from youarewithinthenorms.com

NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L. CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, BELINDA BROWN-PARKER, IN THE SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., INC.T. SPIRIT OF REV. IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT BS., MS, MBA. HARVEY JENKINS MD, PH.D., IN THE SPIRIT OF C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., EVELYN J. CLEMENT, WALTER F. WRENN III., MD., JULIE KILLINGSWORTH, RENEE BLARE, RPH, DR. TERENCE SASAKI, MD LESLY POMPY MD., CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, MD., NANCY SEEFELDT, WILLIE GUINYARD BS., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., NEIL ARNAND, MD., RICHARD KAUL, MD., IN THE SPIRIT OF LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA,AISHA GARDNER, ADRIENNE EDMUNDSON, ESTER HYATT PH.D., WALTER L. SMITH BS., IN THE SPIRIT OF BRAHM FISHER ESQ., MICHELE ALEXANDER MD., CUDJOE WILDING BS, MARTIN NJOKU, BS., RPH., IN THE SPIRIT OF DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISORS

RANNAZZISI

HERO

TARGETING PAIN CARE PHYSICIANS, PHARMACISTS, NURSE PRACTITIONERS, DENTISTS AND PATIENTS WITH INTRACTABLE DISEASES OF PAIN

from the The West Virginia Record:

“What if Big Pharma is not to blame for the opioid crisis? What if it wasn’t the big bad drug companies that created and exacerbated the problem, but the politicians and government officials pretending to be the good guys?

During his tenure as ODC director, Rannazzisi habitually refused to respond to inquiries from drug companies about suspiciously large orders…Rannazzisi is now trying to blame the opioid crisis on the very companies he refused to provide guidance to, and whose alleged negligence he tacitly encouraged by continually increasing quotas. He’s also earning big bucks consulting with plaintiffs lawyers suing those same companies.

Though shirking his own responsibility for exacerbating the crisis and benefitting from his collaboration with attorneys seeking to profit from the ongoing litigation, Rannazzisi is being cast by the mainstream media as a heroic whistleblower and crusader for justice.”

Guys like Joe Rannazzisi, who, as director of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration’s Office of Diversion Control from 2005 to 2015, was in charge of regulating opioids and continually increased opioid quotas for pharmaceutical companies.

A SYSTEM RUN A-MUCK

This, while absolving themselves of the acquiesces of administrative corruption within Agencies of the United States Government’s counternarcotics effort in Afghanistan from 2002-2017, in which,

“…Afghanistan produced 90 percent of the world’s illicit opium; it is the country’s largest export and a mainstay of the rural economy. The corruption associated with opium’s illegal trade permeates many levels of the Afghan government...”

Most-importantly, the US-backed government then legalized poppy cultivation and within a year, heroin production returned to pre-Taliban levels.

Afghanistan became the world’s largest producer, supplying 1,000 metric tons of pure heroin each year for two decades – double the global demand.

Meanwhile, April, 29 2014, Mr. Rannazzisi in his Testimony highlighted;

“..the alarming increase in heroin users and overdose deaths linked to the non-medical use of prescription opioids.” 

Mr. Rannazzisi, outlined the contributing factors such as; “..over-prescribing, easy access to prescription drugs, and the cheaper cost and increased availability of heroin…the low street cost of heroin, expanded Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations Cartels.” 

LIBBY REPORT AND DEA’s LEGALIZE ROBBERY:

“…The DEA’s aggressive investigative procedures poison the doctor-patient relationship from both sides. and Law Enforcement Personnel issued in 2004 appeared to be consistent with these principles, so we were surprised when they were withdrawn.

…the Interim Policy Statement, “Dispensing of Con- trolled Substances for the Treatment of Pain,” which was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2004, emphasizes enforcement, and seems likely to have a chilling effect on physicians engaged in the legitimate practice of medicine…

…As Attorneys General have worked to remove barriers to quality care for citizens of our states at the end of life, we have learned that adequate pain management is often difficult to obtain because many physicians fear investiga- tions and enforcement actions if they prescribe adequate levels of opioids or have many patients with prescriptions for pain medications.” 136

DEA, “A SYSTEM RUN A MUCK“

A SYSTEM RUN A MUCK: This Explosive Video “DEA Collusion,” document analyzes the claims presented in the provided excerpts, which allege that the narrative surrounding the opioid epidemic is deliberately misleading.

MSNBC Reporter Ali Velshi, argues that the focus on prescription opioids and doctors is a false narrative driven by Big Pharma’s greed, power, and control, facilitated by complicit media and government agencies like the DEA.

The Video supports the claims that the majority of opioid overdose deaths are attributable to illicit fentanyl and heroin, not legal prescriptions, and that the government is intentionally targeting doctors to benefit Big Pharma’s expansion through entities like minute clinics.

“One part of U.S. policy corrupted Afghan officials while other parts tried to investigate and root out corruption. Given the interest that defined the mission, concerns about corruption did not trump those of covert action.”(pg.43) 

VILLAIN

WHILE IN BED WITH THE AFGHAN DRUG WAR LORDS

The provided text explores the complexities of the opioid crisis, focusing on the DEA’s evolving role and controversial tactics in regulating prescription painkillers and role in Afghanistan’s opium production, complicity with warlords and a contradictory approach to domestic and international drug policy.

“…While opium production has brought significant economic benefits, its impact on the political economy of Afghanistan has been deeply corrosive. Corruption associated with the opium economy undermines state legitimacy and public institutions, particularly in the security and justice sectors. It affects the police, judicial system, parliament, and other state institutions, at national, provincial, and district levels…” 24, pg.5

Some sources, the 2005 Cato Institute Libby Report criticized the DEA for overreaching its authority by interfering in medical practice and contributing to the under-treatment of pain. While Special Inspector General For Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) 2018 conducted by John Sopko, pointed out;

However, while appearing g on CBS 60 minutes, October 17, 2017, Ex-DEA agent Joe Rannazzisi with Bill Whitaker highlighted the agency’s efforts to combat illegal diversion amid rising addiction and overdose rates.

A key aspect of the Rannazzisi’s interviewed involves allegations that the drug industry through medical providers (physicians, pharmacist, dentists, nurse practitioners) including distributors and manufacturers, significantly fueled the crisis through negligence and lobbying efforts. These combined actions weakened regulatory oversight, as detailed in a “60 Minutes”/Washington Post investigation featuring former DEA Deputy Administrator Joe Rannazzisi.

However, blindly forgotten by CBS 60 minutes and Washington Post are the findings from John F. Sopko, the Special Inspector Generals Report on Afghanistan Reconstruction(SIGAR);

…This low level of cultivation was an anomaly, however, and policymakers knew the drug trade could pose serious challenges to the reconstruction effort…” pg. ix Executive Summary

“…When the United States and its coalition partners intervened in Afghanistan in 2001, poppy cultivation was at an historic low due to a successful, short- lived Taliban ban on cultivation. Afghanistan had just 7,606 hectares of opium poppy cultivation in 2001, or approximately 1/43rd of the estimated 328,000 hectares in 2017.1 

SIGAR REPORT “…Within the reconstruction effort as a whole, the focus on counternarcotics was also reduced after 2012. In practice, U.S. efforts consisted primarily of supporting specialized counterdrug units and scaled-back eradication initiatives…

…USAID shifted away from requiring specific counternarcotics indicators in alternative development programs and paid little attention to drug-related impacts. Some U.S.-supported demand-reduction and addiction treatment programs continued, but were increasingly centered on Kabul…”

PRESENTED ON APRIL 29, 2014

TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI
OFFICE OF DIVERSION CONTROL, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
BEFORE THE ENERGY AND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 29, 2014

Subject:

Examining the Growing Problems of Prescription Drug and Heroin Abuse

Key Themes and Important Ideas/Facts:

This testimony from Deputy Assistant Administrator Joseph T. Rannazzisi D.E.A., Office of Diversion Control addresses the escalating crisis of prescription opioid misuse and abuse and its significant connection to the increasing trafficking and use of heroin in the United States.

The DEA emphasizes that this is not simply two separate drug problems but rather a cycle of addiction driven by the availability and cost of both prescription opioids and heroin.

This testimony from DEA addresses the escalating crisis of prescription opioid misuse and its connection to the rise in heroin trafficking and use in the United States. It highlights the alarming increase in heroin users and overdose deaths linked to the non-medical use of prescription opioids. 

The DEA outlines contributing factors such as over-prescribing, easy access to prescription drugs, and the cheaper cost and increased availability of heroin. Furthermore, the testimony details the DEA’s multi-faceted approach to combat this epidemic, including education initiatives, prescription drug monitoring programs, medication disposal efforts, and targeted law enforcement actions against diversion schemes. 

The DEA emphasizes that addressing addiction requires a comprehensive strategy involving education, treatment, and enforcement to reduce both prescription drug abuse and heroin use.

THE TRUTH UNDER SIEGE

Truth Under Siege: The Deadly Intersection of Political Persecution and AI Ethics in Medicine

A CHRONOLOGY OF COUNTERNARCOTICS OVER THE AFGHAN RECONSTRUCTION EFFORT: “… USFOR-A estimates that 20 percent of the total revenue from the domestic narcotics trade ends up in Taliban hands due to profits from direct ownership, fees for transportation and protection, licensing fees to drug traffickers,
and taxation harvest.352 Bunch also noted that “this is the first time we have persistently used our airpower in this interdiction role.”353

While this is true, specialized counterdrug units previously pursued similar strategies via ground- based raids.354  The only aspect of direct counternarcotics assistance that persisted in this
era was the enhanced interdiction effort, largely due to the increased military presence in the south. However, with the 2014 transition and growing insecurity restricting the movement of law enforcement staff, some of these investments also began to dwindle.

By 2015, with only 33 staff in Kabul and none in the provinces, DEA found it increasingly difficult to mount interdiction operations and mentor staff. Seizures of opium fell to their lowest levels since 2008.341 By 2016, opium poppy cultivation was once again over 200,000 hectares.342 Counternarcotics had come full circle: it was rarely mentioned in policy circles either in Afghanistan or in Western capitals. Pg 55

Sigar Report Tactical Successes, Strategic Failures: ” Interdiction and counter drug law enforcement programs conducted in Afghanistan were marked by a number of tactical successes, but the programs were unable to achieve that same level of success at the strategic or national level. 56 Put simply, interdiction efforts failed to fundamentally alter the Afghan drug trade or reduce drug-related threats to Afghan stability in a meaningful way. pg. 56

From 2008 through March 20, 2018, over 3,520 interdiction operations resulted in the seizure of 463,342 kilograms of opium.

However, the sum of these seizures accounts for about 5 percent of the opium produced in Afghanistan in 2017 alone.464 Given the scale of the drug trade, pervasive insecurity, and fledgling Afghan police and judicial systems, it is fair to question whether counternarcotics law enforcement programs could have achieved a strategic impact…

However, there were a number of factors within the counterdrug law enforcement and interdiction line of effort that contributed to the effort’s shortcomings. A close examination of these shortcomings, as well as the small- scale successes that were achieved, yields important lessons from the drug interdiction initiatives within the reconstruction effort to date. 

The amount of opium seized from 2008 to 2018 accounts for about 5 percent of the opium produced in Afghanistan in 2017 alone.  One reason for the failings of counterdrug law enforcement initiatives was lack of coordination and agreed-upon objectives among both Afghan and coalition entities.465

These problems were compounded by the misalignment of strategic objectives, program implementation, and assessments of those programs. One example was the failure to connect the strategic focus on cutting drug revenue to the insurgency with assessments that tracked progress toward this goal.

By at least 2007, U.S. strategy called for interdiction “with a particular emphasis
on integrating drug interdiction into the counterinsurgency mission.”466

Despite this focus, however, relatively few Taliban-linked traffickers were successfully convicted or otherwise removed from the drug trade. Additionally, it was not until the lab bombing campaign that began in 2017 that interdiction efforts were characterized and measured in terms of revenue denied to the insurgency.467

Though this reporting has been plagued by methodological problems and inaccuracies, it does represent an attempt to clearly measure drug interdiction success by its contribution to larger objectives. :

Understanding the Opioid Crisis: A Comprehensive Review

AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

…DEA’s reduced ability to conduct operations outside Kabul, due in part to the smaller U.S. military footprint and corruption concerns, illustrated the new reality on the ground.  International interest and investment in the counternarcotics effort also waned after 2012. The Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework included only a minor counternarcotics commitment and listed no counternarcotics-specific indicators…”  COUNTERNARCOTICS  JUNE 2018 | xi  Tactical Successes, Strategic Failures 

A NEGLECTED ISSUE: 2013–2016 “…As with other sectors of the reconstruction effort, the drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan caused uncertainty as to what counternarcotics efforts would be possible in the post-2014 environment…

…In fact, the 2013 U.S. Civilian-Military Strategic Framework for Afghanistan included only a passing reference to counternarcotics, with no mention of the eradication or interdiction pillars. 327

…Additionally, many counternarcotics institutions were retasked and directed toward COIN or CT, including TF-333, which became an effective crisis response unit under the General Command of Police Special Units and used for CT operations.328

…The Air Interdiction Unit, which had become the Special Mission Wing, shared the same fate and was absorbed by Afghan Special Forces.329 Although the Special Mission Wing remained a dual counternarcotics and CT force in name, in practice, the majority of its operations supported CT.330 Additionally, the Afghan Threat Finance Cell, which had operated in Afghanistan since late 2008, was shut down in 2014. 331 

By 2013, USAID’s decision to no longer include counternarcotics indicators
in its alternative development programs resulted in a shift away from interventions specifically targeting poppy reduction. In the absence of these requirements, many USAID contractors shifted their focus to strengthening the licit economy and ignored opium poppy cultivation altogether, even when conducting programs in areas where opium poppy was concentrated.

As of 2013, it appeared that USAID’s only program that directly targeted poppy cultivation was the Kandahar Food Zone (KFZ).332

…..All four of the fully developed Regional Agricultural Development Programs (RADP), totaling approximately $228 million through 2017, largely ignored opium poppy cultivation, including few mentions of poppy in the contracts signed with implementing partners, no risk- mitigation plans, and little distinction between areas with or without significant poppy production.333…. 

….the lack of engagement by other Western donors was notable during this time. The UK ambassador to Afghanistan from 2012 to 2015 saw no advantage in discussing counternarcotics given its trajectory and continued the trend away from significant programming.334

…By 2013, the UK had all but abandoned its involvement in eradication planning and counternarcotics policy, limiting its investments to a small number of law enforcement and rule of law efforts through the UK National Crime Agency.335

…the UK- and Denmark-funded Comprehensive Agricultural Rural Development Facility program hardly mentioned poppy cultivation in the design of its second phase in 2015, despite the return of poppy cultivation in a number of its target districts. 336 Wider donor engagement on counternarcotics was also nominal. Institutions like the World Bank, an active participant in the policy discussions on alternative…” 

Quiz: Short Answer Questions

1. According to the “Opioid regulator Joe Rannazzisi, hero or villain?” article, what actions did Joe Rannazzisi take as director of the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control that are now being criticized?
2. Based on the “Pain, the Law, and the DEA” source, what is the central argument regarding the DEA’s role in regulating medical practice, particularly concerning pain management?
3. According to “The Opioid Crisis: A Multifaceted Geopolitical Analysis,” what are some of the international factors that have contributed to the opioid crisis in the United States?
4. In the context of the opioid crisis, what is meant by the “scapegoating of medical professionals,” as discussed in the provided sources?
5. According to the sources, what role did the U.S. allegedly play in the opium trade in Afghanistan, and how does this relate to the domestic opioid crisis?
6. Based on the “60 Minutes/Washington Post” investigation, what actions by drug distributors are alleged to have worsened the opioid crisis?
7. According to the “60 Minutes” report, what piece of legislation weakened the DEA’s ability to control the flow of narcotics, and what were the concerns raised about it?
8. According to “The DEA’s War on Prescription Painkillers,” what are some of the negative consequences of the DEA’s aggressive enforcement tactics on pain patients and physicians?
9. Based on the testimony of Joseph T. Rannazzisi in 2014, what did the DEA believe was driving the increase in heroin use in the United States?
10. According to the sources, what are some examples of alleged overreach or flawed practices by the DEA in its enforcement efforts related to prescription opioids?

Click on here for video (takes a few seconds to load) to see the Daily Remedy Podcast by Jay Joshi, M.D., with guest star L. Joseph Parker, M.D. discussing Dr. Sasaki as the perfect example of DEA/DOJ exploiting & prosecuting doctors for doing the right thing.

Quiz Answer Key

1. As director, Joe Rannazzisi continually increased opioid quotas for pharmaceutical companies and habitually refused to respond to inquiries from drug companies about suspiciously large orders. He is now criticized for shirking his own responsibility and for profiting from consulting with plaintiffs suing the same companies.
2. The central argument is that the DEA operates outside the rule of law by creating its own medical standards and improperly interpreting regulations, leading to unwarranted investigations and accusations against healthcare professionals without proper medical expertise or congressional authorization.
3. International factors include the production and trade of fentanyl precursors from countries like China and India, as well as the alleged involvement of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan in opium production, which supplied the global heroin market.
4. Scapegoating of medical professionals refers to the accusation that the government and DEA have wrongly targeted doctors prescribing opioids for legitimate pain management as the primary drivers of the opioid crisis, diverting attention from other contributing factors.
5. The Sigar Report suggest the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan was deeply involved in the opium trade since the Soviet occupation, with the U.S. allegedly funding and arming warlords involved in drug trafficking, thus contradicting its domestic anti-drug policies.
6. Drug distributors are alleged to have knowingly shipped excessive amounts of opioid pills to problematic pharmacies and doctors’ offices, ignoring legal requirements to report suspicious orders, driven by profit motives.
7. The legislation, often referred to as the “Marino bill,” aimed to change how the DEA could freeze suspicious shipments, and concerns were raised that it would strip the DEA of its most potent tool and make it nearly impossible to hold distributors accountable.
8. Negative consequences include the undertreatment of chronic pain due to physicians’ fear of prosecution, damage to the doctor-patient relationship, and the misclassification of pain patients as addicts.
9. The DEA believed the increase in heroin use was driven by several factors, including an increase in the misuse and abuse of prescription opioids, the lower street cost and increased purity of heroin, and expanded involvement of Mexican drug trafficking organizations.
10. Examples include the reliance on subjective “red flags” without investigating the legitimacy of medical need, flawed data analysis in attributing opioid-related deaths, administrative hearings lacking due process, and attempts to dictate medical practice despite lacking legal authority.

Essay Format Questions

1. Analyze the arguments presented in the provided sources regarding the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) role in the opioid crisis. Consider perspectives that portray the DEA as both a necessary regulator and an overreaching agency.
2. Discuss the international dimensions of the opioid crisis as highlighted in the sources. How have factors such as global drug production, international trade, and U.S. foreign policy allegedly contributed to the problem within the United States?
3. Evaluate the claim that the focus on prosecuting medical professionals for opioid prescribing is a form of “scapegoating.” What evidence and arguments are presented in the sources to support or refute this perspective?
4. Critically examine the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and lobbying efforts on the regulatory landscape surrounding opioids, as suggested by the “60 Minutes/Washington Post” investigation and other sources. What are the alleged consequences of this influence?
5. Based on the various perspectives presented, what are some potential solutions or shifts in approach that could more effectively address the multifaceted opioid crisis in the United States?

Glossary of Key Terms

Revolving Door: The movement of individuals between positions in government (e.g., regulatory agencies like the DEA) and the industries they regulate (e.g., pharmaceutical companies), raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and undue influence.

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA): The U.S. federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice responsible for combating drug trafficking and distribution within the United States.

Opioid Crisis: A widespread public health crisis in the United States characterized by a significant increase in opioid misuse, addiction, and overdose deaths, involving both prescription and illicit opioids.

Diversion Control: Efforts by regulatory bodies like the DEA to prevent the illegal channeling of legally manufactured controlled substances into illicit markets.

Suspicious Orders: Orders for controlled substances from pharmacies or practitioners that appear unusual in size, frequency, or pattern, potentially indicating diversion. Distributors are legally required to report and halt such orders.

Pill Mill: Informal term for a healthcare practice, often a pain clinic, that indiscriminately prescribes opioid medications without proper medical evaluation or legitimate medical purpose.

Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME): A standardized unit used to compare the potency of different opioid medications relative to morphine. It is sometimes used in guidelines and monitoring efforts but is criticized for oversimplification.

“Red Flags”: Subjective indicators or patterns identified by law enforcement or regulatory agencies that may suggest potential drug diversion or illegal prescribing practices.

Legitimate Medical Purpose: The standard under the Controlled Substances Act requiring that controlled substances are prescribed and dispensed for a genuine medical need by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice.

“War on Drugs”: A comprehensive U.S. government initiative launched in the 1970s aimed at combating illegal drug use and trafficking through law enforcement, military aid, and public education.

Asset Forfeiture: A legal process that allows law enforcement agencies to seize assets believed to be connected to criminal activity, including drug offenses. This practice has been controversial, particularly when applied to medical professionals.

Consolidated TimelineS of Main Events:

This detailed briefing document, timeline, and cast of characters provide a comprehensive overview of the complex issues surrounding the opioid crisis as presented in the provided sources.

“..According to a former UK official, in Kabul the MCN and INL championed the food zone model without fully appreciating what had contributed to poppy cultivation reductions in HFZ’s target areas. Despite the lack of clear information as to what led to these reductions, MCN and INL called for eight additional provincial food zone programs to be implemented.318 

The changes in U.S. strategy, combined with the influx of security forces in southern Afghanistan, spurred a sea change in interdiction efforts in the south.…Wechsler, the former DASD for Counternarcotics and Global Threats, described this period as one of increasing alignment between DEA and DOD, noting, “General McChrystal liked what DEA was doing with FAST, but General Petraeus offered the resources DEA needed. . . . DEA then realized they could ask for and get support in missions. They recognized that the military mission and the counternarcotics mission were working together.”319

The increase in the number of interdiction operations, which jumped from 204 in 2010 to 521 in 2011, exemplifies this change.320 Wechsler further reflected on the dramatic turnabout within DOD, noting that “most senior military leaders talked of integrating interdiction, law enforcement, and even development efforts into COIN.”321 

Despite increasing alignment between DEA and DOD, progress in the Afghan judicial sector did not keep pace. Those pursuing the arrest and conviction of drug traffickers, rather than the militarized disruption that characterized DEA FAST units and TF-333, had reached an impasse. In the absence of an extradition agreement, and with little confidence in an often corrupt and still nascent Afghan judicial system, DEA agents found it difficult to advance their cases.322

Their efforts suffered a significant setback with the arrest of Mohammed Zia Salehi, an aide to President Karzai, by the FBI-mentored Major Crimes Task Force in July 2010, and his subsequent release.323

Outraged by the arrest of Salehi on corruption charges, President Karzai ordered the seizure of all files related to the Salehi arrest and authorized an investigation into the handling of the case.324

The Afghan administration then began to dismantle the law enforcement infrastructure that had been established, including the wiretaps, polygraphs, and presence of DOJ personnel assigned to mentor Afghan staff.325

As a result, DEA became increasingly reluctant to invest resources in an environment where its agents could not develop cases. As one senior law enforcement official summarized, “After all of that work, all of that expense, and all of that danger, DEA’s Special Operations Division said we are not going to do it anymore.”326 

Late 19th Century (Progressive Era)

• 1880s-1920: Narcotics are unregulated and widely available in the United States.
• 1914: The Harrison Act criminalizes the non-medical use of opium, morphine, and cocaine, effectively turning drug-addicted citizens and their doctors into criminals.
• 1914-1938: 25,000 doctors are arrested under the Harrison Act for prescribing narcotics to addicts. Public opinion turns against doctors.
• 1970: The Harrison Act is repealed and replaced with the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (DAPCA).
• 1973: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is established.
• 1975: The Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Moore upholds the criminalization of doctors treating addicts by prescribing controlled substances.

Late 20th Century

• 1990s: The DEA focuses primarily on illegal black market drugs.
• 1997: Positive media coverage highlights undertreatment of pain and efficacy of opioid therapy.
• Late 1990s: Concerns about prescription drug abuse begin to emerge.
• Late 1990s: Opioids like oxycodone and hydrocodone become routine for chronic pain. Drug companies assure of safety; Purdue Pharma claims addiction is rare in managed patients (2001 hearing).

2000s

• 1999-2001: Congress criticizes the DEA for lack of progress against illegal drugs. The DOJ rebukes the DEA’s strategy, prompting a search for a new “front” in the War on Drugs.
• Early 2000s: Opioid prescriptions skyrocket, increasing addiction. “Pill mills” emerge.
• 2001: The DEA launches the OxyContin Action Plan, targeting the drug. Negative media coverage links OxyContin to heroin, fueling fear. The Orlando Sentinel publishes a flawed series on OxyContin overdoses, significantly contributing to fear. US invades Afghanistan following 9/11.
• Post-2001: The US, DEA, and CIA work with Afghan narco-warlords as part of the Northern Alliance. US-backed Afghan government legalizes poppy cultivation. Afghanistan becomes the world’s largest opium producer. DEA FAST teams conduct military-style raids. US implements compensated eradication and creates the Afghan Eradication Force (AEF/PEF). Aerial spraying is considered but opposed. US-backed Afghan government is deeply involved in the drug trade. US implements alternative livelihood programs with mixed results.
• 2002: The DEA reallocates resources to prescription drugs in rural areas, focusing on “illegal diversion” of legal medication. The DEA expands via task forces. The DEA justifies its OxyContin campaign with flawed data on “OxyContin-related deaths.”
• 2003: The DEA doubles licensing fees to fund the Diversion Control Program, making doctors financially responsible for investigating colleagues. The DEA uses threats to coerce patients to report doctors. NADDI conference focuses on targeting pain specialists and asset seizure. Florida becomes restrictive on pain treatment due to the Sentinel series.
• 2004: The DEA disavows its guidance pamphlet for pain specialists, increasing doctors’ fear. Dr. William Hurwitz is convicted despite no evidence of malicious intent. Dr. Frank Fisher is acquitted after years of legal battles and asset seizures.
• 2005: The National Association of Attorneys General expresses concern to the DEA about its aggressive pursuit of physicians. Media continues to fuel OxyContin fears despite other sources of illicit drugs. DEA establishes the Distributor Initiative Program. Joe Rannazzisi becomes director of the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control.
• 2005-2009: Diversion of millions of hydrocodone units facilitated by rogue internet pharmacies and prescribers.
• 2005-2015: Under Joe Rannazzisi’s leadership, the number of registrants allowed to prescribe/dispense opioids grows by 45%, and quotas for hydrocodone and oxycodone significantly increase. “***The United States and its coalition partners intervened in Afghanistan in 2001, poppy cultivation was at an historic low due to a successful, short- lived Taliban ban on cultivation. Afghanistan had just 7,606 hectares of opium poppy cultivation in 2001, or approximately 1/43rd of the estimated 328,000 hectares in 2017.1” 
• Around 2008: The DEA starts focusing on drug distributors. Heroin seizures at the Southwest border increase over 300% from 2008 to 2013. ***However, By 2008, U.S. policymakers were increasingly concerned about the links between the insurgency and drug trade, and expanded U.S. efforts to sever those links. The NSC established the Afghan Threat Finance Cell (ATFC), a Kabul- based unit led by DEA, with strong support from Treasury and DOD. The ATFC’s mission was “to identify and disrupt financial networks related to terrorism, the Taliban, narcotics trafficking, and corruption.”301 (See pages 71–72.) In addition, the unit focused on capacity building within Afghan institutions, partnering with specially vetted Afghan units like the SIU and TIU to conduct investigations.302 Pg 50
• Their efforts suffered a significant setback with the arrest of Mohammed Zia Salehi, an aide to President Karzai, by the FBI-mentored Major Crimes Task Force in July 2010, and his subsequent release.323 
• Around 2011: Over 17,000 US deaths from opioid prescription overdoses. Cardinal Health pushes back against Rannazzisi. Rannazzisi vows to intensify efforts against distributors.
• Around 2013: Jonathan Novak (DEA attorney) notes a “sea change” in handling cases against large distributors. Jim Geldhof (DEA investigator) experiences similar roadblocks. The drug industry begins lobbying Congress to weaken the DEA. Congressman Tom Marino and Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn introduce a bill in the House. Rannazzisi believes it will cripple the DEA. Wheatland Pharmacy case sets precedent for DEA investigations of diversion.

2014

• April 29: Joe Rannazzisi testifies before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, discussing the opioid crisis and the link between prescription opioid abuse and heroin use. The White House Medical Unit’s pharmaceutical services lack proper accreditation and oversight.

2015:

• A DOJ memo states the proposed bill could increase diversion. An internal DOJ email reveals Linden Barber (former DEA attorney) wrote the “Marino bill.” Former AG Eric Holder warns the law would undermine enforcement. The pharmaceutical industry spends $106 million lobbying. Rannazzisi testifies against the bill, leading to accusations from Marino. Marino and Blackburn request an investigation into Rannazzisi. Joe Rannazzisi is stripped of responsibilities and resigns from the DEA.

2016:

• March: The “Marino bill” passes the Senate and House by unanimous consent. President Barack Obama signs it into law without ceremony.
• Post-Passage: Drug distributors declare victory. DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney writes the law would make prosecuting distributors “all but…impossible.” Marino’s Chief of Staff becomes a lobbyist for chain drug stores. Numerous DEA officials move to the pharmaceutical industry. The DOJ urges Congress to rewrite the law after the “60 Minutes” report.

2017:

• October: Joe Rannazzisi is featured on “60 Minutes,” described as a “no-nonsense principled man” who tried to stop the opioid crisis by putting pressure on distributors. However,

2018 – 2020:

• President Trump initiates a trade war with China, Canada, and Mexico, alleging failures to curb fentanyl flows. Trump claims China subsidizes fentanyl precursor chemicals.

2019:

• August 29: DEA agents raid Pronto Pharmacy.
• November 4: DEA clarifies its limited authority in regulating medical practice in a letter to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores.
• December 18: DEA reiterates its lack of authority to dictate prescriptions in a letter to Congresswoman Grace Meng.
• Prosecutors indict James Barclay and Miami-Luken for failing to prevent opioid diversion.

2019 – 2025:

• Reports from Dr. Jeffrey Singer (Cato Institute) show increasing detection of dangerous fentanyl analogs and other synthetic opioids in overdose reports and DEA seizures.

2021:

• February 12: DEA clarifies it does not define “legitimate medical purpose” in a letter to Richard A. Lawhern.
• DEA issues a Decision and Order regarding Pronto Pharmacy, finding no evidence of actual drug diversion.
• Prosecutors drop all charges against James Barclay and others.
• The US withdraws from Afghanistan. The Taliban retakes control. Poppy cultivation in Helmand Province reportedly drops by 99%.

2022:

• September 6: Walmart publishes a statement on opioid lawsuits, highlighting contradictory guidance.
• September 24: “PAIN AND THE RULES OF LAW” article is published, detailing DEA overreach.

2023:

• Seth Harp’s interview and upcoming book The Fort Bragg Cartel challenge the narrative of responsibility for Afghan opium production.

2024-2025:

• The White House Medical Unit is found to have serious deficiencies in its pharmaceutical management and patient eligibility practices, determined to be in violation of federal law (spanning 2014-2024).

Present:

• The fentanyl crisis continues. Lawsuits are filed against CVS Pharmacy for illegal opioid dispensing. Calls for international cooperation and data-driven approaches are made.

Cast of Characters:

Government Officials & Agencies:

• Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA): The US federal agency responsible for combating drug trafficking and abuse. The sources are largely critical of the DEA’s tactics and motivations, accusing it of overreach, scapegoating physicians, and being influenced by the pharmaceutical industry while potentially overlooking its own role and international factors.
• Joe Rannazzisi: Former Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control (2005-2015). A key whistleblower who exposed how the drug industry and Congress allegedly fueled the opioid crisis by allowing unchecked opioid distribution. He is critical of distributors and the legislation that weakened the DEA’s enforcement powers and now consults with plaintiffs suing those companies.
• Michele M. Leonhart: DEA Administrator during Joe Rannazzisi’s tenure.
• Thomas W. Prevoznik: DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division. Author of letters clarifying the DEA’s limited authority in regulating medical practice and prescription limits.
• Glen A. Fine: Inspector General of the Department of Justice in the early 2000s. Questioned why the DEA wasn’t doing more to combat prescription drug abuse.
• Asa Hutchinson: DEA administrator during the launch of the OxyContin Action Plan. Played a key role in framing OxyContin as dangerous.
• Jonathan Novak: Former DEA attorney who prosecuted cases related to opioid diversion. He witnessed roadblocks in prosecuting large distributors and believes the “Marino bill” made accountability nearly impossible.
• Jim Geldhof: A 40-year DEA veteran who ran pharmaceutical investigations. Corroborates Rannazzisi’s claims about distributors’ negligence.
• Frank Younker: DEA supervisor who echoed frustration regarding the industry’s actions and enforcement restrictions.
• John J. Mulrooney: DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge who stated the “Marino bill” would make prosecuting distributors “all but…impossible.”
• Eric Holder: Former Attorney General of the United States who warned against the “Marino bill.”
• U.S. Department of Justice: The governmental department responsible for overseeing the DEA. Its actions and memos are referenced in the sources.
• Defense Health Agency (DHA): The US agency in charge of health services for the Department of Defense, which failed in oversight of the WHMU.
• White House Medical Unit (WHMU): The medical unit serving the White House, found to have significant deficiencies in pharmaceutical management.

Politicians:

• President Donald Trump: Former US President who initiated trade wars partly due to accusations of insufficient action on fentanyl flows from China, Canada, and Mexico.
• Tom Marino: Former Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania who co-sponsored the legislation weakening the DEA’s enforcement powers. He defended the bill and criticized Joe Rannazzisi. Was nominated for drug czar but withdrew.
• Marsha Blackburn: Republican Congresswoman from Tennessee who co-sponsored the bill. She defended the legislation and questioned Joe Rannazzisi.
• Barack Obama: The President who signed the “Marino bill” into law.
• Mitch McConnell: Senate Majority Leader who brought the “Marino bill” to the Senate floor.
• Congresswoman Grace Meng: Member of Congress who received clarification from the DEA regarding its authority.

Pharmaceutical Industry & Lobbyists:

• Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen: The three largest drug distributors in the US, accused by Rannazzisi and others of fueling the opioid epidemic by failing to report and stop suspicious orders.
• Purdue Pharma: Drug company that manufactured OxyContin and assured of its safety regarding addiction.
• Linden Barber: Former Associate Chief Counsel of the DEA who became a lobbyist for drug companies and wrote the “Marino bill.” Later hired by Cardinal Health.
• Bill Tighe: Congressman Tom Marino’s Chief of Staff who became a lobbyist for the National Association of Chain Drug Stores after the “Marino bill” passed.
• National Association of Chain Drug Stores: Industry group for pharmacy chains.

Medical Professionals:

• Jeffrey A. Singer, MD: Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Refutes claims about fentanyl deaths and argues drug war strategies relocate fentanyl production.
• Ronald T. Libby: Author of a Cato Institute paper criticizing the DEA’s aggressive crackdown on prescription painkillers and the resulting undertreatment of pain.
• Christopher Russ, MD, Lesly Pompy, MD, Neail Anand, MD: Physicians mentioned as being aggressively prosecuted for their medical practice (from the “Pain and the Rules of Law” source, though specific details are not provided in these excerpts).
• Norman J. Clement RPH., DDS: Pharmacist and owner of Pronto Pharmacy.
• Dr. Donald Sullivan: DEA consultant in the Pronto Pharmacy case.
• Dr. Gordon: DEA consultant in the Suntree Pharmacy case.
• Dr. William Hurwitz, Dr. Russell K. Portenoy, Dr. Frank Fisher, Dr. John F. Lilly, Dr. James Graves, Dr. Sarfraz Mirza, Dr. Asuncion Luyao, Dr. Eli Schneider, Dr. Ghassan Haj-Hamed: Doctors mentioned in the context of the DEA’s crackdown on prescription painkillers (from the Cato Institute paper).
• Dr. Russell K. Portenoy: Pain specialist who criticized the DEA’s actions.
• Professor David Brushwood: Pharmacy professor who criticized the DEA’s shift to aggressive tactics.

Law Enforcement & Legal Professionals:

• James Barclay: Executive at Miami-Luken indicted for failing to prevent opioid diversion; charges later dropped.
• Jason Hadges: Former DEA attorney who joined a law firm representing pharmaceutical companies.
• Detective Dennis M. Luken: Member of a drug task force who advocated for seizing doctors’ assets.
• Honorable James McFarland: Judge presiding over the James Barclay case.
• Ronald W. Chapman II & Matthew J. Pelcowitz: Attorneys representing Suntree Pharmacy.

Other Individuals:

• Bill Whitaker: Correspondent for “60 Minutes” who interviewed Joe Rannazzisi.
• Richard A. Lawhern, Ph.D.: Recipient of a letter from the DEA clarifying its stance on medical practice.
• Leo Beletsky: Professor at Northeastern University, criticizes DEA’s tactics for targeting prescribers.
• Doris Bloodsworth: Orlando Sentinel reporter who wrote the criticized series on OxyContin.
• Richard Paey: Florida pain patient sentenced for possessing pain medication.
• Seth Harp: Author providing evidence of US support for drug operations in Afghanistan.

Mr. Rannazzisi INVISIBLE TIME LINES, THE ONE HE HAS FORGOTTEN, CHOSE TO HIDE FROM PUBLIC AND IGNORE

This YouTube transcript captures a presentation by Joe Rannazzisi, a former DEA official, who discusses the legal complexities surrounding drug importation, smuggling, and distribution and their contribution to the opioid crisis. 

Rannazzisi, drawing on his extensive experience as a pharmacist, attorney, and DEA agent, argues that the opioid epidemic was not unforeseen, highlighting historical precedents and failures in regulatory oversight. 

He contends that while importation is often legitimate, significant problems exist in the distribution and smuggling of opioids. The presentation traces the history of opioid use and addiction, examines the roles of prescribers, pharmacists, wholesalers, and manufacturers, and explores the shift towards synthetic opioids like fentanyl. 

But clearly ignore and leaves out his role in DEA’s evolving role and controversial tactics in regulating prescription painkillers and their role in Afghanistan’s opium production, complicity with warlords, and a contradictory approach to domestic and international drug policy.

Rannazzisi emphasizes that addressing the prescription drug problem is crucial to combating the broader opioid epidemic and advocates for targeting those profiting from illegal activities rather than solely focusing on users.

Detailed Timeline of Main Events Based on Joe Rannazzisi’s Presentation

Ancient Times – Pre-1600s:

• 3000 BC: First recorded event of poppy cultivation. This highlights humanity’s long history with opium and its derivatives.

1600s – 1800s: Early Opioid Use and Isolation

• 1600: Thomas Sydenham popularizes laudanum (an opium tincture), though an earlier version existed in the 1500s. This marks a significant point in the widespread use of an opioid-based medication.
• 1803: Morphine is isolated from the poppy. This is a crucial development, leading to a more potent and refined opioid.
• 1800s (Civil War – Early 1900s): The US experiences an opioid epidemic fueled by injured Civil War veterans becoming addicted to opium and morphine used for pain relief. This demonstrates a historical precedent for opioid addiction in the US.

Early 20th Century – Mid 20th Century: Regulation and Shifting Drug Culture

• Early 1900s: The Harrison Narcotics Act is passed, marking an early attempt to regulate opioids in the US.
• 1919: A Washington Times article highlights a “startling and alarming” discovery that narcotic drug use among the “better class of people” originated largely from physician prescriptions for pain relief. This shows an early awareness of the role of medical prescribing in opioid use.
• 1960s-1980s: The US experiences a “pill culture” with drugs like Miltown, Librium, and Valium becoming prevalent. While not reaching epidemic levels, this period indicates a societal acceptance and reliance on pharmaceutical solutions.

The 1990s: The Arrival of OxyContin and Shifting Perceptions

• Early 1990s: OxyContin, a high-dose, sustained-release oxycodone product, is introduced. While acknowledged as having a legitimate use for specific patient populations, its characteristics would later contribute to misuse.
• Mid-Late 1990s: A shift in medical discourse emphasizes “inadequate pain control,” leading to a blurring of lines between treating acute, chronic, and terminal pain. This creates an environment where broader opioid prescribing becomes more accepted.
• 1980 Letter to the New England Journal of Medicine: A letter concludes that addiction is rare in hospitalized medical patients with no prior history of addiction. This letter is later misinterpreted and used to downplay the risks of opioid addiction in the context of chronic pain.

The 2000s: Increased Prescribing, Diversion, and Early Signs of Crisis

• Early 2000s: The concept of pain as the “fifth vital sign” gains traction, contributing to increased pressure on healthcare providers to aggressively treat pain, often with opioids.
• Early-Mid 2000s: Investigations begin to reveal extensive ties between opioid manufacturers and non-profit organizations like the American Pain Foundation and the Joint Commission, suggesting influence on prescribing guidelines and public perception of opioid safety.
• Mid-2000s: Reports emerge of doctors being paid to promote opioids, with some later admitting they overstated the benefits and downplayed the risks.
• 2006: The average US pharmacy dispenses approximately 75,000 hydrocodone tablets annually. In one case, 34 pharmacies are found to have dispensed 98 million tablets, highlighting a failure in the distribution chain and regulatory oversight.
• 2006: A significant spike in deaths related to illicitly manufactured fentanyl occurs, initially linked to production in Toluca, Mexico. This marks the growing threat of synthetic opioids.
• Internet Pharmacies: Online platforms emerge that allow individuals to obtain hydrocodone and other opioids without a legitimate doctor-patient relationship, contributing to illegal distribution. This practice is eventually shut down by laws like the Ryan Haight Act.

Late 2000s – Early 2010s: The Florida “Pill Mill” Era and Legislative Pushback

• Post-Ryan Haight Act: Following the crackdown on internet pharmacies, “pain and wellness clinics” proliferate, particularly in Florida.
• 2009: Florida becomes a major hub for oxycodone distribution, accounting for 44% of all 30mg oxycodone tablets dispensed in the US. This raises alarm due to the high dosage and unusual concentration in one state.
• Early 2010s: Law enforcement efforts target the Florida pill mills, leading to a decrease in the state’s share of oxycodone 30mg distribution.
• Ensuring Patient Access Act: Industry lobbying leads to the passage of legislation that limits the DEA’s ability to issue immediate suspensions on opioid distributors, indicating industry influence on regulation.

Mid-2010s – Present: The Rise of Heroin and Fentanyl, and Ongoing Challenges

• 2013: Hydrocodone/acetaminophen combination products become the number one prescribed drug in the US.
• 2014: Hydrocodone is rescheduled from Schedule III to Schedule II, leading to stricter prescribing regulations (no more refills, requirement for a new prescription).
• 2013-2015: Following rescheduling, the total number of hydrocodone prescriptions decreases. However, opioid overdose deaths continue to rise.
• 2012 – 2016: Deaths related to prescription pharmaceuticals increase, while deaths involving heroin and synthetic opioids (excluding methadone) see a dramatic surge. This indicates a shift from prescription opioids to illicit alternatives.
• 2015 Study: 66% of individuals initiating opioid abuse report starting with pharmaceutical opioids, while 33% start with heroin. This highlights the significant role of prescription drugs as an entry point to opioid addiction.
• Smuggling Trends: Seizures of clandestine fentanyl increase dramatically, from 2 pounds in 2013 to 1476 pounds in 2017, indicating a significant increase in the illegal fentanyl supply.
• Synthetic Opioid Manufacturing: While China has been involved in synthetic drug production, illicit fentanyl manufacturing is identified in places like Toluca, Mexico, and precursors are found domestically (e.g., MPP in a Boston warehouse).
• Loopholes in Controlled Substances Act: Chemists manipulate the structure of fentanyl to create analogs that are not yet specifically controlled, allowing them to evade legal restrictions.
• Continued Diversion and Distribution Failures: Despite regulations, failures in the pharmaceutical supply chain (doctors, pharmacists, wholesalers, manufacturers) continue to contribute to opioid diversion.
• Rannazzisi’s Conclusion: The opioid epidemic cannot be solved solely through arrests. Efforts must focus on the “supply side,” targeting professionals, companies, and cartels profiting from the crisis, while also addressing the initial problem of prescription drug misuse.

RANNAZZISI: COURT TESTIMONIES

Cast of Characters and Brief Bios

• Joe Rannazzisi: Former Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Diversion Control at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Currently the president of Due Diligence Compliance, providing consulting and training on drug control issues. He is a pharmacist and an attorney with over 29 years of federal law enforcement experience. His presentation focuses on the legal and regulatory failures that contributed to the opioid epidemic.
• John Newman: Professor at the law school where Rannazzisi is presenting. He introduces Rannazzisi and highlights his extensive experience in drug enforcement.
• Tommy Farmer: A colleague of Joe Rannazzisi with whom he has presented in the past. Farmer presented before Rannazzisi at the same symposium, covering some of the same topics.
• Thomas Sydenham: A 17th-century English physician credited with popularizing the use of laudanum (opium tincture) in medicine.
• Unidentified Individual (1500s): Mentioned as someone who started an early form of laudanum before Sydenham.
• Historical Figures (Implied): Those who experienced or documented the opioid epidemic following the Civil War, highlighting the long history of opioid-related issues in the US.
• “Uncle Harry”: A stereotypical example used by Rannazzisi to represent family members who struggled with prescription pill use in the pre-OxyContin era.
• The “Housewives Helper” Trio (Miltown, Librium, Valium): Examples of prescription drugs that were widely used and marketed for anxiety and stress in the mid-20th century, illustrating a societal comfort with pills.
• Authors of the 1980 Letter to the New England Journal of Medicine: Researchers who concluded that addiction was rare in hospitalized patients receiving narcotics for pain, a finding later misinterpreted.
• Jennifer (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Reporter): Her investigative reporting revealed the extensive ties between opioid manufacturers and non-profit organizations, highlighting potential conflicts of interest and influence on opioid promotion.
• Unnamed Doctors: Physicians who promoted opioids and later admitted they overstated the benefits and downplayed the risks, reflecting a shift in understanding the addictive potential of these drugs.
• Admiral Thrasher (Implied): Likely the head of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), whose 2017 report highlighted the disproportionately high opioid consumption in the United States.
• Ryan Haight: The namesake of the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, which aimed to regulate online pharmacies dispensing controlled substances.
• Justice Thurgood Marshall: A Justice of the US Supreme Court who heavily questioned the attorney for Moore in the United States v. Moore case (1975), which established the responsibility of physicians in prescribing controlled substances for legitimate medical purposes.
• Moore (Subject of United States v. Moore): A physician whose prescribing practices were scrutinized, leading to a landmark case on the limits of a doctor’s authority to prescribe controlled substances.
• Siegfried (Implied): Likely refers to a known method or chemist associated with a specific method of synthesizing fentanyl, mentioned in the context of illicit fentanyl production.

ARGUMENT

According to the most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), ” there were 335,000 current heroin users in 2012, more than double the number in 2007 (161,000).

“…The DEA believes the increased heroin use is driven by many factors, including an increase in the misuse (e.g., using more than medically indicated or using in a manner not medically indicated) and abuse (i.e., using in order to feel the psychoactive effects of the drug) of prescription psychotherapeutic drugs, specifically opioids. Increases in heroin purity and availability, the low street cost of heroin, expanded Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations’ involvement in the distribution of heroin, and the lack of public awareness of the risks of heroin use are also important contributing factors…”

However, this document synthesizes information from multiple sources to provide a comprehensive analysis of the opioid crisis in the United States.

It examines the roles of pharmaceutical companies, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Congress, medical professionals, and international factors in the development and perpetuation of this complex crisis.

Every once in a while, they’ll take out some tweezers, and pick up a couple of grains of sand and pretend they did something and go home. pic.twitter.com/KrTaoWnh6r

— BilkedToTheBrink (@Bilked2TheBrink) October 6, 2024

The Sigar challenge the singular narrative often presented, revealing a multifaceted problem with significant contributions from industry practices, regulatory failures, legislative actions, and geopolitical influences.

A recurring theme is the critique of the DEA’s enforcement strategies, particularly its focus on medical professionals and the alleged weakening of its powers by industry lobbying and congressional action.

The document also highlights the devastating impact on chronic pain patients and the international dimensions of the crisis, especially concerning fentanyl and the historical context of opium production in Afghanistan.

“…Since 2002, stemming opium poppy cultivation and drug production in Afghanistan has been an important, though not primary, goal for the United States, its coalition partners, and the Afghan government.

…While very little Afghan heroin comes to the United States, the Afghan drug trade has undermined reconstruction and security goals in many ways, including by financing insurgent groups, fueling government corruption, eroding state legitimacy, and exacting an enormous human and financial toll…

…From fiscal year (FY) 2002 through FY 2017, the U.S. government allocated approximately $8.62 billion for counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan. This included more than $7.28 billion for programs with a substantial counternarcotics focus and $1.34 billion on programs that included a counternarcotics component…” 

DISCUSSION

DEA on Legitimate Medical Purpose of Prescriptions

Pain, the Law, and the DEA  

This source, primarily an excerpt from “PAIN AND THE RULES OF LAW,” critiques the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) alleged overreach in regulating medical practice, particularly concerning pain management. The authors argue that the DEA operates outside the rule of law by creating its own medical standards and improperly interpreting regulations, leading to unwarranted investigations and accusations against healthcare professionals like pharmacists and physicians.

These three documents below are letters from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) responding to inquiries from various parties regarding the agency’s stance on prescribing controlled substances for pain management.

Thomas W. Prevoznik: DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division. Author of letters clarifying DEA’s position and authority contends that the DEA lacks the medical expertise and congressional authorization to dictate prescribing practices or define legitimate medical purpose, citing legal cases and letters from DEA officials themselves.

The letters emphasizes that medical professionals treating pain are not equivalent to illegal drug dealers, and that prosecutions have failed when challenged under the standard of proving lack of legitimate medical purpose.

The letters also reference a 2006 DEA policy statement on dispensing controlled substances for pain and highlight the importance of adhering to both federal and applicable state regulations. Furthermore, one letter addresses concerns about the CDC’s pain management guidelines and mentions updates from the CDC and FDA on opioid prescribing.

(Nicholson Letter): “The DEA may only address its position based on the authority granted by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations.”

These letters from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to various stakeholders (National Association of Chain Drug Stores, a Dr. Walter F. Wrenn,MD and Richard “Red” Lawhern, PhD., a patient advocate) consistently address concerns related to pain management, the role of the DEA in medical practice, and the prescribing of controlled substances.

(Wrenn Letter): “The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations established a closed system of distribution to help prevent diversion of legitimate controlled substance medications into the illicit market.”

The DEA emphasizes its authority stems from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and clarifies its position as an enforcement agency, not a medical board. The key themes across all letters include: the requirement for a legitimate medical purpose for all controlled substance prescriptions, the DEA’s non-involvement in defining medical standards or setting prescribing limits, and the primary responsibility of individual practitioners to exercise professional medical judgment.

The DEA consistently underscores that its authority is derived solely from the CSA and its implementing regulations.

(Lawhern Letter): “The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations established a closed system of distribution to ensure appropriate medical care and to maintain the integrity of the system through an accountability process.”

Most importanly, in each letter the DEA clarifies its role as enforcer of the Controlled Substances Act and emphasizes that it does not dictate medical practice standards or issue guidelines on pain treatment.

Instead, the DEA supports the individual practitioner’s authority to prescribe controlled substances for legitimate medical purposes within accepted professional judgment. The DEA further acknowledges concerns about the impact of guidelines (specifically the CDC’s) and highlights its support for legitimate pain treatment.

Ultimately, the source advocates for a clearer legal interpretation that respects the professional judgment of medical practitioners and limits the DEA’s authority in this realm. The Opioid Crisis: A Multifaceted Geopolitical Analysis 

THE 60 MINUTE REPORT

The 60 Minutes report, through the testimony of former DEA agent Joe Rannazzisi and other officials, presents a compelling argument that the opioid crisis was exacerbated by the actions of the drug industry, particularly distributors who allegedly prioritized profits over their legal obligations to prevent drug diversion.

During an October 2017 episode of “60 Minutes,” correspondent Bill Whitaker described Rannazzisi as “a no-nonsense principled man. He saw this crisis and wanted to stop it. What he zeroed in on was the distribution of the pills. So he started to put pressure on the distributors. And the distributors pushed back.”

Furthermore, the report suggests that congressional legislation, heavily influenced by industry lobbying, significantly weakened the DEA’s ability to effectively regulate the distribution of opioids, hindering efforts to combat the escalating epidemic.

The “revolving door” between the DEA and the drug industry further underscores the complex and potentially compromised regulatory landscape surrounding the opioid crisis. Rannazzisi ran the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control, the division that regulates and investigates the pharmaceutical industry.

As we first reported last October, in a joint investigation by 60 Minutes and The Washington Post, Rannazzisi tells the inside story of how, he says, the opioid crisis was allowed to spread aided by Congress, lobbyists, and a drug distribution industry that shipped, almost unchecked, hundreds of millions of pills to rogue pharmacies and pain clinics – providing the rocket fuel for a crisis that, over the last two decades, has claimed more than 200,000 lives.

THE PAINFUL TRUTH OF PUBLIC DECEPTION

@lauraphylmills:    60 Minutes Fails to Represent Pain Patient Perspective. 3/5/2019

“In a Feb. 24 segment, CBS’s 60 Minutes accused the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of igniting the overdose epidemic in the United States with its “illegal approval of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.”

While the program highlighted the adverse consequences of misleading pharmaceutical marketing and lax government oversight, this segment failed to consider the perspective of patients who legitimately use opioids for pain, stigmatized them as drug-seekers, and propagated misconceptions about the overdose crisis, such as the idea that opioid treatment for chronic pain is indisputably illegitimate and is driving overdose deaths in the US.”  See link

The Opioid Crisis: A Multifaceted Geopolitical Analysis 

The number of registrants allowed to prescribe and dispense opioids grew 45 percent under Rannazzisi, and the quota for hydrocodone increased from 37,604 to 99,625 kilograms while the quota for oxycodone went from 50,490 to 137,500 kgs.

“So if a distributor came to you in (2007-2010) and said, ‘We … can’t tell if this order is legitimate or suspicious,’ DEA would refuse to answer?” Rannazzisi was asked at a deposition this year.

“It’s DEA’s policy that they do not advise when to ship or when to file a suspicious order,” Rannazzisi responded. “That’s a business decision that, under the regulations, is maintained by the distributor.”

CONCLUSION

Rannazzisi argues that the opioid crisis was not an unforeseen event but rather a consequence of historical trends, changes in prescribing practices driven by misinformation and industry influence, and failures in the legal and regulatory system at multiple levels – from prescribers and pharmacists to wholesalers, distributors, and manufacturers. He emphasizes that while importation of raw materials is generally legal, significant problems exist in the distribution and smuggling of opioids and synthetic opioids, fueled by profit motives and inadequate enforcement. He concludes that addressing the prescription drug abuse problem is crucial to combating the broader opioid epidemic and advocates for targeting the “supply side” – the professionals and organizations profiting from the crisis – rather than solely focusing on users.

Rannazzisi argues that the opioid crisis was not an unforeseen event but rather a consequence of historical trends, changes in prescribing practices driven by misinformation and industry influence, and failures in the legal and regulatory system at multiple levels – from prescribers and pharmacists to wholesalers, distributors, and manufacturers.

He emphasizes that while importation of raw materials is generally legal, significant problems exist in the distribution and smuggling of opioids and synthetic opioids, fueled by profit motives and inadequate enforcement.

He concludes that addressing the prescription drug abuse problem is crucial to combating the broader opioid epidemic and advocates for targeting the “supply side” – the professionals and organizations profiting from the crisis – rather than solely focusing on users.

CRIMINAL AT LARGE

DONATE LEGAL DEFENSE

OR SEND

TO CASH APP:$docnorm

ZELLE 3135103378

ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE

BE SURE TO DONATE TO THE MARK IBSEN GOFUNDME DEFENSE FUND, WHERE THE SON ALWAYS RISES!!!

FOR NOW, YOU ARE WITHIN

THE NORMS

REFERENCES:

Briefing Document: The Opioid Crisis – A Multifaceted Analysis

Executive Summary:

This document analyzes multiple sources to present a comprehensive overview of the opioid crisis, focusing on the complex interplay of international trade, U.S. foreign policy, domestic drug enforcement, and healthcare practices. Key findings challenge the narrative that medical professionals are solely responsible for the crisis. The sources highlight the limitations of current strategies, the failures of the “War on Drugs,” and the need for improved international cooperation and data-driven approaches. It reveals a complex web of culpability, extending from international precursor chemical production and trade, to questionable US policy and execution both internationally and domestically, and calls into question both motives and effectiveness of current approaches.

Key Themes and Ideas:

1. The Failure of the “War on Drugs” and its Re-Targeting:

• The traditional “War on Drugs” has been a failure, shifting the focus from drug cartels and street dealers to pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers. The sources strongly suggest this represents an attempt to find an easier target to enforce and justify continued funding, rather than addressing root causes.
• Quote: “Since the “War On Drugs” was a total failure, the government had to devise a new strategy to save their jobs.”
• This shift is seen as unjust, leading to the criminalization of doctors who prescribe opioids for legitimate pain management.
• The DEA’s actions are criticized for using flawed data, media exaggeration, and aggressive tactics.
• Quote: “The DEA would need to find a new front for the War on Drugs, one that could produce tangible, measurable results”

1. Scapegoating of Medical Professionals:

• Doctors prescribing opioids are portrayed as “drug dealers” and subjected to aggressive prosecution based on flawed metrics like “overprescribing” and “red flags.”
• Quote: “Doctors who prescribed these medications were now portrayed as street drug dealers and distributors of this medication to the public. Finally, the government had a new target to use in its failed “war on drugs.”
• This has led to a climate of fear, causing physicians to undertreat chronic pain, potentially exacerbating the crisis and harming patients.
• The DEA’s focus on doctors has diverted attention from more effective ways to address drug diversion.
• Quote: “that decades of drug war strategies have only relocated fentanyl production, leading to more potent and dangerous substances.”

1. International Dimensions of the Crisis:

• Fentanyl Production and Trade: The fentanyl crisis is inextricably linked with international trade, with China, India, and Southeast Asia identified as key players in the production of precursor chemicals. President Trump’s trade war with China, framed around accusations of insufficient fentanyl control, highlights the international tensions involved. Despite some efforts, the fentanyl crisis continues, with production shifting locations.
• U.S. Involvement in Afghanistan’s Opium Trade: The sources present a counter-narrative, suggesting the US-backed government in Afghanistan, rather than the Taliban, was deeply involved in the opium trade. This involvement is alleged to have been ongoing since the Soviet occupation. The US funded and armed warlords who were also involved in the drug trade. The massive opium production that resulted, supplying the global heroin supply, challenges the U.S. narrative of combating the crisis.
• Quote: “The US-backed Afghan government at all levels and in every geographic region was deeply involved in the drug trade.”
• The US’s apparent support for drug production in Afghanistan contradicts its domestic anti-drug policies, suggesting a double standard and possible self-interested motivations.
• Quote: “This suggests that the US-backed government was at least tacitly supporting opium production.”

1. The Role of CVS and other pharmaceutical dispensers:

• A nationwide lawsuit against CVS alleges that the company knowingly dispensed controlled substances illegally, violating the Controlled Substances Act and the False Claims Act. This includes knowingly filling invalid prescriptions, prioritizing profits over patient safety, and creating unsafe working conditions that led to improper prescription filling.
• Quote: “The government claims CVS knowingly prioritized profits over patient safety, creating unsafe working conditions that led to pharmacists filling prescriptions without proper due diligence.”

1. The Suffering of Chronic Pain Patients:

• The crackdown on prescription painkillers has had devastating consequences for patients with chronic pain.
• Many have been denied access to necessary medications, forcing them to seek relief on the streets, leading to overdoses and death. Some have even resorted to suicide due to unbearable suffering.
• Quote: “Chronic pain patients denied their life-saving medication went to the streets for relief, overdosed, and died. Other chronic pain patients committed suicide.”

1. Inadequate Data and Flawed Enforcement:

• The sources critique the use of inflated statistics and algorithms in enforcement practices.
• Dr. Jeffrey Singer, of the Cato Institute, argues against President Trump’s claim of 300,000 fentanyl deaths, citing the CDC’s lower figure of 60,000 deaths, and notes that inflated figures lead to flawed, ineffective, fear-based policies
• The lack of accurate and objective data has led to the formulation of problematic and non-effective strategies.

1. Lack of Accountability and Oversight:

• The Department of Defense Inspector General Report revealed serious deficiencies within the White House Medical Unit’s (WHMU) pharmaceutical practices.
• The WHMU lacked proper accreditation and oversight, dispensing medications without proper verification, failing to keep accurate records and purchasing brand-name medications unnecessarily.
• The unit also dispensed medications to ineligible personnel and used “health care by proxy” to justify these practices.
• There was a lack of oversight by the Defense Health Agency (DHA) and the Service Surgeons General.
• Quote: “Conversely, the White House Medical Unit’s pharmaceutical services included the full scope of pharmacy operations, including storage and inventory, prescribing and dispensing, procurement, and disposal, and was not credentialed by any outside agency.”
• Quote: “The Defense Health Agency Did Not Establish Policies, Procedures, and Guidance for Executive Medicine Services Within the National Capital Region Medical Directorate.”

Recommendations and Considerations:

• Re-evaluate Drug War Strategies: A more effective approach is needed, focused on drug cartels and international supply chains, not doctors or patients.
• International Cooperation: Enhanced cooperation is needed, especially with countries involved in precursor production, to combat the transnational nature of the crisis.
• Data-Driven Approaches: A focus on accurate and objective data is vital to formulate effective strategies.
• Patient-Centered Care: Policies must prioritize the needs of patients with chronic pain, ensuring they have access to safe and effective treatment.
• Increased Oversight and Accountability: Better oversight is required across all relevant US agencies, including the DEA, DHA, and WHMU.
• Address Root Causes: Focusing on treatment for drug addiction and addressing mental health issues.
• Re-examine US Foreign Policy: Re-evaluate the ethical implications of foreign policy decisions and their impact on the global drug trade and, ultimately, on the domestic health and welfare of U.S. citizens.

Conclusion:

The opioid crisis is a highly complex issue with no simple solutions. The sources reviewed emphasize the need for a multi-faceted approach, recognizing that the crisis is shaped by both domestic failures and international factors. It is critical to move beyond the flawed narrative of doctors as drug dealers and to address the deep systemic problems that fuel this epidemic. This requires honest assessment of failed policies, and the courage to implement change, despite entrenched political and bureaucratic resistance. The crisis cannot be solved with finger-pointing, and requires full accountability.

Okay, here’s the timeline and cast of characters based on the provided sources:

Opioid regulator Joe Rannazzisi, hero or villain?

Timeline of Main Events:

• Early 2000s:The DEA comes under criticism from Congress for lack of proof of reducing the illegal drug supply.
• The Department of Justice criticizes the DEA’s goals, stating they are inconsistent with the president’s drug control strategy.
• DEA seeks a new “front” for the War on Drugs to produce tangible results.
• Glen A. Fine, Inspector General of the Department of Justice, questions why the DEA isn’t combating prescription drug abuse.
• Ronald T. Libby publishes a report highlighting undertreatment of pain due to DEA crackdowns on doctors prescribing opioids. He argues that the DEA’s actions were fueled by media exaggeration and flawed data.
• 2001: US invades Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks.
• Post-2001:The US, DEA, and CIA work with Afghan narco-warlords, who were also drug traffickers, as part of the Northern Alliance.
• US-backed Afghan government legalizes poppy cultivation, leading to a resurgence of opium production.

• Afghanistan becomes the world’s largest producer of opium, supplying double the global demand, with an annual output of 1,000 metric tons of pure heroin.
• DEA FAST teams begin conducting military-style raids alongside Afghan and U.S. forces.
• The US implements a program of compensated eradication of poppy fields, which is criticized for fueling corruption.
• The U.S. creates the Afghan Eradication Force (AEF), later renamed the Poppy Eradication Force (PEF), to conduct forced eradication.
• The US considered aerial spraying, but was met with strong opposition from the Afghan government and international partners.
• US-backed Afghan government is deeply involved in the drug trade, with major warlords such as Fahim Khan and Ahmed Wali Karzai being known narcotics traffickers.
• The US government implements alternative livelihood programs to incentivize farmers to shift away from poppy cultivation, with mixed results.
• Multiple Years (throughout the 2000s-2010s):
• The US, DEA, and international public focus on prescription opioids and medical professionals as the source of the opioid crisis in the US, despite evidence to the contrary.
• The DEA shifts focus from street drugs to pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers, leading to the criminalization of doctors.
• Doctors prescribing opioid medications are portrayed as “drug dealers,” subjected to prosecution based on metrics like “overprescribing”.
• Patients with chronic pain are denied essential medication, leading to overdoses, death, and suicide.
• The opioid crisis intensifies in the United States.
• SIGAR analyzes the U.S. counternarcotics effort in Afghanistan (2002-2017) and concludes that U.S. efforts have been largely unsuccessful due to a lack of coordination, insufficient alternative livelihoods, and flawed data.
• 2014 the White House Medical Unit’s pharmaceutical services included the full scope of pharmacy operations, including storage and inventory, prescribing and dispensing, procurement, and disposal, and was not credentialed by any outside agency.
• 2014-2024 The White House Medical Unit is found to have serious deficiencies in its pharmaceutical management and patient eligibility practices, and is determined to be in violation of federal law.
• Mid-to-Late 2010s:Fentanyl production and distribution become a significant problem, initially focused in China.
• Fentanyl production moves from China to India, Myanmar, and other parts of Southeast Asia.
• 2019 – 2025: Dr. Jeffrey Singer from the Cato Institute provides reports showing an increase of more dangerous forms of fentanyl, like the elephant tranquilizer carfentanil, as well as other synthetic opioids like nitazenes, being detected in overdose toxicology reports and DEA drug seizures.
• 2018 – 2020: President Trump initiates a trade war with China, Canada, and Mexico, alleging failures to curb fentanyl flows. Trump claims China subsidizes fentanyl precursor chemicals.
• 2021: The US withdraws from Afghanistan. The Taliban retakes control.
• Poppy cultivation in Helmand Province reportedly drops by 99%.
• 2023: Seth Harp’s interview and upcoming book challenge the narrative of who was responsible for Afghan opium production and it’s links to the heroin crisis.
• Present:The fentanyl crisis continues to be a major problem.
• The death rate continues to climb, though the rate of increase may be slowing.
• Lawsuits are filed against CVS Pharmacy, accusing the company of illegal opioid dispensing.
• Calls for international cooperation and data-driven approaches are made to combat the opioid crisis.

Cast of Characters:

• President Donald Trump: Former US President who initiated trade wars with China, Canada, and Mexico partly due to accusations of their insufficient action on fentanyl flows. He claimed China subsidizes fentanyl precursor chemicals.
• Jeffrey A. Singer, MD: Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Refutes President Trump’s claim about fentanyl deaths, citing CDC statistics, argues that decades of drug war strategies have only relocated fentanyl production, leading to more potent and dangerous substances.
• Ronald T. Libby: Author of a 2005 Cato Institute policy analysis paper criticizing the DEA’s aggressive crackdown on prescription painkillers, arguing it led to undertreatment of chronic pain.
• Glen A. Fine: Inspector General of the Department of Justice in the early 2000s. Questioned why the DEA wasn’t doing more to combat prescription drug abuse.
• Christopher Russ, MD: Physician who was targeted and aggressively prosecuted for his medical practice.
• Lesly Pompy, MD: Physician who was targeted and aggressively prosecuted for her medical practice.
• Neail Anand, MD: Physician who was targeted and aggressively prosecuted for his medical practice.
• Zabihullah Mujahid: Taliban spokesman, who made his first public appearance in 2021 to address concerns about the Taliban’s reputation.
• Fahim Khan: Major Afghan warlord and narcotics trafficker within the US-backed Afghan government.
• Ahmed Wali Karzai: Major Afghan warlord and narcotics trafficker within the US-backed Afghan government.
• Gulbuddin Hekmatyar: Afghan warlord and drug trafficker who received significant DEA support during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
• Nasim Akhun: Afghan warlord and drug trafficker who received significant DEA support during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
• Seth Harp: Contributing editor at Rolling Stone and author of the forthcoming book “The Fort Bragg Cartel.” He has provided evidence that the US supported a drug operation in Afghanistan.
• U.S. Department of Justice: The governmental department responsible for overseeing the DEA. The DOJ’s actions are questioned and criticized in several of these documents.
• Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA): The US federal agency responsible for combating drug trafficking and abuse. The sources are largely critical of the DEA’s tactics and motivations, accusing it of scapegoating physicians and ignoring the larger picture of international drug trade.
• Defense Health Agency (DHA): The US agency in charge of health services for the Department of Defense. This agency is shown to have failed in oversight of the White House Medical Unit, and to have not established appropriate guidance.
• CVS Pharmacy: A major pharmacy chain facing lawsuits for allegedly illegally dispensing controlled substances.
• Taliban: The Islamic fundamentalist political organization that took control of Afghanistan after the withdrawal of US forces in 2021 and were previously in power from 1996 to 2001.

This timeline and character list should give you a good overview of the key events and players involved in the complex

Briefing Document: DEA Overreach and the Criminalization of Pain Management

Main Themes:

• DEA exceeding its authority: The DEA has been accused of acting beyond its legal mandate by attempting to regulate the practice of medicine and criminalizing good-faith medical decisions related to pain management.
• Lack of clear guidelines and contradictory information: Pharmacists and physicians face conflicting guidance from federal health agencies, including the DEA, regarding opioid prescriptions, leading to confusion and fear of prosecution.
• “Red flags” as a problematic proxy for illegitimacy: The DEA relies heavily on “red flags” like patient travel distance and prescription volume to identify potential diversion, often without investigating the legitimacy of the underlying medical need for the medication.
• Due process concerns in DEA administrative hearings: Pharmacists facing DEA investigations are often denied due process rights, including the ability to present witnesses or engage in discovery.

Key Facts and Ideas:

1. DEA Authority:

• The DEA lacks the legal authority to dictate medical practice or set prescribing limits. Its role is limited to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and regulating the flow of controlled substances.
• Congress explicitly excluded law enforcement agencies from determining the “legitimate medical purpose” of medications. This determination rests with individual practitioners exercising their professional judgment. (Source: Thomas W. Prevoznik, DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator Diversion Control Division, Letter to Richard A. Lawhern, Ph.D., February 12, 2021)
• DEA’s actions, however, suggest an attempt to regulate medical practice through intimidation and fear of prosecution, rather than relying on evidence of actual diversion.

1. Conflicting Guidance:

• Pharmacists and physicians receive contradictory guidance from federal agencies, leading to confusion and uncertainty about acceptable prescribing practices.
• This lack of clarity creates a chilling effect on pain management, forcing patients to travel further for care and discouraging practitioners from prescribing necessary medications. (Source: Walmart statement on opioid lawsuits, Spotify podcast episode)

1. “Red Flags”:

• DEA’s reliance on “red flags” as primary evidence of diversion is problematic. These flags often lack context and fail to consider individual patient circumstances or the complexities of pain management.
• DEA consultants often rely on these flags to label prescriptions as “illegitimate” without investigating the medical necessity or consulting with prescribing physicians. (Source: Suntree Pharmacy case, Pronto Pharmacy case)
• The lack of follow-up with prescribing physicians whose prescriptions are flagged as problematic further highlights the focus on punishing pharmacists rather than addressing potential diversion at its source.

1. Due Process Concerns:

• DEA administrative hearings often lack basic due process protections afforded in civil and criminal courts. Pharmacists are often denied the ability to present witnesses, including prescribing physicians, or engage in discovery to challenge the DEA’s evidence.
• This lack of due process creates a system where pharmacists are effectively presumed guilty and face an uphill battle to defend their licenses. (Source: Suntree Pharmacy case, Pronto Pharmacy case)

Important Quotes:

• “DEA authorizes DEA-registered practitioners to do so, to treat patients according to his or her professional medical judgment under a standard of medical practice that is generally recognized and accepted in the United States.” (Thomas W. Prevoznik, DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator Diversion Control Division, Letter to Richard A. Lawhern, Ph.D., February 12, 2021)
• “DEA does not act as the Federal equivalent of a state medical board overseeing the general practice of medicine and lacks the authority to issue guidelines that constitute advice relating to the general practice of medicine.” (Thomas W. Prevoznik, DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator Diversion Control Division, Letter to Richard A. Lawhern, Ph.D., February 12, 2021)
• “As a Law Enforcement agency, DEA is not in a position to authorize or dictate what a doctor prescribes to a patient.” (DEA Letter to Congresswoman Grace Meng, December 18, 2021)
• “Numbers alone can’t determine whether a crime has been committed: The ‘normal’ amount of opioid prescribing for a physician treating pain or addiction will inevitably be much higher than the average for all doctors or the typical amount in most other specialties.” (Leo Beletsky, Northeastern University)

Conclusion:

The DEA’s approach to opioid enforcement raises serious concerns about agency overreach, due process violations, and the chilling effect on legitimate pain management. By targeting pharmacists and relying on flawed metrics, the DEA is failing to address the root causes of diversion while simultaneously creating a climate of fear and uncertainty within the healthcare community.

FAQ: Pain and the Rule of Law

1. What is the central issue raised in these excerpts regarding the DEA and pain management?

The central issue is the DEA’s overreach and misinterpretation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The DEA has been accused of acting as a rogue agency, creating its own medical guidelines and using subjective standards to criminalize legitimate medical practices related to pain management. The excerpts argue that the DEA has gone beyond its legal authority to regulate the medical profession.

2. How does the DEA’s interpretation of “legitimate medical purpose” impact healthcare providers?

The DEA’s ambiguous definition of “legitimate medical purpose” has created a chilling effect on healthcare providers who prescribe controlled substances for pain management. Fearful of DEA scrutiny and prosecution, many providers have become reluctant to prescribe opioids even when medically necessary, forcing patients to suffer needlessly.

3. What are “red flags,” and how are they used in DEA investigations?

“Red flags” are subjective indicators used by the DEA to identify potential diversion of controlled substances. These flags, often based on arbitrary metrics like the number of pills prescribed or distance traveled by a patient, are used to justify investigations and prosecutions even when no actual evidence of diversion exists.

4. What criticisms are raised about the DEA’s administrative hearings process?

The excerpts highlight the unfairness of DEA administrative hearings, which lack due process protections afforded in civil and criminal courts. For example, pharmacists and physicians are often denied the opportunity to present witnesses or engage in discovery, making it difficult to challenge the DEA’s allegations.

5. How do the cases of Pronto Pharmacy, Suntree Pharmacy, and James Barclay illustrate the concerns raised about the DEA?

These cases serve as examples of the DEA’s overreach and flawed investigative practices. In each instance, the DEA relied on “red flags” and subjective interpretations of “legitimate medical purpose” to justify actions against pharmacists and distributors, despite a lack of evidence of actual diversion.

6. What arguments are made against the use of the morphine milligram equivalent daily dose (MME) in evaluating prescribing practices?

The excerpts challenge the validity of using MME as the sole measure of prescribing appropriateness. Critics argue that MME fails to account for individual patient needs and ignores the complexities of pain management, leading to inaccurate assessments and unfair targeting of healthcare providers.

7. What is Auer deference, and how does it relate to the DEA’s authority to interpret the CSA?

Auer deference is a legal principle that grants agencies authority to interpret their own regulations. The excerpts argue that Auer deference should not apply to the DEA’s interpretation of “legitimate medical purpose” because it lacks clear congressional authorization to define medical practice.

8. What is the overarching message conveyed by these excerpts?

The excerpts aim to expose the DEA’s overreach and the negative consequences of its policies on patients and healthcare providers. They advocate for a re-evaluation of the DEA’s authority, a clarification of “legitimate medical purpose,” and a return to evidence-based practices in pain management.

Timeline of Main Events:

Unknown Date (Pre-2013):

• DEA begins scrutiny of Miami-Luken, a Dayton, Ohio pharmaceutical wholesaler, for allegedly facilitating the diversion of oxycodone and hydrocodone. DEA issues numerous investigatory subpoenas to Miami-Luken.

2013:

• Wheatland Pharmacy case sets precedent, establishing the DEA’s obligation to conduct thorough investigations to prove diversion. (78 FR 69441, 69445 (2013))

2019:

• August 29: DEA agents raid Pronto Pharmacy in Tampa, Florida. Pharmacist Norman Clement is present.
• November 4: DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator Thomas W. Prevoznik writes to Kevin Nicholson of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, clarifying the DEA’s limited authority in regulating medical practice and prescription limits.
• December 18: DEA responds to Congresswoman Grace Meng, reiterating its lack of authority to dictate doctor prescriptions or grant waivers related to medical practice.
• Prosecutors indict James Barclay, Miami-Luken, and others for failing to prevent opioid diversion.

Unknown Date (Between 2019-2021):

• DEA conducts administrative hearing regarding Pronto Pharmacy. DEA relies on testimony of Dr. Donald Sullivan, who works from home as a consultant and identifies “red flags” in prescriptions filled by Pronto Pharmacy.

2021:

• February 12: Thomas W. Prevoznik writes to Richard A. Lawhern, Ph.D., explaining that the DEA does not define “legitimate medical purpose” or set medical practice standards. This responsibility falls on individual practitioners.
• DEA issues Decision and Order regarding Pronto Pharmacy (Fed. Reg.86 FR 64714 (2021)), finding no evidence of actual drug diversion and no proof that Pronto Pharmacy or Norman Clement knowingly filled illegitimate prescriptions.
• Prosecutors drop all charges against James Barclay and others due to concerns about proving criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. Barclay criticizes the DEA for failing to provide guidance and using him as a scapegoat.

2022:

• September 6: Walmart publishes a statement correcting the record on opioid lawsuits, highlighting the contradictory guidance pharmacists receive from federal agencies and the DEA.
• September 24: “PAIN AND THE RULES OF LAW – youarewithinthenorms” article published, detailing the events surrounding Pronto Pharmacy, James Barclay, and Suntree Pharmacy, and arguing that the DEA has overstepped its authority in regulating medical practice.

August 3: Suntree Pharmacy files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the DEA’s interpretation of 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) and arguing that the agency’s decision to revoke Suntree’s registration should be reversed.

Unknown Date:

• DEA conducts administrative hearing for Suntree Pharmacy, relying on testimony of Dr. Gordon, a clinical hospice pharmacist working from home as a consultant, who identifies “red flags” in prescriptions filled by Suntree.

Cast of Characters:

Norman J. Clement RPH., DDS: Pharmacist and owner of Pronto Pharmacy in Tampa, Florida. Raided by DEA in 2019.

James Barclay: Executive at Miami-Luken, a pharmaceutical wholesaler in Ohio. Indicted in 2019 but charges were later dropped.

Thomas W. Prevoznik: DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division. Author of letters clarifying DEA’s position and authority.

Kevin Nicholson, R.Ph., J.D.: Vice President of Public Policy and Regulatory Affairs for the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Received clarification from DEA regarding their authority.

Congresswoman Grace Meng: Member of Congress representing the Sixty District of New York. Received clarification from DEA regarding their authority and role in medical practice.

Dr. Donald Sullivan: Professor at the Ohio State University College of Pharmacy. Served as a DEA consultant in the Pronto Pharmacy case.

Dr. Gordon: Clinical hospice pharmacist working from home as a consultant for ProCare RX. Testified in the Suntree Pharmacy case.

Richard A. Lawhern, Ph.D.: Recipient of a letter from DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator Thomas W. Prevoznik, clarifying DEA’s stance on “legitimate medical purpose” and medical practice standards.

Leo Beletsky: Professor at Northeastern University School of Law, criticizes DEA’s tactics for targeting prescribers.

Honorable James McFarland: Judge presiding over the James Barclay case.

Ronald W. Chapman II & Matthew J. Pelcowitz: Attorneys representing Suntree Pharmacy in their petition to the Supreme Court.

Note: This timeline and cast of characters is based on the provided source and may not be exhaustive. Additional research may uncover more details and individuals involved in these events.

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member DeGette, and distinguished Members of the Committee, on behalf of Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele M. Leonhart and the men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), thank you for the opportunity to discuss the epidemic of pharmaceutical controlled substance abuse, specifically the relationship between prescription opioid diversion, misuse and abuse and heroin trafficking and use. DEA and other agencies have been concerned about the connection between prescription opioid diversion, misuse and abuse and rising heroin trafficking and use for several years.

BACKGROUND

There has been some speculation that action to curb prescription drug diversion and non- medical use somehow “diverted” attention from the ongoing problem of heroin use and paved the way for abusers and traffickers to abandon prescription drugs in favor of heroin. However, the cycle of drug abuse is not that simple. To be sure, heroin use steadily increased as prescription drug abuse became an epidemic in this country. The problem of prescription drug abuse has increased exponentially in the last 15 years due to a combination of excessive prescribing, drug availability through friends and family, Internet trafficking, rogue pain clinics, prescribers who prescribe pharmaceutical controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose or outside the usual course of professional practice, pharmacies that dispense illegitimate prescriptions, and supply chain wholesalers and manufacturers that fail to provide effective controls and procedures to guard against diversion—all of which fueled illicit access at the expense of public health and safety.

1