Category Archives: War On Drugs

Acreage Holdings, Inc. ACRHF ACRDF ACRG ACRG will launch a social equity partnership with Kebra Smith-Bolden. Once approved by the states Social Equity Council, Acreage will support Smith-Boldens retail and cultivation operations in the Greater New Haven metropolitan area.

Smith-Bolden is the founder of CannaHealth, a medical cannabis certification provider.

Since 2017, CannaHealth has served thousands of patients across the state with a focus on providing safe and legal access to communities disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. Smith-Bolden is also a prominent industry advocate who has served in various leadership roles at Women Grow, the Connecticut Coalition to Regulate Marijuana, Connecticut NORML, the Minority Cannabis Business Association and the National Cannabis Industry Association. Smith-Bolden is currently a member of the New Haven County Juvenile Review Board and aims to create sustainable professional opportunities in the regulated cannabis space for communities of color as a social equity licensee.

In February 2022, Connecticut began accepting social equity cultivator licenses located in disproportionately impacted areas, defined as regions with a historical conviction rate for drug-related offenses greater than one-tenth or an unemployment rate greater than ten percent based on census data. The state has committed to allocating half of all adult-use business licenses to social equity applicants. Acreage plans to apply for a joint venture retail license once Connecticuts Social Equity Council opens the application process.

Kebras community-based business model seamlessly aligns with Acreages values, and we are thrilled to partner with such a prominent and successful industry advocate, stated Peter Caldini, CEO of Acreage. As Acreage expands its operations in the Northeast, our team will continue to pursue meaningful opportunities to support entrepreneurs and areas affected by cannabis prohibition.

Photo: Courtesy of Jeff W on Unsplash

Related News

Follow this link:

Acreage To Launch Social Equity Partnership In Connecticut With Kebra Smith-Bolden - Benzinga

Amid the news that the U.S. had reached 1 million deaths from COVID-19, this week saw another grim milestone. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that the U.S. recorded more than 107,000 deaths from drug overdoses last year, a record high. This is a 15 percent increase from 2020, which held the previous record of around 93,000 deaths. While there has been plenty of talk about how many COVID deaths were preventable, it's also worth considering how many overdose deaths were the result of needlessly draconian government policies.

According to The New York Times, an increasing share of the number of total overdose deaths came from users of synthetic opioids and methamphetamine. The number of deaths from synthetic opioids increased from 58,000 to 71,000; most of these involved fentanyl, which is considerably stronger than morphine or heroin, and its analogs, which are even more potent. It is often mixed with heroin or stamped into counterfeit prescription drugs. Deaths associated with meth also rose from 25,000 to 33,000.

Each increase follows a longer-term trend: A decade ago, meth-related deaths numbered fewer than 2,000, but by 2017, the number had risen to 10,000. Similarly, deaths from fentanyl numbered around 1,600 in 2011 but increased more than tenfold by 2016.

Obviously, there are a number of reasons why people may abuse drugs. But the role of drug prohibition in exacerbating the crisis cannot be overstated.

During the same years that fentanyl use increased, the prescription rates of opioids like OxyContin plummeted. This was no accident: In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions bragged about how successful the government's efforts had been at lowering the rates at which doctors prescribed opioids for pain. And yet, the overdose rate continued to climb, as both addicts and chronic pain patients alike were forced to seek out black-market alternatives.

A few years earlier, in an attempt to combat the spread of meth, Congress restricted the availability of the decongestant Sudafed, while the Drug Enforcement Administration cracked down on homegrown meth labs that used it as an ingredient. As a result, cheap, low-quality meth from Mexico with suspect ingredients filled the gap in supply.

Each case provides a perfect example of what Dr. Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, refers toas "like playing a game of 'Whack-a-Mole,'" in which the government cracks down on a drug, only for its users to seek alternatives, typically in a more dangerous form. Prescription opioids, in particular, certainly do have the potential for abuse, though not to the extent often portrayed in popular media. But for those who genuinely need pain relief and who are suddenly unable to get it, the alternatives are much worse.

See the original post here:

107,000 Overdose Deaths Are the Latest Casualties of the War on Drugs - Reason

By May 10, the Philippines almost certainly knew who its next president would be: Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the 64-year-old former senator and only son of the former dictator. As the votes were counted, Bongbong, as he is colloquially known, appeared to have won by a landslide. He will inherit the presidency from Rodrigo Duterte, the hardline populist who hasamong other well-documented abuses, like his assault on the free presslevied one of the worlds most brutal drug wars.

We are afraid for the lives of people who use drugs, their families, and already marginalized communities.

Knowing his close ties to Duterte, many harm reduction and human rights groups fear that Marcos Jr. will continue his predecessors assault on drug usersand could even make it worse.

We are afraid for the lives of people who use drugs, their families, and already marginalized communities who have been disproportionately targeted by Dutertes bloody campaign, and anyone who has been campaigning against the punitive drug laws in the country, Ajeng Larasati, the human rights lead at Harm Reduction International (HRI), told Filter.

Duterte, a former mayor of Davao City known for backing up violent rhetoric with action, wasted no time after taking office in 2016, giving law enforcement de facto approval to carry out extrajudicial killings of people suspected of using or selling drugs.If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself, he said in his inauguration speech.

In the years since, its estimated that Philippine police and vigilantes have murdered tens of thousands of people. Yet polls showed that Dutertes domestic approval ratings remained high, even as he drew international condemnation. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has launched an investigation into Dutertes violent tactics, and there will be many demands for Marcos Jr. to reverse course.

But Marcos Jr.s ascension to the presidency has, in many ways, been a journey in ignoring history: In 1986, millions of Filipinos united to protest the corruption of Marcos Sr., who had funneled billions of dollars from the treasury to his familys own bank accounts and had installed martial law for nearly half of his 20-year-plus rule. The family went into exile, but by the early 1990s, Marcos Jr. returned, immediately beginning something of a decades-long rehabilitation campaign to restore their image: He entered local politics at first, and in 2010, he became an influential senator. They have kept steady political ties with Duterte as well; Sara Duterte, Rodrigo.s daughter, ran as vice president on Marco Jr.s ticket.

International organizations and human rights activists must continue to monitor, criticize, and take action.

Human Rights Watch has already called for Marcos Jr. to improve human rights in the country. He should declare an end to the war on drugs that has resulted in the extrajudicial killing of thousands of Filipinos, and order the impartial investigation and appropriate prosecution of officials responsible for the these unlawful killings, Phil Robertson, the groups deputy director for Asia, said in a press statement.

In a 2021 report that provided a global overview of the death penalty for drug charges, HRI expressed fear that Marcos Jr. might push forward a death penalty bill for drug traffickers that Duterte had long supported, but whichhad been delayed by the legislature.

International organizations and human rights activists must continue to monitor, criticize, and take action on the past, present, and future atrocities committed by the Filipino government in the name of the drug war, Larasati said.

Photograph of Marco Jr. via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

Go here to see the original:

Marcos Jr.'s Election Gives Little Hope of End to Philippines Drug War - Filter

Grammy Award-winning rock band The War on Drugs and Canadian singer-songwriter Kathleen Edwards will headline this summers Burnaby Blues + Roots Festival, which returns Aug. 6 after a two-year break.

The Saturday showcase will also feature performances by The Soul Rebels, Ruby Waters, Balkan Shmalkan and Robert Connely Farr.

For close to two decades, the festival has offered an all-ages day of music and food on the sloped lawn at Deer Lake Park in Burnaby. Tickets for the 2022 event go on sale Friday, May 13 at 10 a.m. on burnabybluesfestival.com, or call 604-205-3000.

Other concerts announced by Live Nation Entertainment this week include Arcade Fire, to perform at Vancouvers Rogers Arena on Friday, Nov. 25, with Beck opening.

Also, Broken Social Scene will plug in at Vancouvers Commodore Ballroom in mid-September, celebrating the 20th anniversary of You Forgot It In People with a fall tour of North America and a new graphic novel.

Finger-pickin punks The Dead South are also booked to play the Commodore, on Jan. 6, 2023.

In other concert news, Metric and Dear Rouge will hit the Orpheum Theatre on Aug. 13 this summer. Wilco will also perform there, on Sept. 21.

Earlier, Squamish Constellation Festival announced headliners of July Talk (Friday), Black Pumas (Saturday) and Sarah McLachlan (Sunday) for the three-day, two-stage event, July 22-24 at Hendrickson Field in Squamish. Show details are found on CONSTELLATIONFEST.CA.

tom.zillich@surreynowleader.comLike us on Facebook Follow us on Instagram and follow Tom on Twitter

ConcertsLive music

Visit link:

Burnaby Blues + Roots Festival returns in August with The War on Drugs, Kathleen Edwards Surrey Now-Leader - Surrey Now Leader

As we consider the potential implications of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, one open question is how states will enforce the abortion bans that are expected in at least twenty-six states. History suggests that the prospective anti-abortion laws are likely to echo the War on Drugs; they will not eliminate the behavior that is outlawed, but will, through biased, targeted enforcement, disproportionately harm poor people and people of color.

That abortion bans would resemble the War on Drugs is not merely metaphorical; more than half of abortions today are carried out using a two-pill treatment that terminates pregnancies up to ten weeks. Early in the Biden Administration, regulations requiring abortion pills to be taken in a clinic or doctors office were lifted. A number of states allow the pills to be delivered by mail after a consultation with a healthcare professional, which in many cases can be done through tele-health. Abortion opponents are already moving to make the medication inaccessible in anti-abortion states.

As the decades-long War on Drugs makes obvious, law enforcement does not render drugs unavailable. Rather, the drug war made it easy for the criminal justice system to target certain communitiesparticularly the poor and people of color. And disparities in the way in which drug policies are enforced infect every stage of the systemthe decision to arrest, the decision whether to charge and which charges to bring, the trial process, and sentencing. Wealthy and white individuals rarely face serious drug chargesif any drug chargesfor the same behaviors that would be charged to a poor individual, a person of color, or someone who falls into both categories.

There is every reason to expect similar systematic bias in the enforcement of abortion bans. We know this because although rare, states have actually prosecuted women for experiencing a miscarriage or stillbirth. Those cases reveal a clear pattern of racial and class bias. One study found that 59% of defendants were women of color, and 71% could not afford a lawyer. Though some of the most egregious instances of criminalizing pregnancy have sparked national outrage, the practice is widespread and becoming more common. Prosecutions have occurred in at least 44 states; of 1,600 recorded cases, three fourths occurred in the last 15 years.

Abortion bans will almost certainly intensify prosecutions for miscarriage, with particularly negative effects for women of color, given the underlying racial disparities in maternal and infant health. Moreover, in anticipation of Roes reversal, some states have put in place criminal penalties for people who have abortions, though pro-life activists have persistently claimed that abortion bans only target doctors and others who assist people in accessing abortion. Just last week, Marjorie Dannenfelser, the President of the Susan B. Anthony List (one of Americas largest anti-abortion interest groups) stated that the woman will never be part of the punishmentwomen will not be in any way penalized. But in South Carolina, for example, a person who has an abortion faces two years in prison. Legislation is moving forward in Louisiana to classify abortions as homicide.

Given the vicious history of racial bias in the criminal justice system, it is reasonable to anticipate that prosecutions under laws such as these would also be influenced by race and class bias. Like in the War on Drugs, the smaller a persons bank account and the darker that persons skin, the more likely they will face criminal charges. And, like the long sentences assigned to drug crimes, these laws would break up families. People who have abortions are usually already mothers; fifty nine percent of abortion patients have previously had a child.

In addition to the likelihood of racist enforcement practices, abortion bans may resemble the War on Drugs in another wayby making the targeted behavior far more dangerous, but not far less common. Cannabis legalization provides an excellent parallel. When cannabis is grown in a well-regulated market, its products are tested for a variety of adulterants that ensure that the product the individual consumes is safe. That same testing does not happen in the illicit market, and the risks of contamination with a variety of products and biproducts increases. The same is true with safe injection sites. Individuals drugs are tested for adulterantsmost notably the presence of fentanyland clean needles are provided to reduce (not eliminate) health risks.

Restricting abortion does not prevent abortion from occurring. Though abortion has been increasingly restricted for decades, it remains a common practice; currently nearly one in four women in the United States will have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old. Abortion restrictions do have one big impact though; they make abortion much less safe. Most Americansall of those under about 60 years old todaywere not of childbearing age in pre-Roe America, when over 100,000 illegal abortions occurred each year. Criminalizing access to safe, early treatments like the abortion pill will drive more women to seek out risky, unsanctioned procedures later in pregnancythe kind of procedures that, before Roe, could sometimes be deadly.

With the Supreme Courts final ruling uncertain, there are many questions remaining. It is not clear, for example, whether any access to abortion will be constitutionally protected for children who have been raped, or how state abortion bans might affect in vitro fertilization, or the implications of the ruling for other decisions made on privacy grounds, such as birth control and same-sex marriage. What is clear, however, is that abortion bans are very likely to add another chapter to this countrys long record of injustice by abusing poor people and people of color under the guise of criminal justice.

Read the rest here:

The War on Abortion Drugs will be just as racist and classist - Brookings Institution

Dont let drugs take down our countryDo we have to lose the war on drugs that is bringing our country down to its knees?We all know this is true. We have to stop it one way or another, as drug and gun use is out of control.Many countries and Americans are losing respect for America because we continue to let this go on.If we love our children and our country and all that we stand for, this war has to stop and stop fast.Dont let the history books say once upon a time there was a country known as the United States of America. That this country is not around anymore, as they werent smart enough to stop the bad things that did the United States in. Dont let this happen to us.We need tough, tough laws for drug and gun use that are not legal. We need big prisons to keep these people for a long time. We need smart leaders of our country and judges that will do the job for America.It is almost time to vote and get the bad ones out of office and read up on who is running and vote for the smart, good leaders that can save our country. I hope some of our leaders read this. God bless America.Sid GordonSaratoga Springs

Government has no say in abortion issueAbortion is gift that keeps on giving. The issue defies rational conversation.My spin: Government has no place in the abortion issue. It is a matter of choice. Choosing to abort does not get you off the moral hook. You do not have to believe, but God believes in you.In Jewish mythology, in the Garden of Eden, there is a Tree of Life, or the Tree of Souls that blossoms and produces new souls, which fall into the Guf.The image and likeness to God in mankind is the ability to create life. A great responsibility blurred by societal expectations. Catholic explanations are weighted down with guilt and love of God through fear. People need to talk face to face, not with machines. Being tolerant is not easy.As for pro-choice people smashing a toy baby on St. Patricks steps in New York City, which is acting out: I have seen pro-life people use baby props to make a point. The only point both groups make is that they are ignorant and intolerant.As a child, I would dream of floating in an ocean of pillows or soft material. It is my soul in a prenatal state, not so much my mother but the Guf of souls. My ego had not evolved yet.If you are unsure God created man or man God, it is chicken or egg time for you. Youll have a hard time figuring life out.Edmond DayRotterdam

Blame criminals, bad policies, for crimeI dont know how many remember wrong-way Corrigan, but Biden is a prime example.My visual image of Biden is his back as he is walking away from a press conference after responding to maybe one question.Recently, in response to the rampant crimes and murders in our cities, Biden ranted on and on about ghost guns. Most people have never heard of them. Wrong-way Biden did not address the liberal judges and DAs releasing of criminals, often within hours of the arrest, only to have them continue their criminal activities.New York City is still reeling from that horrific subway attack. If Bidens policies are followed, the guilty will be released and guns will bear the blame.The following is a quote from Adrian Norman, Talking about crime would expose decades-old policy failures of politicians from coast to coast. So instead, they talk about guns.Dr. Arthur C. SalvatoreMalta

Country actually is better with BidenI am a proud Biden supporter, even though I never had a sign up before Anthony Wassils March 14 letter (Country was better off under Trump) inspired me to make a sign and tie it to my porch rail.I did this to prove that he is the one who doesnt know what he is talking about.Everything in his letter is the diametrical opposite of the truth.Joyce M. CockerhamSchenectady

Rules for commenting:

The Gazette will not tolerate name-calling; profanity, threats; accusations of racism, mental illness or intoxication; spreading of false or misleading information; libel or other inappropriate language in any form, and readers may not make any such comments about or directly to specific individuals.Any reader who violates these rules will be issued one warning. After that, the individual will be disqualified from commenting for an indeterminate period of time for each subsequent violation.

Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Read the original:

Letters to the Editor Sunday, May 15 The Daily Gazette - The Daily Gazette

Tribune News Service

Sameer Singh

Bathinda, May 14

Women of Chak Fateh Singhwala village at Bhucho in Bathinda district have been sitting on a dharna over drug menace near the village bus stand for the past over two weeks. Women have accused the police and administration of inaction.

They along with a village-committee constituted to counter drug menace recently caught 11 peddlers and handed them over to the police.

However, protesting women rue the unabated supply of drugs, mostly heroin, in the village. Notably, it is the village of MLA Master Jagsir Singh.

Sukhjit Kaur, a resident, said: Half of village teenagers had fallen prey to drugs. Baljit Kaur, another resident, said: Drugs are being sold and bought openly. After we started this agitation, the peddlers have started issuing threats, warning us of dire consequences. What are the police doing to stop them?

Deputy Commissioner Showkat Ahmad Parray said: We are devising a strategy to catch the big fish involved in drug trade. Bhucho Mandi MLA Jagsir Singh said: There is no drug menace in our village. Some people want to tarnish image of my village.

#drug menace

View original post here:

Alleging police inaction, women wage war on drug menace at Bathinda village - The Tribune India

The following article contains discussions of addiction. Information can be found on the National Institute of Drug Abuse website. Click here for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration national helpline.

Our conceptions of addiction, particularly substance addiction, have changed over time. Science has brought us new perspectives on addiction, but not ones that seem to paint the entire picture.

It is an enigma; at its base, we can think of addiction as really well-learned behavior. After all, given just a few uses of a particularly addictive substance, that is already enough to get you hooked.

But, I wanted to discuss what is happening in our brains as we learn these behaviors, how perspectives have changed and are currently changing, and to grapple with the question: should we consider addiction a disease?

The first thing to recognize about addiction, as far as anatomy, is that the neurotransmitter dopamine takes the forefront. Dopamine is the habit-building neurotransmitter. It is released when we do something our brain will want to repeat in the future.

The dopaminergic system is an umbrella term used to describe specific pathways, behaviors and interactions of dopamine. One part of the dopaminergic system, called the nucleus, accumbens is particularly important because it is associated with the anticipation of a large reward and related to strong feelings of happiness.

But, when activation of the forebrain dopaminergic system exceeds a certain point, people (or animals) are sensitized to the conditions (the drug) that elicit those habits (using the drug).

At the same time, overaction of these systems downregulates the dopamine receptors themselves (so that less is released), and this has the effect of leaving the person less interested in other activities and less able to experience pleasure from the things they used to enjoy.

When these systems are routinely abused, the brain forgets how to regulate dopamine in the absence of the drug, causing compulsive use and influencing people to make inappropriate decisions when looking for their drug.

Medicalization, a term I learned in SOC 001, is when something starts being perceived as medical or biological when it previously had not been.

This is what happened to addiction: a long time ago, heavy addiction was perceived as a result of moral weakness (lighter cases of addiction were mostly ignored).

Beginning early in the 19th century, however, we began to conceptualize addiction as a disease. In 1956, the American Medical Association (AMA) labeled alcoholism as an illness, and in 1987, the AMA and others termed addiction a disease.

In many ways, this can be viewed as a good thing. This new label of disease would begin affecting legislation and criminality in regard to addiction.

During much of U.S. history, but most notably between the 1960s and 1990s during Nixons War on Drugs, politicians began further criminalizing drug use.

This new outlook particularly harmed communities of color because of law enforcements focus on urban areas and lower income communities.

However, efforts like the War on Drugs were still effective in convincing people that drug use and addiction is a crime.

Thankfully, in the meantime, scientists continued studying the mechanisms of addiction and psychologists speculated the reasons behind why people begin addictive behavior.

As information accrued, it became clear that the development of an addiction is not something that can be controlled because the processes are automatic. It even became clear that people cant fully control their environment, and therefore cant ensure they wont live somewhere that encourages drug use.

This information has helped move addiction from a legal sphere to a medical one, but the question still remains if not a crime, and because of its relation to biology, is addiction a disease?

On the one hand, having a disease might make people feel more willing to seek medical treatment and remove much of the crushing personal responsibility many addicts experience.

On the other hand, addiction is not a virus. It is not bacteria and it is a result of our brains working exactly how they are supposed to. But, if addiction represents the brain working properly, why are we calling it a disease?

Whether one has an addiction to hard work or meth, it will function similarly in the brain. If we choose to medicalize only the kind of addictions that can lead to death, then we are letting social ideals influence how we engage with biology, and that is arguably not a good idea for the natural sciences.

Regardless, there comes a point in everyones life when they are taught about addiction, and whether we medicalize it or not has profound implications on how its understood. Its important to recognize our responsibility to teach these kinds of phenomena in a socially productive way.

Originally posted here:

Gray Matters: Addiction as a disease - The Brown and White

LABOUR has erupted into a public civil war over drugs policy.

The fall-out within the party spilled out into the public sphere after private Whatsapp messages between top members of Keir Starmers frontbench were leaked to the media.

The i reported on the messages exchanged between Labour shadow ministers furious at Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, for announcing the formation of the new group to consider the decriminalisation of cannabis in Britain.

Shadow justice secretary Steve Reed, shadow trade secretaryGareth Thomas, and shadow health secretary Wes Streeting attacked Khan for the move, with Reed describing it as an open goal for the Tories.

READ MORE:Labour branded 'shameful' for attack on drug policy amid deaths crisis

Thomas said Khans comments were going down like a bucket of cold sick while Streeting suggested the mayor was impacting Labours chances of winning the next General Election.

The Labour Party issued an official statement saying it does not support changing the law on drugs, adding: Drugs policy is not devolved to mayors and under Labour would continue to be set by national Government.

The UK party and shadow ministers were then attacked by Labour MSP Monica Lennon (below) for their position on drugs.

Writing on Twitter, Lennon said of the shadow ministers attack on Khan: The war on drugs has failed spectacularly. @Keir_Starmer and his team are failing to understand this.

Unless our laws, policies and budgets are rooted in public health and smart justice, more people will die, more communities will suffer and more public pounds will be wasted.

She further shared a post from the Labour Campaign for Drug Policy Reform, which is led by Withington MP Jeff Smith, calling Khans announcement a welcomed and important development.

Labour is caught between wanting to appear tough on drugs and drug-related crime at a UK level, but also advocating forchange to fight the drugs deaths crisis in Scotland.

In Scotland, the Lord Advocate announced in late 2021 that anyone found to be in possession of class A drugs could be issued a warning instead of facing instant prosecution. At the time, Scottish Labour drugs policy spokesperson Claire Baker welcomed the decision saying she hoped it would lead to more drug users getting the support they need.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has previously said that government must look at every option to fight the drugs crisis in Scotland, and called for policy to learn from what works.

A spokesperson for Khan told The National: "The illegal drugs trade causes huge damage to our society and we need to do more to tackle this epidemic and further the debate around our drugs laws."

They said the commission, led byCharlie Falconer QC, would advise on how best to "reduce the huge damage" done by drugs by learning from others' approaches.

Starmer has previously said he does not support changing the law or decriminalisation, but said he does back schemes where cannabis possession, youre not arrested, youre not prosecuted for it.

Labour was slated by former MSP Neil Findlay ahead of the council elections after it ran Facebook ads attacking the LibDems for wanting to soften drugs laws.

Scottish Labour has been asked to make its official position clear.

Here is the original post:

Labour civil war erupts over Sadiq Khan and drugs policy - The National

Since the U.S. drug war was declared in 1971, various drugs have been identified as public enemy number onefrom crack cocaine, in the 1980s, to prescription opioids in the early 2000s. Today, the primary villain is fentanyl, a synthetic opioid about 50 times more potent than heroin. In 2021, more than 71,000 people in the U.S. died after overdoses involving synthetic opioidsmostly fentanyl, according to provisional data released by the National Center for Health Statistics on May 11.

Such a deadly drug necessitates a firm public health response, and fortunately, decades of evidence have shown there are tools that can avert overdoses, including the medication naloxone (sold under the brand name Narcan). However, fear of fentanyl and a desire to look proactive are driving many state lawmakers to take approaches which, in the past, have caused more harm than goodnamely, punitive policies which lock up drug dealers and users alike for lengthy periods of time, and contribute to mass incarceration. Evidence abounds that such policies are ineffective: for instance, one 2018 analysis from Pew found harsher penalties for drug possession did not reduce use or overdoses, and a 2014 National Research Council report found that increases in successfully prosecuted drug crimes did not clearly drive down drug use, and had a disparate impact on Black and Hispanic communities.

As opioid and especially fentanyl-related deaths have risen, some states have implemented harm-reduction policies like expanding access to drugs that treat opioid use disorder, or legalizing fentanyl test strips and in some cases making them available for free, to make it easier for drug users to figure out before its too late whether their drugs are adulterated with fentanyl. But at the same time, a number of states have passed, or are currently considering, new legislation to ramp up penalties for drug crimes, many of which explicitly refer to fentanyl. Mississippi, for instance, recently passed a law that, as of July 1, adds additional penalties for giving someone fentanyl that results in death. Kentucky recently passed a law increasing mandatory prison time for those found guilty of bringing fentanyl into the state with the intent to sell or distribute. This March, Wisconsin enacted a law making manufacturing, distributing, or delivering any amount of fentanyl a felony.

Colorado is a particularly useful case study. In 2020, 1,477 Coloradans died from drug overdoses, up 38% from the year before, an increase the Colorado Health Institute largely attributes to fentanyl. In response, on May 11, the state legislature passed the Fentanyl Accountability and Prevention Act, which would expand access to drugs that help treat opioid use disorder and allocate funds for education about fentanyl. However, the proposed law would also make possessing more than a gram of any drug a felony if it contains any amount of fentanyl, which advocates say could make the overdose crisis worse by driving users into hiding or locking them in prison.

Like crack cocaine before itwhich was falsely blamed for making users more violentthe focus on fentanyl is threaded with fear-mongering and misinformation. In April, Colorado Public Radio asked Governor Jared Polis if he thought making possession of fentanyl a felony in the state would have similarly disastrous results as the War on Drugs started by President Richard Nixon in the 1970s had on the U.S.. You have to think of fentanyl more as a poison than a drug, Polis responded, comparing it to anthrax. Indeed, local news across states has been flooded with similar misinformation about fentanyl, including stories about first responders who claimed theyd suffered a fentanyl overdose through skin contact with patients who had been usingalthough experts say that overdosing in such a way is nearly impossible.

Such narratives enable politicians to paint fentanyland those who traffic in itas particularly nefarious. But really, its a public health crisisnot a crisis of criminality. What we need is to ramp up the things that we know prevent people from dying of overdoses, and not continue to focus on the enforcement side, where we have very little evidence that that improves public health outcomes, says Robin Pollini, an associate professor of public health at West Virginia University.

One of advocates greatest fears about the legislation is that it will expand the imprisonment of drug users, and contribute to the socioeconomic instability that often fuels addiction and abuse in the first place. Colorados bill would only apply to those knowingly carrying more than one gram of any substance containing the drug, which presupposes that carrying this amount means the person is a dealer. I would say the goal of this bill, if implemented properly, is not to put drug users in jail. The goal of this bill is to put drug dealers in jail, says Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser.

However, experts say that there are many reasons why someone might carry more than a single gram for personal use. For one, the amount of fentanyl in street drugs can vary greatly, which means that users are unlikely to actually know how much theyre carrying. Additionally, compared to other opioids, fentanyl provides a shorter but more powerful high, which means someone on it is likely using multiple times a day to avoid an agonizing withdrawal. That means theyre probably buying as much as they can whenever they canespecially if they have limited access to transportation or live in a rural area.

Colorados attempt to separate the users from the dealers is based on a false distinction, says Dr. Sarah Axelrath, who treats Denver patients with substance use disorder. Most of the drug dealers she encounters are users themselves, and are engaging in subsistence level drug distribution: trading drugs to sustain their addiction, and to meet basic needs. In such communities, a drug dealer is less likely to be a shadowy stranger than a trusted friendand the person who is buying one day may be selling the next. Thats why about 225 drug users who use services at the Harm Reduction Action Center in Denver have signed Do Not Prosecute forms, created by the activist group Urban Survivors Union, which are meant to make a plea to law enforcement that, in the event of an overdose, they not go after the person who provided the drugs. The point they want to make to legislators, says Center director Lisa Raville, is that when police arrest drug dealers, theyre not getting the popularly envisioned large drug seller or cartel. Its family and loved ones, who both buy and sell at low levels.

Experts fear that laws like that under consideration in Colorado will backfire, exacerbating the opioid epidemic. For one thing, a person who is convicted of a felony and given a prison sentence for possession of opioids is likely to become destabilized and lose their support system, making it even harder to overcome substance use disorder. There is unintended and collateral damage that happens from being incarcerated, says Dr. Joshua Barocas, an infectious disease doctor and associate professor at University of Colorado School of Medicine. That includes increased instability in housing, food, and job access, all of which could lead an opioid user to relapse.

More immediately, criminalizing fentanyl could deter people from saving lives. When someone overdoses on opioids, their best hope for survival is to get a shot of naloxone. But if the only person around to administer the treatment (or to call for help) is also either an opioid user or seller (or both), they might waste precious minutes wavering over the decision whether or not to call for help, out of concern of arrest. In general, these kinds of laws drive drug use further underground, says Robin Pollini, an associate professor of public health at West Virginia University. The higher the penalties on drug use, or the higher level of policing around drug use, the less likely people are to present in public for services they need.

Then theres the possibility that cracking down on fentanyl could lead to the emergence of even deadlier drugs. One of the reasons fentanyl became so dominant is that its easier for drug dealers to move through a punitive system compared to other opioidsit can be made from common ingredients, instead of grown in an opium plant, and its more compact, making it easier to transport and hide. Already, drug producers are developing new and more dangerous chemical analogs of fentanyl that drug tests cant detect.

Among Colorado health care providers who work with drug users, and have known many people who have died of overdoses, theres a sense that the proposed bill is a wasted opportunity to invest the states resources in tools that are actually proven to stop overdoses. The evidence is just so clear that criminalization and felonization and incarceration will not do anything to decrease rates of substance use disorder or even recreational drug use, and it certainly wont decrease rates of overdose deaths, says Axelrath. But we have things that work. And so it is frustrating to watch our resources be funneled into interventions that we know from 50 years of both research and practice arent effective.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

More here:

Fear of Fentanyl Behind Laws That Could Lead to Overdoses - TIME