In 2014, nearly 20,000 people in this country died because they overdosed on a prescription opioid. Nearly 30,000 people died because they overdosed on any kind of opioid, including the illegal types like heroin. The numbers are not in yet for 2015, but everyone expects that they’ll be even worse.
Politicians are finally noticing that we’re experiencing a health disaster that’s been as deadly or deadlier than the AIDS and crack cocaine epidemics of the 1980s. The Senate Judiciary Committee is trying to work through the process of marking up and sending the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act [CARA] to the floor. They’re scheduled to have a bunch of votes today, and unfortunately the whole thing has become politicized.
As the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim and Jason Cherkis reported last week, Sen. Chuck Schumer is getting involved in a way that’s making supporters of the bill uneasy.
The root of the problem is that the lead author of the bill is vulnerable Republican incumbent Rob Portman of Ohio. While there are official denials all around, some anonymous sources on both sides of the aisle are accusing Schumer of being reluctant to give Portman a political win that he can take to the voters in November. If true, it’s the same kind of nihilism that Mitch McConnell has been pilloried for authoring in response to the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
The dispute, at least on the surface, is about funding levels in the bill. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has an amendment that would authorize $600 million on an emergency basis. The Republicans aren’t willing to spend that kind of money, so Schumer is arguing aggressively that they aren’t serious about the opioid problem.
This might be considered Basic Politics 101, except that the gambit threatens to kill the bill in its entirety. And that’s not something organizers (or even Senate Democrats working on this issue) are interested in seeing. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse was reportedly upset enough with Schumer’s posturing that he skipped a press conference with him on the funding amendment.
Senate Democrats and drug policy groups pushing for a strong response to the heroin epidemic are growing increasingly concerned that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is dangerously politicizing the issue, risking what has been steady, if slow, bipartisan progress…
…The bad news is that some of the states that are in the most desperate need of help also happen to be home to some of the Republican senators Democrats would most like to knock off in 2016. And if the Democrats pick up enough seats, Schumer is poised to become Senate majority leader…
“[M]eaningful progress on the opioid and heroin epidemic is only possible when policymakers commit to moving forward in a bipartisan fashion,” the letter [to the Senate] from the Harm Reduction Coalition reads.
“We have appreciated the bipartisan spirit of collaboration with which Senate Committees have thoughtfully approached these issues, emblematized by the strong support in the Judiciary Committee and amongst the broader community for [CARA]. Harm Reduction Coalition requests that you honor this bipartisanship as you work to advance this bill to the Senate floor,” reads the letter, which was sent this weekend to Senate leaders and provided to The Huffington Post by a Senate source.
Sen. Whitehouse seemed to get with the program later on.
Democrats want to add the money to a smaller bipartisan measure negotiated by Portman, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and others that would authorize grants for prevention and treatment programs. The bill is set for a Senate procedural vote Monday.
“There comes a time when something has taken enough American lives that you have to take it seriously,” Whitehouse said in an interview at the Capitol. “It would be unfortunate if they insisted on passing a bill that addresses this issue without being willing to put a nickel behind it. I think that’s really dishonorable and I hope they won’t do that.”
Honestly, the funding here is of secondary importance for a variety of reasons. First, the most important thing is that Congress come to a consensus that this is one of the biggest problems facing the country and authorize a response. Second, while a problem of this size certainly requires substantial resources, the money being discussed here is insignificant whether it’s appropriated or not. Third, much of the money under discussion isn’t even devoted to tackling the emergency. Research is nice, but what’s needed is tens of thousands of beds for people who are addicted to opioids and require long-term intense treatment. Other monies are devoted to law enforcement, which is also potentially useful but runs counter to overall thrust to get people to treat this as more of a public health fiasco than a criminal one.
To his credit, Schumer has been talking about the opioid epidemic for a while now. I’d hate to see him screw this up because he’s so reluctant to give people any reason to reelect vulnerable Republicans.
Let’s get Congress to agree that something must be done.
Once that’s done, the brutal facts on the ground will eventually lead even the blind to better solutions that are more sensibly targeted and more proportionate to the enormous task at hand.
Why not considering that politicizing substance abuse in this country is a nearly two hundred year old tradition. Both culturally and legally. And politicizing opioid addiction is roughly a hundred years old.
One would think we would have learned more from the failed 18th Amendment. But Americans aren’t known for being fast learners.
Yes, doctor’s are constantly prescribing alcoholism for toothaches.
So, one pathway to opioid addiction is different from that of alcoholism. Shut down this latest physician facilitated drug addiction and a new one will pop up. Once it was Valium, then it was something else, and now it’s opioids. As if no other opioid market didn’t exist before and doesn’t continue to exist alongside that managed by physicians/drug companies.
If there were no profit in peddling opioids by the black market or big biz, the markets would dry up and new addictions would plummet.
I’d discuss this with you, willingly, but you’re not showing the remotest curiosity and what you’re saying is nonsensical.
Comparing the opioid epidemic to prohibition and arguing about the market for mind-altering drugs are completely non-responsive ways of talking about this.
I do get that opioid addiction is in some way personal to you and therefore, of singular importance to you. What you seem to miss in my comments is that “fixing” small parts or aspects of the opioid epidemic doesn’t address the larger and more complex matter of substance abuse, almost all of which have devastating impacts for the users, families, and the general public. Those of us that have been around longer than you have seen one “fix” for one “really bad drug” after another only to discover later that another “really bad drug” has surfaced. Our freaking jails and prisons are stuffed with people (proportionally more POC) because crack was the problem and if not crack, there’s the hundred year old standby marijuana. And don’t get me started on meth which IMHO is the worst of all.
This is an epidemic caused primarily by doctors. The bipartisan recognition going on now is that this is a public health crisis and not a problem of irresponsible people who need to be or will benefit by being punished.
While peddling pills or heroin should be punished with harsh enough penalties to create a real cost-benefit analysis for the pushers, the overall solution is the opposite of putting more people in jail.
This isn’t about banned a substance that cannot be banned or having a war on addicts.
It has nothing to do with prohibition. And it has little to do with one drug replacing another (unless you’re talking about one opioid replacing another).
It’s a public health crisis that we now have hundreds of thousands of opioid dependent people and virtually nothing in response.
And, again, it’s not even the same as marketing a drug like alcohol because doctors don’t tell people that they should go to the pharmacy and get an alcohol prescription that may kill them inside of six months.
Maybe it would be clearer if we just called out opioids ‘heroin.’
“Have a little post-operative discomfort? Here, go get 20 bundles of heroin from the Rite-Aid and call me in a month.”
And then when we wake up 20 years later and we have hundreds of thousands of people who can’t quit and are stealing to support their habit and dying in droves, we compare this to recreational drugs or prohibition?
Better parallel is Thalidomide.
The only thing I would suggest is that the numbers are not yet on par with the mortality from AIDS, which peaked in the US at 80 thousand in 1991… that they are approaching those numbers is horrifying, especially considering the incredible number of opiate subscriptions out there.
Ugly.
In some ways, yes.
It’s prescribing things that kill people and ruin lives.
Also, as I noted, something like 2/3rds of the people who are dying never touch an illegal drug. And it’s worse than that because most of the heroin addicts got addicted to legal opioids before turning to the cheaper illegal one.
No, but they are renowned for being fast forgetters…witness the latest harebrained RatPub establishment plan to stop Trump.
Whadda buncha maroons they must think we are.
And they’re liable to be correct.
AG
I used to live near a methadone clinic and saw what sure looked to me like drug dealing among the people coming for their methadone and then hanging out on the sidewalk outside.
I mentioned this one morning to my carpool partner, with some derogatory comments about “junkies” and so on.
My carpool partner then told me that his sibling was a heroin addict and that he was in the process of adopting the sibling’s child.
So Portman and Ayotte need some cover. Bless their little hearts. (That’s Southern for: Fuck ’em.)
Vets needed cover: Ayotte and Portman respond.
Women needed cover: Ayotte and Portman respond.
Voting Rights needed cover: Ayotte and Portman respond
These and other important measures (affecting at least as many as opiod addiction) were and are being politicized for the benefit of Ayotte and Portman BY Ayotte and Portman.
Chuck is right. If you can’t walk it, don’t talk it. If this thing passes without funding, the GOfuckingP will vote it down if in the majority or filibuster it if in the minority in February. And Ayotte and Portman will be in the thick of it.
Booman writes:
Oh!!! You miss he point entirely, Booman!!!
Congress does agree that “something must be done.”
Politics must be played. The dumbshow must continue.
That is really all that Congress—including that shill for Israel and continued Middle East war Schumer…does now. It puts up a show of “disagreement” and then passes whatever bills its corporate controllers tell it to pass.
Both sides of the supposed aisle.
There is money to be made in opioids. BIG money. So what if a few tens of thousands die? $600 million is play money to Congress.
C’mon…wise up.
How many millions of people have been killed in the ongoing Middle Eastern/Blood For Oil wars?
What? They don’t count? They’re just a bunch of wogs? Yes. To the federal government that is exactly what they are. Collateral damage in the hunt for wealth.
Same same for the 30,000 opiod user dead.
Give these pigs a good shot of sodium pentathol and that’s what would come oozing out of their mouths. Bet on it.
Wise up.
AG
Maybe they could manage to pass a Sense of the Senate Resolution.
I’ve never bought into the meme “Don’t politicize {major important issue}”. Politics is our mechanism for making these sorts of major decisions. If it’s broken, it needs to be fixed, but we can’t automatically appeal to Mommy and Daddy to solve those real issues because there are no Mommies and Daddies out there, at least not ones with nothing but our best interest at heart.