It doesn’t matter what you’re watching–it’s almost impossible to get through a TV program without seeing at least a few ads for prescription drugs. But is the constant barrage of drug ads a good thing? The American Medical Association (AMA) has decided no, and is calling for a ban on direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs.

At the 2015 Interim Meeting, hundreds of AMA delegates voted for the ban. There were a few different motivations cited for why the AMA called for the ban, including the fact that the constant exposure to ads push more expensive treatments and inflate the cost of certain drugs. The U.S. is somewhat unique when it comes to allowing direct-to-consumer ads; currently Australia is the only other nation that allows the practice.

In a statement released yesterday, the AMA further explained the main motivations for its decision. AMA Board Chair-elect Patrice A. Harris, M.D., M.A stated:

Today’s vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices. Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.

[…]

Physicians strive to provide the best possible care to their patients, but increases in drug prices can impact the ability of physicians to offer their patients the best drug treatments. Patient care can be compromised and delayed when prescription drugs are unaffordable and subject to coverage limitations by the patient’s health plan. In a worst-case scenario, patients forego necessary treatments when drugs are too expensive.

This decision by the AMA is actually a departure from its traditional policies, which supported direct-to-consumer drug ads as long as they were informational and accurate. But an uptick of the ads in recent years appear to have swayed the AMA away from that acceptance. Approximately $4.5 billion was spent to direct-advertise drugs to consumers in 2014 alone, an increase of about 20 percent from 2013. As a result of these ads, many drugs are easily recognized by the general public–Viagra, Cialis, Humira, Lyrica, and Eliquis rank as the most advertised drugs of 2014. In fact, these ads have become so ubiquitous, predictable, and common that they’ve even sparked plenty of parodies: 

The fact that the AMA has removed its support for direct-to-consumer drug ads doesn’t really mean much right now, but the organization is planning on reviewing its options in the next few weeks to determine how it will go about advocating for a ban. So, we may see a whole lot less “talk to your doctor ads” in coming years–and it’s easy to imagine that will be a good thing.

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 American Medical Association Calls for Ban of Prescription Drug Ads 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.

“Cops pretend to be 11th graders, then arrest 25 students.” This is an actual headline. This is not an advertisement for 21 Jump Street. This is not a promo for a funny cop procedural, or an SNL skit. This actually happened.

In Southern California, two undercover cops have been posing as students for the entirety of this semester, trying to weed out drug dealers, pun not intended. I didn’t really know that this was a thing that happened in real life. So I did some research. And it turns out that it’s not an isolated incident. Cops all over the country are infiltrating high schools to weed out teen drug dealers.

Let’s look at the story of Deputy Donna Rogan, from Carter County, TN. At 22, she posed as a 17 year old high school student for ten months. She did her school work, attended a full course load, and made friends. The police department called her assignment “Operation Jump Street,” referencing the 1980s hit tv show and 2012 movie about cops who go undercover in a local high school to track down drug dealers. Eventually, Deputy Regan’s investigation led to the arrest of nine students and five adults. Drugs, guns, and a couple cars were eventually confiscated. The types of drugs found included marijuana and some prescription drugs.

A similar story came out of Southern California last week. Between Perris High School and Pomona Valley High School, 25 students were arrested for selling drugs by two cops posing as 17-year-olds. They found marijuana, cocaine, crack, hashish, and prescription drugs being sold around the two secondary schools.

You can find story after story after story of young undercover cops targeting teenage drug dealers. Consider Officer Alex Salinas, who pretended to be in high school for eight months last year in Central California or this unidentified officer who infiltrated a school near Tampa Bay. And, remember, these are just the operations that were successful and publicized.

It’s good that we’re cracking down on drugs in schools. Drugs are bad. Teenagers should not be doing them. But…is this really the best way to do so?

There are a lot of inherent problems with sending cops undercover to infiltrate high schools. First, does it actually work? Well, no one is really sure. A 2007 DOJ report on undercover drug stints reported that while such operations can sometimes track down drug users and low-level dealers, they usually force the real mastermind or supplier underground. The report states that stings have not conclusively resulted in success.

Then there’s the ethical side of things. Most of the kids who are busted are buying or selling relatively small amounts of the drug. In a state like California, where it’s pretty easy to get medical marijuana, the amounts being sold are relatively inconsequential. I’m not saying that their behavior is ok but I think there’s a greater ‘good’ argument to be made here. These undercover cops, who are adults my age and a bit older are going into high school to interact with 14 to18-year-olds. While 4 or so years may not seem that much, I can assure there’s a huge difference in the maturity of a 17-year-old and a 22-year-old. And so the cops go in and gain the teen’s trust then manipulate them and eventually turn around to arrest the young person with whom they’ve spent the past few months building a rapport.

In weighing the costs, is harming the trust of a kid over a little bit of weed worth it? Maybe. But there’s a lot of potential for harm. For example, an 18-year-old student named Justin in Palm Beach fell in love with a 25-year-old woman, who was posing as an undercover cop. She asked him to get her marijuana, he said he didn’t smoke, but that he would help her find some. After she asked him many times, the kid helped track down some for his new “girlfriend” and gave it to her. She arrested him.

The Snodgrass family of Temecula, CA is filing a lawsuit against an undercover cop, who they allege tricked their autistic son into buying marijuana for him. They claim that the ordeal indicated negligence, and resulted in emotional distress. The boy was befriended by an undercover deputy, which thrilled his parents because he had a hard time making friends. The deputy hounded Snodgrass to buy pot for him, and he eventually did, leading to his arrest.

Quite frankly, I think this is ridiculous. Regardless of the good short term effects in getting some drugs out of schools, I think the effect it can have on high school students is much worse. If we want our young people to be law-abiding and trustful citizens, is this really the best way to introduce them to the justice system?

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ivy Dawned via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Cops Are Pretending to be High Schoolers…Obligatory 21 Jump Street Reference? appeared first on Law Street.