. Most controversially, the idea of supervised injection facilities has surfaced under the direction of Mayor Svante Myrick of Ithaca, New York. A supervised injection facility would allow an individual to use heroin while monitored by a nurse or caretaker without getting arrested.

This type of facility would, without a doubt, be met with public policy, political, and judicial opposition and doubt, but Myrick stands by his initiative. Abandoned by a drug-addicted father as a young child, Myrick noted, “I have watched for 20 years this system that just doesn’t work. We can’t wait anymore for the federal government. We have people shooting up in alleys. In bathroom stalls. And too many of them are dying.”

Myrick’s facility would utilize a holistic approach and view heroin addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. His rationale reflects a growing belief among the younger American generation that the War on Drugs, dubbed as such by President Richard Nixon in 1971, is a drastic failure.

However, critics are wary. They see the strategy as encouraging people to continue using drugs rather than seeking treatment to free themselves from addiction. Myrick does not disagree, but recognizes the need for new solutions and is working with local prosecutors and police to gain support and insight into his proposed solution. Elected District Attorney, Gwen Wilkinson initially opposed the idea, but has seen the possible benefit and stated, “What brought me around was the realization that this wouldn’t make it more likely that people will use drugs. What it would do is make it less likely that people will die in restaurant bathrooms.”

Myrick’s plan is to ask the New York Health Department to declare the heroin epidemic a state crisis, which would allow for him to take certain steps on a local level without the approval of state legislature. Governor Andrew Cuomo has failed to make any statement regarding such a facility, but has supported needle exchange programs and additional funding for treatment and preventative care in the past.

His inspiration was Canada’s supervised injection site dubbed “Insite,” which opened in Vancouver in 2003. Dr. Patricia Daly, Chief Medical Health Officer at Vancouver Coastal Health operates the facility and has shared that the site has approximately 800 visitors daily, 10-20 of whom overdose each week, but the facility has experienced zero deaths. The number of deaths in the surrounding neighborhoods has dropped by 35 percent and in 2011, Insite gained an unexpected ally in the Canadian Supreme Court who noted the facility’s success in saving lives “with no discernable negative impact.”

Myrick has other plans as well. Under his direction, low-level drug offenders would be sent to treatment, rather than jail and the creation of a drug policy and youth apprenticeship program would provide alternatives for drugs to young people.

While the answer has shifted away from solely jailing drug abusers, the major concern about such a facility is the lack of consequences for drug abusers and its inability to treat and change behavior. Even those opposed to a supervised injection site usually recognize the need for new solutions.

What the 2016 Presidential Candidates Have to Say about the Heroin Epidemic

While many of the 2016 Presidential candidates probably did not expect to be asked questions about the growing heroin epidemic, their presences in places such as New Hampshire, a state hit hard with heroin-related deaths and overdoses, has forced them to take a stance.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton unveiled a $10 billion plan to combat and contain substance abuse across the nation. The Democratic candidate is on board to shift focus from pure punishment to treatment, devising federal-state collaboration programs that would allow for states to receive grant money from the federal government in order to boost treatment availability, preventative care, and incarceration alternatives. Tym Rourke, the chair of the New Hampshire Governor’s Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Recovery shared with the Clinton campaign about the lack of adequate resources and infrastructure to tackle the epidemic. Clinton’s focus on federal-state partnerships would aim to provide the support and resources that many states, like New Hampshire, are experiencing. She is the first candidate to unveil a comprehensive proposal to fight the epidemic.

(Former) Republican candidate, Chris Christie, ran ads highlighting the importance of life and the need to help addicts on a road to recovery. Additionally, he signed a series of bills into New Jersey law that focused on heroin and opioid abuse, requiring the state to:

Put in place a requirement that substance abuse centers submit performance reports; extended immunity to emergency responders and needle-exchange program employees who administer the anti-opioid drug Narcan; and mandated that state agencies provide mental health and substance abuse services to inmates in state prisons.

Another former candidate, Jeb Bush, recognized the value of input from facilities that provide treatment and care for heroin users and announced he was working with such locations in an effort to develop a plan that would address the real issues faced by treatment centers.

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has pushed for a decrease in the cost of naloxone, which can serve to reverse the effects of heroin and is most often used to treat an overdose when possible. The expansion of access to such medicine would allow responders and law enforcement to react more efficiently and effectively when witnessing an overdose.

Presidential candidates are identifying the amount of heroin use and heroin-related deaths as a devastating occurrence in the United States and are taking measures to diminish the number of people affected and the number of overdoses and deaths tied to the drug.

Conclusion

It is evident from the local action taking place, as well as the national campaign exposure pertaining to the use of heroin, that leaders within the United States view this problem as an epidemic. The focus of leadership, coupled with the variety of implementations and solutions surfacing into place make one thing starkly clear–a heroin epidemic is taking place in our backyard and the possible solutions are a far cry from additional punishment or prolonged jail time. This time, the ultimate resolution has shifted and it reflects treatment. As the epidemic continues to grow and claim lives, we must wait and see what the election unfolds or work with our communities to put together plausible efforts to minimize the dangers and effects of heroin on our communities. Until then, we depend on state and local leadership and law enforcement to implement actions and procedures that will decrease the number of people dying on a daily basis from heroin overdoses.

Resources

Business Insider: One State Has Shaped the National Debate on Heroin Addiction

The New York Times: Heroin Epidemic Increasingly Seeps Into Public View

New York Post: Upstate New York Mayor Wants Place Where Addicts Can Inject Heroin Safely

The New York Times: How the Epidemic of Drug Overdose Deaths Ripples Across America

The Guardian: Hillary Clinton Proposes $10bn Plan to Combat Substance Abuse ‘Epidemic’

The Guardian: Heroin Crisis: Presidential Candidates Forced to Confront Issue on Campaign Trail

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heroin: The Epidemic Forcing a Top Campaign Issue 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.

To most people, it is a matter of common sense and good policy that governments should not subsidize illegal or immoral activities on the part of their citizens. The belief that governments should not only consider the practical effects of their policy decisions but also the moral implications of those policy choices can be found across the political landscape, often on both sides of a debate. It can also lead to policies that might otherwise have been enacted because of their practical value being dismissed.

One area in which the belief in the importance of government policies not promoting immoral behavior manifests itself is the issue of Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs). These programs, in place in many American cities and around the world, allow intravenous drug users to bring in used syringes and exchange them for clean needles. It keeps users from sharing needles with each other which prevents the spread of HIV, Hepatitis C, and other infectious diseases. It also gives users the tools necessary to get high. Despite the alarming increase in these illnesses, many are unwilling to use federal money to enable drug use and this reluctance has very real consequences. So where do the facts lie, and what effect does moral opposition have on an otherwise effective program?

Background

Every year, 50,000 Americans become infected with HIV. Of these, approximately 11-14 percent are the direct result of intravenous drug use from needle sharing. Hepatitis infections also affect intravenous drug users. An estimated 50 to 80 percent of users will become infected with Hepatitis C within five years of starting intravenous drug use. Based on a study of seven pilot needle exchange programs, the cost savings from preventing an HIV infection was about $20,000–a fraction of the cost of treating an individual who contracts HIV. In light of the growing use of intravenous drugs and the need to prevent the transmission of disease, Congress recently took another look at the largely moral argument that kept the federal government from funding needle exchange programs and decided to lift the ban.

The argument against providing federal funding for NEPs is essentially an ideological and moral one and not necessarily one about the effectiveness of these endeavors. Those who would like to ban funding these exchanges argue that using intravenous drugs is immoral and that providing clean needles to drug users will encourage them to use more drugs. Or, at the very least, sends the message that it is acceptable to use. Therefore federal funds would be encouraging an immoral activity and the programs shouldn’t be funded.

A Perverse Incentive?

In legalese, a “perverse incentive” is a consequence or behavior that was unforeseen by the creators of a policy or law when they enacted it–usually, a negative one that thwarts the purpose the law was intended to serve. Let’s say you have a lot of rats in your city and you want to encourage your citizens to kill rats to get rid of them. One way to incentivize them to do so would be to pay a bounty for each rat tail. Instead of killing rats, you might find that everyone starts farming them to make money. Not exactly what you had in mind, but a perfectly reasonable response to getting paid for rat tails.

Opponents of funding NEPs think that providing clean needles to intravenous drug users will have a similar result. It will lead to the use of more clean needles but would also cause an increase in use overall. Just as the rat-tail bounty lead to additional dead rats, it increased the number of living ones as well.

Advocates of lifting the ban on the funding argue that the evidence shows that intravenous drug use does not increase when clean needles are provided for users. In fact, the evidence shows that users come for the needles but often end up availing themselves of other resources, such as access to rehabilitation and counseling. To those advocating that the ban remain lifted the fact that providing clean needles may be tacit consent (more legalese) for using drugs shouldn’t be relevant. What matters, and what should matter to policymakers, is that the programs work.

Morals and Numbers

The former ban on federal funding for Needle Exchange Programs has been in effect since 1988, with a brief respite in the 2010-11 budget. The rationale for this ban was largely due to some lawmakers’ unwillingness–on this issue, it was typically Republican lawmakers–to promote drug use. Although there was clearly a need to take steps to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and other blood-born illnesses, lawmakers were unwilling to provide the funding for clean needles. Essentially arguing that providing that funding amounted to facilitating drug use, and that these programs may even encourage addicts to use more because of increased access to clean needles.

Federal funds could still be used to pay for other efforts in the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis, such as educating intravenous drug users about the importance of clean needles and providing counseling and rehabilitation services. But clean needles, or even giving out bleach to clean the needles, wasn’t allowed. Nor were NEPs allowed to use federal funds to pay for administrative support for these programs, limiting them entirely to state and local funds.

Although Congress lifted the ban, federal funds still cannot be used to directly purchase the needles themselves. The change simply allows for the use of federal money to pay for everything but the needles involved in these programs. For some advocates of NEPs, such as Daniel Raymond of the Harm Reduction Coalition, it is a compromise that they are happy to make. In his recent interview with NPR, Raymond outlines the rationale for his support for lifting the funding ban.

Those in opposition to federal funding make an argument that resonates with our cultural sense of personal responsibility and our unwillingness to help make bad behavior easier. If it really is the case that an addict who has access to clean needles will continue or even increase their drug use, opponents argue that the federal government should not be a party to it. The goal should be to combat drug use and its effects and lawmakers see direct funding for NEPs as counterintuitive–giving an addict a needle so that they can more safely use while telling them they shouldn’t be using in the first place. To those opposing funding, an increase in drug use isn’t even a perverse incentive but a very foreseeable consequence.

A Closer Look 

Yet the numbers don’t support this conclusion. In fact, those users who go to a needle exchange program often also end up entering into a rehabilitation program. According to the ACLU, they are five times more likely than a user who never sought out an NEP to do so.

The reduction in rates of HIV infections can also be profound. In 2008, the ban on local funding for NEPs in Washington, D.C. was lifted. By 2010, the rate of new HIV infections decreased by 60 percent. There may  be a perverse incentive at work here, but not the one you would think. Addicts want clean needles if they are going to use and that draws them to the NEP. But many of them also want to not need the clean needles in the first place. Once their foot is in the door, drug users are met with the social services that can help them rehabilitate. By making drug use safer, the programs are also, ultimately, making drug use less likely.

The Profit Motive

There is also a second perverse incentive that leads many to oppose funding for needle exchange programs. At most NEPs there is no limit to how many dirty needles you can turn in for clean ones. Therefore enterprising individuals can collect dirty needles and get clean ones, then turn around and sell those clean needles to users, essentially making a profit off of the federal government’s support for clean needles. For those morally opposed to providing the clean needles in the first place, this is an added reason to reinstitute the ban. Now, instead of just giving the needles away, the federal government is creating a business for clean needle sales.

To opponents of the program, this second perverse incentive may be even worse than the first. There is a visceral discomfort with the idea that drug dealers might be benefitting financially from a federally funded program.

But this profit motive may, in fact, be a benefit for drug users (and taxpayers) as well as increase the effectiveness of the NEPs in general. Essentially, you’re taking the exchange program and making it mobile. Instead of needing to plan a trip to the NEP to get the tools necessary to use, an addict can go to an individual supplier, who may be more local. Or a drug dealer, who users will inevitably encounter, now has an ancillary business of providing clean needles.

The proximity of a clean needle to an addict when they need to use is probably the deciding factor in whether they use a clean needle or a dirty one. This makes the clean needle option much easier to choose and it gives the needle supplier/drug dealer an incentive to promote clean needles: they want to sell more needles. One could argue it also gives them an incentive to try to sell more drugs, which it certainly does. Yet, the incentive to sell as much as possible exists anyway. Dirty needles do not diminish that profit motive and they don’t decrease the demand. If an addict is willing to pay a small premium for a clean needle there is an economic incentive for dealers to have clean needles to sell. By tying an economic incentive to drug dealers, you end up promoting the use of clean needles.

Opponents would also point out that if users get needles from drug dealers and not from the NEPs that actually reduces the main ancillary benefit of the program–that addicts get the other social services in addition to the clean needles when they show up. But advocates for these programs would argue that the solution to this problem might be to take the economic incentive model and tie it to those social services as well. Essentially mimicking the drug dealers actions by making NEPs more mobile. In fact, many NEPs are in buses and vans, perhaps for this reason.

For many, this argument does not remove the opposition to letting drug dealers or addicts profit financially from these programs. Nor does the effectiveness of these programs make up for the essential problem addicts are being supplied with the tools they need to use, which is the very thing the government wants to prevent. Even if the program is effective that doesn’t make it morally right from everyone’s perspective; the ends-justifies-the-means argument does not always hold water.

Conclusion

There is an epidemic of intravenous drug use in the United States, and around the world, in addition to a concurrent epidemic of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and other illnesses that are transmitted through the use of dirty needles. You would be hard-pressed to find a community or a family in America today that has not been personally impacted by a friend or a loved one who is struggling with addiction.

Opponents of federally funding NEPs would argue that the federal government should not make it easier for addicts to use. Instead of devoting our resources to giving drug users clean needles, which gives them the ability to more safely use and even profit off federal funding, the government should be devoting all of the resources it has to other methods of combating intravenous drug use. There are ways to promote rehabilitation programs and other forms of help that don’t involve also promoting “safe” drug use.

But advocates of lifting the ban argue that while other services for drug users are critically important NEPs should be supported even if initially they seem to encourage drug use, because in the long run they decrease the transmission of disease and intravenous drug use through the social services they offer. The fact that users may ultimately profit from the sale of clean needles is not a reason to defund these programs if they are still working. If the program is reducing the spread of disease and decreasing drug use, then it should be funded.

The division of opinion on this issue is centered more on the conflict between ideologies than on the effectiveness of NEPs. The programs have been proven to be successful in combating the spread of disease as intended and the evidence does not show an increase in drug use where these programs are available. Ultimately, the question is which should matter more: the moral message that providing needles sends, or the effectiveness of the program itself.

Resources

Primary

University of Texas at Austin, Needle Exchange Program

Additional

Financial Transparency, Farming For Rats: Perverse Incentives and Illicit Financial Flows

New York Times, Surge In Cases of HIV Tests U.S. Policy on Needle Exchanges

NPR, Congress Ends Ban On Federal Funding For Needle Exchange Programs

NPR, Needle Exchange Program Creates Black Market In Clean Syringes

ACLU, Needle Exchange Programs Promote Public Safety

TIME, Clean Needles Saved My Life

The Atlantic, The War On Drug Users : Are Syringe Exchanges Immoral?

University of California San Francisco, Does HIV Needle Exchange Work? 

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Perverse Incentives: Are Needle Exchanges Good Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

Early in the morning on January 8, the notorious cartel leader Joaquin Guzman, also known as El Chapo, was captured, yet again, by Mexican authorities following a heated gun battle at his hideout. While Guzman’s story has a number of interesting subplots, including his multiple previous escapes and an interview with Sean Penn, it also points to something: the ongoing war on drugs taking place with its epicenter in Mexico. However, this has not always been the state of things, as South America, particularly Colombia, was once home to the heart of drug trafficking and its most infamous leader Pablo Escobar. But the recent arrest highlights how that center has moved north and, not coincidently, much closer to the U.S. border. Read on to see how the heart of the drug trade has shifted in recent years, what impact that has had in Mexico, the role of the United States, and if capturing El Chapo really makes any difference in the larger war on drugs.

It Started in South America Now it’s Here

To understand the importance of capturing someone like El Chapo, or even the Mexican drug trafficking industry in general, it is necessary to travel one step backward to Colombia. The Colombian drug trade really took off in the 1970s when marijuana traffickers began trading in cocaine because of increased American demand for the drug. Trafficking cocaine was considerably more profitable than marijuana and the growth in profits caused a dramatic increase in the scale of smuggling.

The amount of money in this industry led to the formation of two incredibly powerful competing cartels, the Medellin and the Cali Cartels. The Medellin Cartel, known for its ruthlessness and use of violence, was epitomized by its leader, the notorious Pablo Escobar. The Cali cartel, on the other hand, was much more inconspicuous, reinvesting profits in legitimate businesses and using bribery instead of violence to get its way. The competition between these two groups turned violent, eventually involving the Colombian government and even the United States.

In the 1990s, these two groups were finally undone by concerted efforts between the local Colombian government and U.S. advisors that led to their leaders being either imprisoned or killed. Since their peak, these empires have fragmented, as smaller groups took control over various parts of the cocaine-producing process. While the violence in Colombia has decreased, though not disappeared altogether, the dominant player in the drug trafficking world has shifted to Mexico.

Going North

Mexico had originally been the final corridor through which Colombian cocaine passed before entering the United States. Before Mexico, cocaine had been smuggled through the Caribbean to cities like Miami. Ultimately, though, those routes were shut down by the United States. During the peak years of operation in Colombia, Mexico was little more than a path into the United States. However, this began to change with the demise of the Cali and Medellin cartels, coupled with continued American pressure and aid packages to help the Colombian government fight the local drug trade. Due to fragmentation and weakening Colombian cartels, the center of the drug trade shifted north in Mexico. Mexico served as a natural hub due to its earlier involvement in distributing the drugs produced in Colombia.

While the Mexican cartels came to dominate the illegal drug trade, their rise preceded the actual demise of their Colombian brethren. Much of the history of modern cartels in Mexico can be traced back to one man, Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo. Gallardo was responsible for creating and maintaining the smuggling routes between Mexico and the United States. When he was arrested, his network splintered into several parts, laying the groundwork for many of the cartel divisions that exist today. The first major successor was the AFO or Tijuana/Arellano Felix organization. However, its status was usurped by the Sinaloa Cartel under El Chapo’s control.

The Sinaloa Cartel is believed to control between 40 and 60 percent of the drug trade in Mexico with that translating into annual profits of up to $3 billion, but it is only one of nine that currently dominate Mexico. The activities of these cartels have also expanded as they are now involved in other criminal activities such as kidnapping, extortion, theft, human trafficking, as well as smuggling new drugs to the United States.

The rise of the Mexican cartels can be attributed to other factors aside from the demise of the Colombian groups. One such factor was the role of the Mexican government. During the important period of their ascendancy, the cartels were largely left alone by the Mexican government, which was controlled by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) for 71 years. When the PRI’s grip on power finally loosened, the alliance with the cartels also shredded.

The growth of the Mexican cartels may also have been the result of economic problems in the United States. Stagflation in the United States led to higher interest rates on loans, which Mexico could not pay. In order to avert an economic crisis, several international institutions stepped in to bail Mexico out, which shifted the government’s focus from its economy to repaying debt. As a result of aggressive policies directed toward Mexican workers and because of the deleterious effects of the NAFTA treaty, there was a dramatic loss of jobs and a shift to a more urban population.

In this new setting, there were few opportunities available, making positions with drug cartels one of the few lucrative options along with growing the crops like poppy, which is used to create the drugs themselves. According to farmers interviewed by the Guardian, growing poppy is the only way for them to guarantee a “cash income.” An increase in the availability of firearms and other weapons smuggled south from the United States only added to the violence and chaos. The video below depicts the history of the Mexican drug trade:

Impact on Mexico

These endless wars for control between cartels in Mexico have taken a significant toll on the country. Between 2007 and 2014, for example, 164,000 people were killed in America’s southern neighbor. While not all those murders are drug-related, some estimates suggest 34 to 55 percent of homicides involve the drug war, a rate that is still incredibly high.

Aside from the number of deaths, all of the violence has influenced the Mexican people’s trust in the government as a whole. That lack of faith may be well founded as the weaknesses of the judicial and police forces are widely known. When the PRI was the single ruling party, it had effectively served as patrons to the drug cartels where an understanding was essentially worked out between the two. When the PRI lost its grip on power, this de-facto alliance between the government and the cartels also splintered. Without centralized consent, individuals at all levels of government as well as in the judiciary and police became susceptible to bribes from the various cartels.  In fact, many were often presented with the choice of either going along with the cartels in exchange for money or being harmed if they resisted. The corruption and subsequent lack of trust in authorities have gotten so bad that some citizens are forming militias of their own to combat the cartels.

Role of the United States

In addition to the impact that the U.S. economy has in terms of job opportunities, particularly since the passage of NAFTA, the United States has had a major impact on the drug trade in two other ways. First are the U.S. efforts to curb the supply of drugs, which were organized as part of the overall war on drugs. While the United States has had a variety of drug laws on the books, it was not until after the 1960s that the government took direct aim at eliminating illicit substances. In 1971, President Nixon formally launched a “war on drugs,” taking an aggressive stance implementing laws like mandatory minimum sentencing and labeling marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which made it equivalent to substances like heroin in the eyes of the law.

This emphasis on drug laws only intensified under President Reagan, whose persistence in prosecuting drug crimes led to a large increase in the prison population. During Reagan’s presidency, Congress also passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1986, which forced countries receiving U.S. aid to adhere to its drug laws or lose their assistance packages. These policies more or less continued for decades, often with more and more money being set aside to increase enforcement. Only in recent years has President Barack Obama offered much of a change as he has overseen modifications in sentencing and the perception of medical marijuana laws.

This focus on supply extends beyond the U.S. border as well. First, in Colombia, the United States repeatedly put pressure on the Colombian government to fight the drug traffickers. With these efforts still ineffective and with violence mounting, the United States again poured money into the country, helping to finance needed reforms in the Colombian security forces and for other things like crop eradication. In Mexico, a similar approach followed as a series of presidents, beginning in the 1980s, took on much more combative roles against the cartels with the approval and support of the United States. The United States helped support an armed forces overhaul to combat the traffickers and root out corruption within the Mexican armed forces, which had begun to permeate as a result of low wages. In Mexico, successive governments even went so far as to send the military into cartel-dominated cities and engage in assaults. While Presidents Zedillo, Fox, and Calderon sent in troops and met with some immediate success, in the long term it led to mass army defections, greater awareness of the reach of the drug economy, and ultimately other cartels filling the void where government forces were successful.

Since the inception of the drug war, the United States has spent an estimated $1 trillion. Primarily what the United States has to show for this is a number of unintended consequences such as the highest incarceration rates in the world. Another is one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDs of any Western nation fueled, in part, by the use of dirty syringes among drug users.

The problem is that for all its efforts to eliminate supply, the United States has done much less about demand, its other contribution to the drug trade. In fact, the United States is widely regarded as the number one market in the world for illegal drugs. To address demand instead of concentrating on supply, the United States could shift more of its focus to programs that educate or offer rehabilitation to drug users, which have been shown to be effective in small scale efforts.  Certain states have begun to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, a step which will certainly reduce the number of inmates and may also reduce levels of drug-related violence. Yet there is no single way to outright reduce the demand for drugs and some view decriminalization as actually fueling the problem. The following video provides an overview of the resources invested into the United Stats’ war on drugs:

The Importance of Capturing El Chapo

Considering all of the resources and efforts put in place, it is important to consider how much of an impact El Chapo’s arrest will actually have. Unfortunately, it looks like the answer is not much, if any at all. In fact, even El Chapo himself weighed in on his arrest’s effects on the drug trade, telling Sean Penn in an interview, “the day I don’t exist, it’s not going to decrease in any way at all.” El Chapo’s point is clearly illustrated through the number of drug seizures at the border. While exact amounts fluctuate, nearly 700,000 more pounds of marijuana were seized in 2011 than in 2005. The amount of heroin and amphetamines seized has also gone up as well.

The following video details El Chapo’s most recent capture:

His most recent arrest was actually his third; the first two times he escaped from maximum security prisons in stylish fashions, which is one of the reasons that U.S. authorities want Mexico to extradite him. Regardless of where he is ultimately held, since his first arrest in 1993 the drug trade has not suffered when he or any other cartel leader was captured or killed, nor has it suffered from the growth in seizures.

In fact, one of the major points of collaboration between Mexican and U.S. authorities has been on targeting, capturing, or killing of the kingpins of these cartels. While these operations have been successful in apprehending individuals, what they really result in is the further fragmentation of the drug trade. While some may argue that detaining top leaders and fragmenting the centralized drug trade is a mark of success, evidence suggests this is not so.

Conclusion

Aside from relocating the hub of the drug trade to Mexico, the war on drugs has had several other unintended consequences such as high civilian deaths, persistently high rates of HIV infection, and massive levels of incarceration to name a few. While the United States has had some success targeting suppliers and traffickers, it has been unable to reduce demand domestically.

Those involved in Mexico faced a similar conundrum. Not only do citizens in Mexico not trust their government, many of them have become dependent on the drug trade and shutting it down could actually hurt the economic prospects of many citizens.

While El Chapo’s most recent capture has the potential to provide the government with some credibility, it still may not mean much. Even if he is prevented from escaping again or running his old empire from jail, someone will likely take his place. That is because the drug trade does not rely on individuals but on demand and profits. Until these issues are addressed and Mexican citizens have legitimate alternatives to joining cartels, it does not matter how many cartel leaders are arrested, the situation will remain the same.

Resources

CNN: ‘Mission Accomplished’: Mexican President Says ‘El Chapo’ Caught

Frontline: The Colombian Cartels

Borderland Beat: The Story of Drug Trafficking in Latin America

Congressional Research Service: Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations

Jacobin: How the Cartels Were Born

Frontline: The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War

Council on Foreign Relations: Mexico’s Drug War

Drug Policy Alliance: A Brief History of the Drug War

Matador Network: 10 Facts About America’s War On Drugs That Will Shock You

The Washington Post: Latin American Leaders Assail U.S. Drug ‘Market’

The Huffington Post: Why The Capture of ‘El Chapo’ Guzman Won’t Stop His Cartel

The Guardian: Mexican Farmers Turn to Opium Poppies to Meet Surge in US Heroin Demand

CIR: Drug Seizures Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Finding El Chapo: What his Arrest Means for Mexico and the Drug Trade appeared first on Law Street.

Ireland is taking a radical approach to dealing with drugs. The nation plans on decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, heroin, and cocaine in what’s being called a “radical cultural shift.”

Ireland’s approach comes from a public health angle; Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, the Minister in charge of the National Drugs Strategy stated:

Too often those with drug problems suffer from stigma, due to a lack of understanding or public education about the nature of addiction. This stigma can be compounded for those who end up with a criminal record due to possession of drugs for their own use. Addiction is not a choice, it’s a healthcare issue. This is why I believe it is imperative that we approach our drug problem in a more compassionate and sensitive way.

In addition to decriminalizing the drugs, Ireland will set up supervised injection facilities, where users are monitored by medical professionals. The aim there is to keep users from consuming drugs on the street, where they can be a harm to themselves and others, for example, by using dirty syringes that could spread disease.

Ireland isn’t the first country to take this approach. Portugal undertook similar steps in 2001, when it decriminalized all drugs, and emphasized the need for public health spending and efforts. Since then, the rates of drug use among both young people and adults have been dropping.

The logic behind this approach is simple–if the illegality and stigma of possessing drugs are minimized, people will be more likely to get help. A study by the Cato Institute after Portugal took similar steps found that the biggest deterrent to addicts coming forward to receive treatment was the fear of arrest. Additionally, eliminating the costly burden of prosecuting and incarcerating individuals frees up that money to be used for rehabilitation efforts.

While the possession of drugs will be decriminalized, it will still be against the law to sell, distribute, or profit from drugs. This measure aims to only help those who have fallen victim to the disease of addiction. Ó Ríordáin further explained:

Above all the mode must be person-centred and involve an integrated approach to treatment and rehabilitation based on a continuum of care with clearly defined referral pathways.

It’s become almost overwhelmingly clear that a tough-on-drugs approach doesn’t necessarily work–the United States alone provides a depressing case study to that effect. If Ireland sees successful results along the lines of Portugal, other countries may follow suit.

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 Radical Cultural Shift: Ireland to Decriminalize Certain Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

The influx of heroin is typically seen as a local or regional problem, but the issue may finally be taking its rightful place on the national stage in the upcoming presidential election. Both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have faced questions about the growing heroin problem, and Clinton recently vowed to make it a campaign issue. Now, there are a growing number of policies developing across the country to attempt to address the problem.

The number of heroin-related deaths has grown rapidly in recent years. According to the Center for Disease Control, the rate of drug poisoning deaths involving heroin nearly quadrupled from 2000 to 2013, with most of that growth occurring after 2010.  Of the 4.2 million Americans who have tried heroin, approximately 23 percent will become addicted. In 2013, the number of deaths related to drug overdose was 43,982, exceeding traffic fatalities. That year, heroin accounted for approximately 19 percent of all drug overdose deaths, taking the lives of 8,257 people. This chart shows the rapid growth in heroin deaths that has occurred in recent years.

Because of the recent increase in supply and decline in cost, heroin is becoming one of the most popular drugs on the market. In 2007, there were approximately 373,000 heroin users in the United States, but by 2012 that number had  grown to 669,000, an 80 percent increase.

Heroin is also becoming easier to use. Production improvements have increased the purity of heroin sold on the street, which allows it to be snorted and smoked as well as injected.  In the past, injection was the most common method because at lower purity levels that was the only way to receive an instant high.

The drug has become especially popular among white middle class males. In a study done by the National Center for Health Statistics, white males between the ages of 18-44 have become the largest demographic affected by  heroin, with an overdose rate of 7 per 100,000. The overdose rate for men is also four times higher than it is for women.

“Accidental Overdose” is a serious problem for heroin users, but the overdose process is more complicated than it may seem. Users build up a tolerance to the pleasurable effects of the drug faster than they do the physical effects. As a result, users need to take more of the drug to reach the same high, but in the process their respiratory systems can’t catch up and their breathing slows. Many people who die from an overdose simply stop breathing. Naloxone, a drug carried by many first responders, can speed up breathing and can help save someone who has overdosed, but that requires another person to be present to administer Naloxone or call for help.

Jack Stein, the director of the Office of Science Policy and Communications at the National Institute on Drug Abuse told National Geographic, “Literally every time someone injects heroin they are taking a risk of an overdose.” This is because addicts have no way of knowing what they are actually buying off the street. It could be pure heroin, or heroin cut with other powerful substances.

Last summer the White House held a summit on the Opioid Epidemic focusing on finding ways to encourage states to pass Good Samaritan Laws and increase the availability of Naloxone to first responders. As of July 2, 30 states and the District of Columbia have passed Good Samaritan Laws, which allow bystanders to respond in an overdose situation without fear of repercussions. Additionally,  42 states and D.C. have amended their laws making it easier for medical professionals to access Naloxone. Because of these changes, 188 community-based overdose prevention programs now distribute Naloxone.

While progress is being made toward reducing the large number of overdoses from heroin and other opioids, government agencies must do more to crack down on the sale and trafficking of these drugs, and the 2016 candidates need to continue to advocate for change. Legislation is finally starting to catch up with the epidemic, but several states still lag behind. Naloxone is cheap and has a shelf life of 2-3 years, but it can only be lifesaving if it is readily accessible. While efforts to save people from overdosing are important, lawmakers must also work to restrict the spread of heroin, which has already taken root in many places across the country.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As Overdose Numbers Rise, is Heroin the New Killer? appeared first on Law Street.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is now worrying about how it will handle the newest influx of drugs on Baltimore streets. Following the death of Freddie Gray, some Baltimore citizens rioted the streets, attempting to loot as many stores as possible. Over thirty pharmacies and clinics were targeted during that time, and enough doses of Oxycodone, Suboxone, Morphine, Fentanyl and other drugs were taken to keep the city’s drug users high for a year.

In a city with a large population of heroin addicts, this increase of drugs on the street may add to the problems police and city officials face in dealing with the rise of shootings and murders. With more than 175,000 doses of opiates and other prescription drugs stolen, law enforcement officials believe the new flow of prescription pills will breed new addicts and more violence. They also believe that many of those addicts will turn to cheaper heroin once the prescription drugs dry up. 

In response to the city’s plea for help, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal agencies are seeking to prosecute the leaders of gang and drug dealing organizations.

Gary Tuggle, former Assistant Special Agent in Charge of DEA Baltimore District and former Baltimore cop, led the DEA’s efforts in Baltimore in drawing up a list of potential suspects. The DEA is currently circulating photos of about 60 people they believe to have looted these drugs.

Tuggle recalls his time as a police officer and how the drug market has changed since that time:

The street purity of heroin was 2-5%. Today we are seeing purity levels up to 80-85% and then some cases, a kilo of heroin would cost $140-160,000. Today you can get it for between $65 and $70,000 so you see the economics of it when you have a level of supply and level of demand that uses that inventory its literally bringing the cost down and purity levels up.

According the DEA, the influx of drugs on the streets has created a series of turf wars between gangs and independent drug dealers who are competing for territory. Tuggle says:

In some cases you have the gangs taxing other gangs or independent drug dealers. Other times, gangs feel their territory is being threatened, which leads to a disruption in the balance of power and that’s only going to lead to violence.

Police say it is the violence inflicted by the influx of drugs that is partially responsible for the large spike of murders in May.

DEA agents claim to know which areas of town are best for heroin or other drugs. They identified specifically the Sandtown area of Baltimore as having an active heroin market, and the Lexington Market downtown as a location where a circulation of prescription opiates have recently developed. Those most affected by the drug dealing are victims of drug users who come from all over the city. Tuggle stated:

At the end of the day these communities have very, very decent people, hardworking people who want to work and educate their families and support their families […] But a lot of these people dealing in these neighborhoods are not from these neighborhoods. Some of them have nice homes in the suburbs or they live in high rise apartment sin downtown Baltimore. So they come into these communities to take advantage of these communities.

Police believe prescription drugs to be at least partially responsible for Baltimore’s deadliest month in decades–there were 43 murders in the month of May alone. Police are currently working to arrest potential suspects responsible for the recent violent streak, but do not believe the problem will be solved quickly. 

With a limited number of buyers on the street, drug dealers are competing for every dollar and creating turf wars. These turf wars are primarily between gangs and independent drug dealers; these groups are more likely to settle disputes with violence leading to that spike in shootings and murders.

“We’re talking about people. These are not numbers. These are human beings who’ve lost their lives in the streets of Baltimore,” said Police Commissioner Anthony Batts.

So, what does this mean for the residents of Baltimore? Even though the city has had a long history of drug abuse, it seems to recently be getting worse. Now community members that may not be associated with drugs are suddenly right in the middle of a turf war because the dealers have no concern for the lives they are putting at risk. You would think it would be easy to just encourage community members to reach out to police officers when they see suspicious activity, but with the tensions between police officers and minority communities, that’s a completely different battle. With these new drugs on the streets of Baltimore, it seems like they are in for a year of heartache unless the Baltimore Police Department can do something to change it.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prescription Drug Influx Doesn’t Bode Well for Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

Heroin addiction is a scary reality for many Americans. It’s often an ongoing roller coaster involving several rehab stints, withdrawal, and lifelong addiction struggles. And it’s unfortunately becoming a more common phenomenon. Today, the drug is no longer an outlier compared to its competitors.  It has been identified by some as the new drug of the upper-middle class. Is this a fair assessment? Here are the facts.

What is heroin?

Heroin received its name from the “hero-like,” invincible effect the drug provides its user. It is also called by other names on the street including: H, Junk, Smack, Big H, Hell Dust, and countless others. Additives can change the color from white (pure heroin) to rose gray, brown, or black. Heroin can be laced with a variety of poisons and/or other drugs. It is injected, smoked, and snorted.

What is the science behind heroin?

From a scientific perspective:

Heroin is an opiate made from the chemical morphine, which is extracted from the dried latex of the opium poppy. Morphine is extracted from the opium latex, and these chemicals are used to make opiates, such as heroin, diamorphine and methadone. Heroin is the 3,6-diacetyl derivative of morphine (hence diacetylmorphine) and is synthesised from it by acetylation.

So what does that mean? Essentially, heroin is an opiate–a drug created from opium that sedates, tranquilizes, and/or depresses the body. It’s similar to a common base in a variety of pain killers–morphine. Opium comes from the cultivation of poppy seeds.

Effects of Heroin                                                     

Heroin users report several effects that differ based on the individual. Heroin can cause a temporary state of euphoria, safety, warmth, and sexual arousal. It can also create a sense of disconnect from other people, causing a dreamlike state and/or sense of floating. It is a depressant, rather than stimulant like cocaine, and it can be used as a self-medicated pain reliever.

Adversely, users can immediately experience vomiting, coughing, constipation, hypothermia, severe itching, and inability to orgasm. Long-term effects include rotten teeth, cold sweats, weakening of the immune system, respiratory illnesses, depression, loss of appetite, insomnia, and tuberculosis. Although this is not a direct effect, the sharing of needles from intravenous injection can often lead to AIDS, Hepatitis C, and other fatal infections.

After the effects wear off, users will start to feel extreme withdrawal symptoms if another dose is not administered. The symptoms of withdrawal can include “restlessness, aches and pains in the bones, diarrhea, vomiting, and severe discomfort.”

How do Americans get heroin?

Afghanistan is the “world’s largest exporter,” producing over 80 percent of the world’s opium. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Afghan poppy cultivation and opium industry amassed $3 billion in 2013, a 50 percent increase from 2012.

Overall, Mexico is the largest drug supplier to the United States. Specifically, Mexico produces Black Tar Heroin, one of the “most dangerous and addictive forms of heroin to date.” This variety looks more similar to hash than powder and can cause sclerosis and severe bacterial infections.

Colombia is the second largest Latin American supplier to the United States. Colombian cartels historically distribute from New York City and are in “full control of the heroin market in the Eastern United States.”

The “Golden Triangle” includes the countries of Burma, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Before the escalation of the Afghan opium market, these southeastern Asian countries reigned over the world’s opium production.

Is it true that middle class heroin use is on the rise?

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study in 2014 about the changing demographics of heroin users in the last 50 years. Over 2,800 people entering treatment programs participated in self-surveys and extensive interviews.

The results do seem to indicate that heroin is transitioning to the middle class. It is leaving the big cities and becoming more mainstream in the suburbs. Of course, there has been heroin drug use in suburbia before; however, now there is a marked increase.

In the 1960s, the average heroin user was a young man (average age of 16.5) living in a large urban area. Eighty percent of these men’s first experiences with an opioid was heroine. Today, the average heroin user is either a male or female in their twenties (average age of 23). Now, 75.2 percent of these users live in non-urban areas and 75 percent first experienced an opioid through prescription drugs. Almost 90 percent of first-time heroin users in the last ten years were white.

In New York City, doctors and drug counselors report a significant increase in professionals and college students with heroin addictions, while emergency rooms also report an increase in opiate overdoses. In Washington D.C., there has been a 55 percent increase in overdoses since 2010.

Why Heroin?

With all this information readily available through school systems and the internet, why is the educated, middle class turning to heroin? Factors may include increases in depression, exposure to painkillers, and acceptance. The perception of the heroin junkie has changed. A user can snort heroin (bypassing the track marks from injection) and go undetected by those around. It can be a clandestine affair–an appealing notion if the user does want to keep their drug use secret.

Anxiety disorders are the largest mental illness in the United States today, affecting more than 40 million Americans. In a country that loves to self-medicate, heroin offers a false yet accessible reprieve from anxiety and depression.

Prescription drug users also move to heroin. Prescription drugs are expensive and only legally last for the prescribed amount of time. To name a few, these gateway prescriptions drugs come in the forms of hydrocodone (Vicodin), fentanyl (Duragesic), and oxycodone (OxyContin). From 1999-2008, prescription narcotic sales increased 300 percent in the United States. Unlike these expensive prescriptions, a bag with approximately a quarter-sized amount of heroin can be sold for $10 off the streets. The transition isn’t hard to imagine, especially when the desired effects are similar.

Case Study: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Young upper-middle class adults are generally perceived as being granted every opportunity and foundation for success. Parents can afford a comfortable lifestyle and access to decent education for their children. So the question continues: why are so many from this walk of life turning to heroin? Through the funding of the Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project, the Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy conducted a report Understanding Suburban Heroin Use, to “demonstrate the nuanced nature of risk and protective factors among the heroin interviewees.” A risk factor puts a person in danger of using heroin, while a protective factor reduces the chance of use.

The overriding connection among the interviewees is the “experienced degree of detachment between parent and child and the overall lack of communication.” Contrary to common stereotypes, verbal, physical, and/or earlier drug abuse wasn’t vital in providing a pathway to heroin. A large portion of the answers, proved in these case studies, seem to be the previous emotional health of the users.

Example One

Interviewee one is a 31-year-old male who transitioned from pills to heroin. He is described as athletic, articulate, and candid. He was raised in an upper-middle class Chicago suburb. Although his family was close and intact, he experienced a sense of loneliness. His parents practiced a more hands-off approach to parenting that made him feel like an adult at an early age. His parents didn’t drink or abuse drugs during his childhood. His brother was diagnosed with ADHD, while he was not, although he experienced “restlessness.”

He was caught smoking marijuana at age 14 by his father, quit for a couple months, then resumed. His parents assumed he remained clean because he received good grades and they liked his group of friends. At age 17, he chose to work rather than attend college after graduating high school a semester early. He was earning almost as much income as his father. At 17, he tried his first opioid with a friend whose medical condition allowed easy access to OxyContin. When the prescription ran dry, they turned to heroine. He rationalized the transition thinking if he could handle OxyContin, he could handle heroin. Six months later, he was using approximately $100 worth of heroin daily and eventually moved to violent and illegal actions to sustain his supply. He admitted:

Heroin gave me something. It made me feel the best I have ever felt…Maybe I think love was missing. Like, love. I think. I that, uh, because I always felt like alone. Like even though I had good family, I always felt alone. Different.

Example Two

Interviewee two is a 27-year-old female from the western suburbs of Illinois. She is described as attractive, cheerful, and helpful. She was raised in an educated, wealthy family. She was a cheerleader in high school and earned good grades. There aren’t any psychological or substance abuse problems in her family. She felt disconnected from her siblings as they were much older and felt distant from her parents, as well. Her parents often “bickered” but never had big fights. When she confided in her mother as a child that she might be depressed, her mother seemingly brushed it off.

She started smoking pot in junior high at age 15. Although social, her group of friends was not part of the most popular crowd. This was a constant concern. She maintained a B average and continued with sports, while starting to smoke marijuana every day. An after-school job paid for this habit. When her parents found drug paraphernalia in her room, they didn’t probe the situation and just sent her to her room. Searching for a personal connection, she started dating an older boy. She connected with his parents in a way she could not with her own. During senior year, they both started using cocaine, which became a daily habit. She eventually transitioned to heroin, because as she put it in an answer to one question:

Heroin made me feel real mellow like I had not a care in the world. I had a lot of “what am I doing with my life” and physical pain that I was covering up.

After losing her job, she pawned her belongings with a variety of her parents’ things, and stole from others. She refrained from turning to prostitution, although she heard of other girls going down that road. She finally sought out help after witnessing her boyfriend get pistol-whipped and robbed during a drug exchange.

What does this tell us about heroin use?

There are similarities and differences to all of the case studies in this project. In these two examples, the users come from seemingly sturdy homes and backgrounds. The stereotypes of drug users aren’t present in these cases; however, they both felt distant from the people around them at an early age in life. They also wanted to avoid internal and external pressures. This glimpse into the lives of users offers some potential answers to the question of why relatively well educated, middleclass Americans may turn to heroin.

Fighting Back

In March 2014, the United States Department of Justice and the Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to take action against the “urgent public health crisis” of heroin and prescription opiates. Holder claimed that between 2006-2010, there was a 45 percent increase in heroin overdoses. To start, Holder pushed law enforcement agencies to carry the “overdose-reversal drug” Naloxone and urged the public to watch the educational documentary “The Opiate Effect.” Holder also outlined the DEA plan as follows:

Since 2011, DEA has opened more than 4,500 investigations related to heroin. They’re on track to open many more. And as a result of these aggressive enforcement efforts, the amount of heroin seized along America’s southwest border increased by more than 320 percent between 2008 and 2013…enforcement alone won’t solve the problem. That’s why we are enlisting a variety of partners – including doctors, educators, community leaders, and police officials – to increase our support for education, prevention, and treatment.

Conclusion

Heroin has seen a migration to the middle class. But what can we do to stop it? Many of these new users are already educated on the adverse effects of heroin and know the bottom line. A fear of health concerns isn’t enough. We need to stop it at the source, whether it is gateway prescription drugs or emotional health. Substance abuse is a disease to be cured, not the label of a criminal. The Affordable Care Act and Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act aim to expand behavioral health coverage for 62.5 million people by 2020. Every addict, regardless of demographics, should have the ability and necessary tools to recover.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Justice Department: Attorney General Holder, Calling Rise in Heroin Overdoses ‘Urgent Public Health Crisis,’ Vows Mix of Enforcement, Treatment

JAMA Psychiatry Releases: Demographics of Heroin Users Change in Past 50 Years

Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Additional

About Health: What Heroin Effects Feel Like

Anxiety and Depression Association of America: Facts & Statistics

The New York Times: The Middle Class Rediscovers Heroin

Original Network of Resources on Heroin: Heroin By Area of Origin

RT: America’s $7.6 Billion War on Afghan Drugs Fails, Opium Production Peaks

Tech Times: Study Profiles New American Heroin Addicts

Foundation For a Drug Free World: The Truth about Heroin

WTOP: Heroin Use Rises in D.C. Among Middle, Upper Class

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heroin: The New Drug of the Middle Class? appeared first on Law Street.