Find out just what people will submit to, and you will find out the exact amount of injustice and wrong that will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows or with both.

The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those they Oppress.

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., 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., M.B.A., 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

🥀 🥀 🥀

🥀 🥀

Introduction

A former DEA agent shares his experiences, highlighting how the “war on drugs” mainly targeted urban, mostly Black communities.

The transcript from the YouTube channel “Breaking Points” features an interview with Seth Harp, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, discussing his upcoming book, The Fort Bragg Cartel, which explores the US government’s alleged support for international drug cartels in Afghanistan.

Harp’s discussion focuses on the dramatic 99% decrease in poppy cultivation in Helmand Province after the US withdrawal, which contrasts sharply with the increase during which Afghanistan became the world’s leading producer of heroin.

The former DEA agent directly quotes a superior who admitted that targeting drug offenses in wealthy white neighborhoods could lead to a political backlash. 

The former DEA agent further argued that consistent enforcement across all demographics would have led to a quicker resolution of the drug war, pointing out the racial bias in its enforcement.

Meanwhile, Seth, which started with CIA support for Mujahideen or Afghan warlords during the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s, led to the large heroin trade, noting that these warlords were major drug traffickers.  

Harp highlighted in his interview that after the 2001 US invasion, the US-backed Afghan government effectively became the world’s largest drug cartel, legalizing poppy cultivation and overseeing a massive surge in heroin production that eventually created a global glut of the drug.

Sadly, the media, particularly those within the progressive mindset,  chose to fall prey to falsely exalting claims by law enforcement of blaming pharmaceutical manufacturers for overzealous promoting over-prescribing by medical providers of dangerous drugs, “Opioids” in cocktail combination, precipitating addiction, overdose, and death. January 30, 2026,

In this critique, Walter R. Clement argues that the Drug Enforcement Agency committed gross constitutional violations by targeting small, minority-owned pharmacies through the use of defective warrants and arbitrary legal standards.

He contends that the agency overstepped its authority by acting as an unregulated medical body, replacing the statutory requirement of probable cause with vague, non-legal concepts such as “red flags” like patient travel distance.

The text highlights a troubling pattern of racial profiling, noting that African American-owned businesses were raided while nearby white-owned facilities performing identical services remained untouched.

Clement asserted that the DEA’s actions constitute a failure to train its agents in pharmacological realities, resulting in a systemic violation of the Fourth Amendment and the illegal disruption of legitimate medical commerce.

 

🥀

GREG CARR:

For years, Dr. Norman J. Clement argued that the DEA was turning undefined “red flags,” professional disagreements, and what a pharmacist should have known into proof of illegal drug dispensing. He lost his pharmacy registration and his court challenge. But Clement was not alone in identifying the problem. Pharmacy organizations and legal scholars were raising the same warning before his appeal was over. Then came Ruan, Ridley’s Family Markets, and, finally, the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Neumann’s Pharmacy v. DEA. None automatically reverses what happened to Clement. Together, however, they make his years-long warning considerably harder to dismiss. … JUSTCRANKY

TALKING A GOOD GAME AND FAILING TO JOURNALISTICALLY LEAD

“The doctors would be—if they would find a hundred, two hundred dollars’ worth of deficiencies in a sizable audit, they would begin to extrapolate that, times the cost of all the medicines that were prescribed, the cost of laboratory tests that were done, and doctors were being asked to pay back more money, many times over more money than they had ever personally received from Medicaid.”

…Dr. Peter Dwyer. #LegalizedExtortion

According to Dr. Victor Horsley, DPM, the government targets independent physicians—particularly older doctors of color—through systemic regulatory, financial, and legal mechanisms:

• Watchdog Units and Presumption of Guilt: Federal and state agencies (such as the Office of Inspector General, HHS, and the FBI) established watchdog divisions that approach independent medical practices with a “guilty until proven innocent” mandate.
• Criminalizing Administrative and Clerical Errors: Minor record-keeping mistakes, missing documentation for performed procedures, or minor billing discrepancies are routinely elevated to criminal theft and fraud charges.
• Investigator Financial Incentives (Bounties): Medicaid fraud investigators were incentivized with performance bonuses—often up to 10% of the financial value of the busts or asset recoveries they executed against physicians.
• Disproportionate Targeting of Black and Independent Doctors: Independent practitioners between the ages of 50 and 70 with prosperous practices and significant personal savings are heavily targeted. In particular, Black physicians who serve poor or elderly Medicaid populations are subjected to aggressive audits and demands for retroactive paybacks.
• Financial Shakedowns and Asset Forfeiture: Regulators levy massive, sudden fines (often tens of thousands of dollars demanded within days) that quickly escalate to millions in court.

GREGG CARR: IGNORING THE WORK OF THE LATE DR. WALTER F. WRENN, MD, and

THE FAILURE OF CLINICAL OUTCOMES

the stereotype of pain

By Walter R. Clement

On February 14, 2018, Special Agents, or Task Force Officers, of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice conducted a raid pursuant to a signed search warrant that failed to describe or define the elements of a crime.  This search warrant was defective in that it failed to illustrate and support the rudimentary descriptions defining Probable Cause.  

The investigator wrote, “Application having been made, and probable cause as defined by 21 U.S.C. § 880(d)(1) having been shown by the affidavit of Diversion Investigator Norita N. Persaud, United States Drug Enforcement Administration, for an inspection of the controlled premises of Aarric, Inc., dba At Cost Rx, 16970 San Carlos Boulevard, Suite 110, Fort Myers, FL 33908, with DEA number FA2125640, it appears that said inspection is appropriate under 21 U.S.C. § 880”. 

The investigator agent clearly expressed his knowledge of probable cause as defined by 21 U.S.C. § 880(d)(1).  Yet, he did not, within the search warrant, describe the place to be searched or the descriptive elements that would support and clearly identify any elements of a crime that would allow a reasonable officer to conclude that probable cause exists.  

The signed warrant authorized the investigating Agent “to seize from the above-described controlled premises such of the following records, information, reports, documents, files, and inventories, as are appropriate and necessary to the effective accomplishment of the inspection, and for the purpose of copying or verifying their correctness, or that are used or intended to be used in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, whether in electronic or printed media format as noted above”. 

The Supreme Court has defined “probable cause” as an officer’s reasonable belief, based on circumstances known to that officer, that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925). This inspection warrant lacked sufficient evidence to support probable cause. The act of inspecting the premises was not based on a reasonable officer’s suspicion.   

As a nation, we must fear that a law enforcement officer could obtain a baseless warrant and search a premises at will.  The DEA’s act of inspecting without cause violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the people’s right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”   

After the inspection, the investigating officer were further authorized to seize legally sanctioned ‘Class two, three, and four controlled substances’ from the premises.

The agent wrote “Such of the following records, information, reports, documents, files and inventories, as are appropriate and necessary to the effective accomplishment of the inspection, and for the purpose of copying or verifying their correctness, or that are used or intended to be used in violation of the Controlled Substances Act whether in electronic or printed media format”.  This inspection warrant is a document to be examined.  However, nothing in the warrant authorized the inspection to determine whether a crime occurred.   

The 4^th Amendment clearly establishes the basis for search and seizure.  The agents failed to address the elements of evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure.  Under “Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), any evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence must also be suppressed.” Thus, courts have a fiduciary duty to safeguard the public, since the criminal justice system exists to protect it from harm.  Such acts within this search are an assault upon every American.  If our protections are eroded, then whom shall we depend upon if the police and the courts act at will?  

Return all items taken and redress all monetary losses to the operator-owner of Aarric, Inc., Rx, 16970 San Carlos Boulevard, Suite 110, Fort Myers, FL 33908. Our constitution stands on years of rulings and reforms.

AUGUST 29, 2019 

“..We are “One Nation Under God, with Liberty and Justice for All.”  

All the while, the former DEA agent’s narrative underscores the social and political factors that shaped drug enforcement policy and its consequences. The agent’s testimony emphasizes the racial inequities embedded within the system.

DISCUSSION

“..the rule depends on the people…the rule of law is an abstract concept, and it’s easy to lose it. If the horse gets out of the barn or the genie gets out of the bottle, pick your metaphors… it’s going to be very, very difficult to recreate the norms we hold dear…” PROF. JAMES SAMPLE, HOFSTRA LAW

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8NaNHTc/

THE SIMPLE “SYMONES OF WHURD” PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

The Field of medicine is undergoing a slow erosion in medical professionals. How are PDMP data being used by law enforcement, particularly the DEA, and what are some potential concerns related to this?

Statistical models are sometimes used to identify aberrant patterns that may indicate criminal activity, such as fraudulent billing or medication abuse. The DEA can only investigate crimes where they can look for them, and PDMP data provides a basis for investigations into patients, prescribers, and pharmacies involved with opioids.

Predictive Analytics Is Not Prognosis increasingly, physicians are confronted by algorithmic “risk scores” derived from proprietary actuarial models — NarxCare, Optum’s predictive platforms, or insurer-built AI triage tools. These systems claim to forecast overdose risk, treatment compliance, or likely hospitalizations.

But their mechanics are opaque, protected as trade secrets, and exempt from transparency under FOIA and Right-to-Know denials.

When doctors are expected to act on predictions they cannot verify, medicine shifts from science to faith-based bureaucracy. No clinician would prescribe a treatment without reviewing trial data — yet we are required to rely on algorithmic risk scores whose statistical validity cannot be confirmed daily. This is not risk management; it is a deliberate abdication.

ALPHA PHI ALPHA INC. STOOD UP

Those of knowledge, particularly those of color, are being targeted by this war on drugs, that is a war on all American healthcare through scam investigations, scam indictments using inflammatory talking points, pill mills, drug dealers in white coats from Drug Enforcement Law Enforcement armed with badges, guns, with a profound stupidity of pain care. 

The medical profession has become the most manageable Enforcement target because, unlike drug cartels, they are not armed with M-60 machine guns, grenades, or Narco-Submarines.

2. How did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approach the issue of opioid prescribing, and what subsequent reassessment occurred regarding their 2016 guidelines?

🥀🥀🥀

ARGUMENT

THE AFGHANISTAN PROTOCOLS COMPROMISE BY FOREIGN POLICY EXPEDIENCY

Corruption in Conflict: Afghanistan’s Reconstruction Challenge 

The text is an extensive report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), titled “Corruption in Conflict,” which analyzes the pervasive issue of corruption in Afghanistan following Operation Enduring Freedom.

This document systematically details how corruption undermined the U.S. mission across security, governance, and economic sectors from the outset and became an existential threat to the Afghan state.

The report identifies key drivers of corruption, such as the massive influx of U.S. reconstruction funds and alliances with malign powerbrokers, including warlords, and reviews the often uncoordinated and limited U.S. government responses across three distinct phases.

SIGAR concluded that security and political goals repeatedly overshadowed decisive anticorruption actions, and it offers numerous legislative and executive branch recommendations to prevent similar failures in future contingency operations.  

🥀🥀🥀

Afghanistan’s Counternarcotics Efforts: A Strategic Assessment

The document, stemming from SIGAR’s Lessons Learned Program, details the failed U.S. counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2017, despite an allocation of approximately $8.62 billion.

The core finding is that no program—including interdiction, eradication, or alternative development—resulted in lasting reductions in opium poppy cultivation, which reached record highs and continued to finance insurgent groups like the Taliban.

SIGAR concludes that the failure was rooted in a lack of consistent political will, inadequate security, flawed strategies that ignored local context, and a disjointed interagency approach that often worked at cross-purposes.

Ultimately, the findings suggest that the endemic drug trade continued to fuel insurgency, corruption, and instability, recommending that future strategies prioritize disrupting insurgent financing and promoting licit livelihoods.

THE TALIBAN’S HEROIN REDUCTION AND ERADICATION RECORD VS. D.E.A. (U.S. DRUG ADMINISTRATION

🥀 🥀

CIA-DEA-DOD Complicity and the Afghan Opium Trade

This document is Volume 2 of the “Afghanistan Drug Insights” series published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), focusing specifically on 2024 Opium Production and Rural Development.

The broader series aims to provide recent and in-depth analysis on the regional drug situation in Afghanistan, particularly examining the challenges faced by farmers following the ban on opium poppy cultivation.

Despite an investment of approximately $8.62 billion, the document concludes that U.S. counterdrug programs failed to produce lasting reductions in opium cultivation and production, which reached record highs.

The analysis breaks down U.S. activities into four main strands—interdiction and law enforcement, eradication, alternative development, and mobilizing political support—and discusses the internal disagreements, conflicting priorities, and lack of political will that undermined these efforts.

According to WILLIAM BYRD, SENIOR AFGHANISTAN EXPERT: Byrd’s Analysis of Afghanistan Under the Taliban Overview: This briefing summarizes key insights from William Byrd’s analyses published by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) in 2024.

Byrd, a development economist with extensive experience in Afghanistan and the broader region, focuses on the economic consequences of the Taliban’s policies, particularly the opium ban, and the impact of reduced international aid.

His analyses consistently highlight the complex and often detrimental impacts of these policies on the Afghan population, particularly the rural poor. He emphasizes that simply providing aid is not a sustainable solution and calls for broader, more comprehensive development strategies.

The Devastating Economic Impact of the Opium Ban: Byrd consistently identifies the opium ban as a major driver of economic hardship in Afghanistan. While the ban has been praised internationally,

Byrd stresses its negative consequences: Increased Poverty: “The ban has deepened the poverty of millions of rural Afghans who depended on the crop for their livelihoods…” Political Instability: “…worsen dissatisfaction and political tensions…If the ban remains in place…worsen rural poverty, increase dissatisfaction among landholders and spur political instability.”

Bryd writes: “Different sharecropping agreements determine what portion of the final yield goes to the farmer, and what portion goes to the landowner.89 Landowning households with greater socioeconomic status that can afford production inputs, like land, water, and fertilizer, have an economic advantage over the landless and land-poor.

For example, a sharecropper who cannot afford to contribute to the production cost of the land may receive only a fifth of the final crop yield.90 Inequitable sharecropping arrangements and the stockpiling of opium to sell at a later date when the prices are higher allow landowners to accrue greater profit..” 

Byrd further writes: “Understanding the roles of different socioeconomic groups that participate…in poppy cultivation is critical for developing effective and sustainable interventions.

As William Byrd and Doris Buddenberg noted, the varying levels of household dependency on opium and different ways they benefit from the crop imply “that there is diversity in households’ responses to shocks like elimination of opium poppy cultivation.”91 Counternarcotics efforts, such as crop eradication, have had unintended effects, including local economic contraction and increased poverty. Coercive measures have also resulted in poppy cultivation being pushed to other geographic areas or even intensified.

According to some analysts, such measures have increased support for the Taliban and other anti-government elements.92 Counternarcotics programs that ignore local variations and do not account for the reasons why certain groups participate in poppy cultivation run the risk of being ineffective or counterproductive.93 “

When the United States and its coalition partners intervened in Afghanistan
in 2001, poppy cultivation was at a 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)

This low level of cultivation, however, was an anomaly, and policymakers knew the drug trade could pose serious challenges to the reconstruction effort. Counternarcotics was included as one of the five pillars of the Security Sector Reform (SSR) framework established at a 2002 donor nation conference, at which the UK agreed to serve as the lead nation for counternarcotics.

These insights are designed to inform effective policy and programming regarding the supply and demand of drugs both within Afghanistan and across the wider region. 

The report utilizes data gathered through various methods, including the Afghanistan Opium Surveys, to provide a detailed picture of the impact of the drug ban on both Afghanistan and neighboring countries.

🥀 🥀 🥀 🥀

The list of targeted and prosecuted physicians

This document, titled “AUSA Napoleon P.J.’s List of Prosecuted Doctors,” specifically from a court case file, presents lists of individuals who appear to be medical professionals prosecuted in some capacity.

The initial, longer list, labeled “Appendix A (‘Schindler’s List’ of Targeted and Prosecuted Physicians)”, provides the full name, degree (or profession), and year of birth for each person.

A subsequent, shorter list, “Appendix B (List of Prosecuted Health Professionals with Potential Jewish Origin),” adds a column indicating race/ethnicity and an estimated age at the end of 2020. Together, these appendices seem to serve the purpose of documenting and categorizing medical professionals who have been subject to prosecution.

Former DEA Agent Matthew Fogg reveals a deeply troubling picture of racial bias embedded within the Drug Enforcement Administration. The agent’s account offers powerful evidence that the “war on drugs” is not about combating drug use but rather a tool that disproportionately impacts minority communities, protecting the powerful and affluent from the same legal consequences.

It underscores the need to critically examine law enforcement practices and the pursuit of equal justice for all. The agent’s personal journey strongly condemns the system.

In this argument, Disinformation is when medical community members warn providers of DEA information, but they are ignored or purged of the online disinformation, which is insidious. Either strategy, if a lie supports their position, or science is being silenced.

The central argument of Agent Fogg is that the “war on drugs” is not applied equitably, targeting primarily urban minority areas. Mr. Fogg noticed that when he entered the “war room” where they decided which cities to target, “most of the time it always appeared to be urban areas.”

“THE BLACK FOURTH ESTATE WOULD LEAD NOT ON BLACK ISSUES BUT ON ALL ISSUES OF THE UNIVERSE“

This observation led him to question why affluent, predominantly white areas were not targeted to the same degree, as he notes, “Statistics show they use more drugs out in those areas than anywhere.”

Ours is the only country (USA) stupid enough to have its policy regarding pain management/prescriptions opiate use set by law enforcement rather than physicians.

Federal Agent Matthew Fogg contends that the unequal application of drug laws is deliberate and rooted in racism. He argues, “What I began to see is that the drug war is totally about race.”

He further explains, “If we were locking up everybody -white and black, for doing the same drugs -they would have done the same thing they did with prohibition. They would have outlawed it. They would have said, ‘Let’s stop this craziness. You’re not putting my son in jail. My daughter isn’t going to jail.'”

This statement sadly suggests that if the war on drugs had equally impacted white families, there would be pressure to end it due to their higher political influence. This shows that the people in power do not prioritize black people’s kids as they do their own.

According to Barbara McQuade, “Disinformation is the deliberate use of lies to manipulate people, whether to extract profit or to advance a political agenda.

Its unwitting accomplice, misinformation, is spread by unknowing dupes who repeat lies they believe to be true” (pg 5).”

Racial Bias in Drug Enforcement: A GOOD VILLIAN OF GUYS WITH DARK SKIN

Is this considered ‘Standard Operating Procedure’ by our federal law enforcement authorities? Using active crack cocaine addicts to infiltrate medical facilities to try and set up healthcare professionals to commit prescription drug crimes? Asking for a friend…

U.S. v. Bothra pic.twitter.com/Gkw9SLPuUX

— Christopher R. Russo, M.D. (@Ledhedd2) January 31, 2025

Pg 17: What do these talk show hosts do unwittingly or not sanction DEA?

“Red flags” are subjective indicators that a prescription might be fraudulent or intended for diversion. Examples include prescribing certain drug combinations, frequent prescribing of high doses, and patients traveling long distances to fill prescriptions. The article contends that the DEA’s reliance on “red flags” is problematic because it often fails to consider legitimate IVs, which can lead to the unjust targeting of healthcare providers who are simply treating patients in pain. The DEA has utilized the concept of “red flags” (indicators of potential diversion or abuse) to assess a pharmacy’s corresponding responsibility. Understand Pronto Pharmacy’s argument against the DEA’s reliance on unresolved “red flags” alone. Indicators or warning signs that a prescription for a controlled substance may not be for a legitimate medical purpose or maybe the result of diversion or abuse.

Disinformation which threatens to destroy healthcare in America and eventually the United States of America as we know it

“AI can manufacture fake information faster and better than humans can.

In her book, Macquade discusses the long-term implications and ongoing harms being inflicted on democracy, our national security, the rule of law, and the notion that we resolve our differences in courts according to a shared set of rules rather than taking the law into our own hands to deliver our preferred outcomes” (pg 18).

CLICK HERE ON FACEBOOK LINK BELOW

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/15CTr6E1kN/?mibextid=wwXIfr

DEA DRUG ADDLED CRIMINALS ORDER OVER LAW PG /48-269

The media wants to believe. The phrase describes a human inclination to believe in things despite the lack of an evidentiary foundation pg 25

DR. HARVEY JENKINS MD, HARVARD TRAINED YET VIEWED AS UPPIDTYAND ARROGANT  

DRUG POLICY WHICH LED TO THE MURDERS OF DRS. PRESTON PHILLIPS AND STEPHENIE HUSEN, MD

Data published by the CDC itself completely discredits the notion that doctors prescribing to their patients are or ever were responsible for the US opioid crisis.  Both the CDC and DEA have known this reality for years.

US CDC and US DEA are usurping missions delegated to the FDA by law in the establishment of safety standards for prescription drugs. 

The consequence of this usurpation is the ongoing destruction of American pain medicine.

CDC prescribing guidelines can be shown to incorporate outright fraud, including failure to address genetically mediated opioid metabolism, misrepresentation of the effectiveness of non-opioid alternative therapies, one-size-fits-all MMED dose criteria unsupported by science, and misrepresentation of opioid therapy, especially high-dose opioid therapy, as ineffective for long-term use.

In the Appeal of Howard Adelglass, MD, of New York, the DEA even went so far as to interpret another agency’s Opioid guidelines (the CDC’s) as law. First, the WHO told the CDC to make guidelines. Second, these guidelines state that they were directed to primary care Physicians, NOT Pain Specialists. They also state that they were guidelines, NOT laws.

ENSLAVE YOUR MINES ON FRIDAY

Yet The DEA, without authority, targeted physicians by partnering with insurance companies ( who have NO federal power but have access to personal information about doctors and Pharmacist), creating algorithms that are unproven, unscientific, racist, ageist, anti-Semitic, and targeting entrepreneurial physicians and pharmacist’s that are making money.

exposING the racial profiling inherent in these practices and the controversial financial incentives that allow law enforcement

This news transcript reveals a troubling practice at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson Airport where plainclothes DEA agents target departing passengers, particularly Black men traveling to Los Angeles, for “cold consent” searches. These searches, often initiated on the jet bridge, rarely yield drugs but frequently result in the seizure of large sums of cash, even though it’s legal to travel domestically with any amount of currency.

The report highlights instances where innocent travelers had their money confiscated under civil forfeiture laws, which uniquely burden individuals to prove their money is not drug-related. This investigative piece exposes the racial profiling inherent in these practices and the controversial financial incentives that allow law enforcement to keep the seized funds, prompting a bipartisan effort in Congress to reform these asset forfeiture laws and protect innocent citizens from unwarranted government intrusion.

The DEA then seizes these physicians’/pharmacists’ assets, blackmails patients who are breaking the law (by lying and testifying against physicians /pharmacists), and then hands the cases over to the ASAs.

To make matters worse, the data the CDC used to create the guidelines was flawed. (It was finally corrected in 2020 after being mandated by Congress in 2018.)

The new data showed that doctors were NOT responsible for the Opioid epidemic—however, The new Guidelines Caused a rise in overdoses, and suicides increased by 167%. In contrast, Opioid prescriptions by physicians decreased by 46%.

These new guidelines empowered Law Enforcement to arrest and curtail a high % of physician practices and have led to an epidemic of untreated pain and suffering nationally. These guidelines caused 30% of veterans on opioids to commit suicide as they were forced to taper off Opioids. (CDC stats.)This occurred because the VA followed the CDC guidelines. 

These agencies need to be reined in!!!

https://www.tiktok.com/@felixbrizuela675/video/7256840091316833579?_r=1&_t=8eqBmOqqlcU

https://x.com/UrWithintheNorm/status/1702540918341939679?s=20

https://x.com/UrWithintheNorm/status/1702540918341939679?s=20

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:

Source Material Review: “They told this DEA agent not to enforce drug laws in white areas. Really. • SAFE KEEPERS”

Short Answer Quiz

1. What were the speaker’s initial responsibilities when he worked at the police station as a youth?
2. What two roles did the speaker fulfill when cross-designated with the DEA?
3. What name was given to the speaker while working with the DEA, and what is its implied meaning?
4. What types of tactics did the DEA use in the “war on drugs” that the speaker describes?
5. What pattern did the speaker notice in selecting cities targeted by the drug and addiction task force?
6. What question did the speaker ask about drug use in areas such as Potomac and Springfield, and what information did he use to support his claim?
7. What was the special agent in charge’s reasoning for avoiding drug enforcement in white suburban areas?
8. What does the speaker believe would have happened if drug laws were enforced equally across racial lines?
9. What specific historical example does the speaker point to in describing the potential outcome of equal enforcement?
10. According to the speaker, what fundamental concept is missing from how the “war on drugs” is enforced?

Answer Key

1. As a youth, the speaker’s job at the police station was primarily to move police cars. He would receive keys from officers and then drive or back their vehicles up.
2. When cross-designated with the DEA, the speaker served as both a US Marshall and a special agent for the DEA. This meant he held dual responsibilities.
3. The speaker was called “Batman,” a reference to Gotham City. This implies his job involved swooping in and attacking drug-related activities, much like the comic book character.
4. The DEA utilized aggressive tactics, similar to those used in war zones like Vietnam, when engaging in the “war on drugs.” They would raid locations in the middle of the night.
5. The speaker noted that the drug task force consistently targeted urban areas, leading him to question why suburban areas were not also targeted.
6. The speaker asked why areas like Potomac and Springfield were not targeted by the task force, pointing out that statistics indicated higher drug use in those places.
7. The special agent in charge avoided enforcing drug laws in white suburban areas due to their connections with judges, lawyers, and politicians. He feared that such individuals would retaliate against law enforcement.
8. The speaker believes that if drug laws were enforced equally across all racial lines, there would be a public outcry that would lead to drug prohibition.
9. The speaker illustrates his point by using Prohibition as an example. He suggests that public outcry among those who hold social power, as in the case of Prohibition, could have led to the end of the “war on drugs.”
10. The speaker believes the war on drugs lacks fairness and the underlying understanding of treating others as one would want to be treated.

Essay Format Questions

1. Analyze the speaker’s use of metaphor and personal anecdote to convey his message about the racial bias in drug enforcement.
2. Discuss how the speaker’s experiences as a youth working at the police station and then later as a DEA agent shaped his perspective on law enforcement.
3. Compare and contrast the policing tactics and targets of the “war on drugs” that are described in this interview with other historical or current law enforcement practices.
4. From an ethical perspective, evaluate the special agent in charge’s reasoning for avoiding drug enforcement in white areas.
5. Based on the speaker’s claims, explore the relationship between race, social power, and drug enforcement practices.

Glossary of Key Terms

• Cross-designated: Having been assigned to and authorized to work in two different roles or agencies simultaneously.
• Special Agent (DEA): A law enforcement officer working for the Drug Enforcement Administration who investigates drug-related crimes.
• US Marshal: A federal law enforcement officer responsible for protecting the federal judiciary, transporting federal prisoners, and apprehending fugitives.
• War on Drugs: A term used to describe the U.S. government’s campaign to combat drug use and trafficking, beginning in the 1970s.
• Urban Areas: Densely populated city or town areas, often characterized by high concentrations of people, commercial activity, and infrastructure.
• Suburban Areas: Residential areas located outside of a city, typically with lower population densities and a more residential character.
• Prohibition: A period in U.S. history (1920-1933) when the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages were illegal.
• Racial Bias: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination based on a person’s race.
• Overtime: Pay for hours worked beyond the regular working hours.
• Equal enforcement opportunity: Treating all individuals fairly under the same law.

At the outset, it is important to note that the non-medical use of prescription opioids and heroin use can lead to addiction and death. We know that more than 16,000 people lost their lives in 2010 to overdoses involving prescription opioids. These deaths represent not just a statistic, but our family members, friends, neighbors and colleagues who join others who lost their lives to heroin as well as a myriad of other drugs.

The extent of the lives lost to illicit and licit drug overdoses must be put into context. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported its analysis revealing that 38,329 people died from a drug overdose in the United States in 2010.1 Nearly 60 percent of those drug overdose deaths (22,134) involved pharmaceutical drugs. Opioid analgesics, such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone, were involved in about three of every four pharmaceutical overdose deaths (16,651), confirming the predominant role opioid analgesics play in drug overdose deaths.2

The cycle of abuse between licit and illicit opioids requires us to recognize that what these individuals and communities are facing is not a heroin or a prescription drug problem. It is an addiction problem. Heroin use and prescription drug abuse are both addictions that begin with use and are sustained and promoted through increased trafficking. This serious public health problem can be addressed by education, appropriate screening and treatment, recovery support, and enforcement. These initiatives can be effective regardless of whether the problem is fed by heroin or prescription drugs. The DEA supports all of these initiatives to address both prescription drug misuse and abuse and heroin use.

ABUSE OF PHARMACEUTICAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

According to the 2012 NSDUH, 6.8 million people over the age of 12 used psychotherapeutic drugs for non-medical reasons during the past month. This was higher than the users reported in 2011, but similar to the number of users reported between 2005 and 2010. This represents 29 percent of illicit drug users and is second only to marijuana in terms of popularity. There are more current users of psychotherapeutic drugs for non-medical reasons than current users of cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogens combined.

1 Drug Overdose in the United States: Fact Sheet. www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/overdose/facts.html (accessed Marc. 18, 2014).
2 Naloxone is an opiate antagonist that can rescue individuals who have overdosed on an opiate. Introduction of naloxone into the victim immediately reverses the affects of the opiate and can save a patient from the overdose. Naloxone is currently available as an injectable, however, police departments in several areas of the country such as Quincy, Massachusetts and Suffolk County, New York are using a nasal naloxone delivery method that is administered by police officers who are certified to carry and utilize the drug under established protocols. Police first responders generally arrive on the scene of an overdose well before emergency medical service personnel and in overdose situations, every second counts. The quicker that naloxone is administered the better chance for patient survival.

2

In 2012, 156,000 persons aged 12 or older used heroin for the first time within the previous 12 months, which was similar to estimates from 2007 to 2011. However, this was an increase from annual initiates during 2003 (92,000) and 2006 (90,000). Among recent initiates aged 12 to 49, the average age for first-time heroin use was 23.0 years, which was similar to the 2011 estimate (22.1 years).3 Notably, a special analysis by the NSDUH indicates that 81 percent of heroin initiates between the ages of 12 and 49 in 2008-2010 had previously used pain relievers non-medically.4

Non-medical prescription opioid use, particularly by teens and young adults, can easily lead to heroin use. Black-market sales for prescription-controlled substances are typically five to ten times their retail value. DEA intelligence reveals the “street” cost of prescription opioids steadily increases with the relative strength of the drug. For example, generally, hydrocodone combination products (a schedule III prescription drug and also the most prescribed drug in the country)5 can be purchased for as little as $5 to $7 per tablet. More potent drugs like oxycodone combinations (e.g., Percocet, a schedule II drug) can be purchased for as little as $7 to $10 per tablet. Even more potent prescription drugs are sold for as much as $80.00 per tablet or more in the case of the previous formulation of OxyContin 80 mg, and $30.00 to $40.00 per tablet for 30 mg oxycodone single entity immediate release or the 30 mg oxymorphone extended release. These increasing costs make it difficult, especially for teens and young adults, to purchase in order to support their addiction, particularly when many first obtain these drugs for free from the family medicine cabinet or friends. Not surprisingly, some users of prescription opioids turn to heroin, a much cheaper opioid, generally $10 per bag, which provides a similar “high” and keeps the drug seeker/abuser from experiencing painful withdrawal symptoms. This cycle has been repeatedly confirmed. For some time now, law enforcement agencies across the country have been specifically reporting an increase in heroin use by teens and young adults who began their cycle of abuse with prescription opioids.

Healthcare providers and the victims they treat are confirming this increase. According to some reporting by treatment providers, many individuals addicted to opioids will use whichever drug is cheaper and/or available to them at the time. Individuals addicted to opioids are anecdotally known to switch back and forth between prescription opioids and heroin, depending on

3 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
4 Gfroerer, Joe and Muhuri, Pradip. Association between nonmedical pain reliever use and heroin initiation. Presentation at ONDCP Interagency Meeting on Heroin. June 28, 2012.

5 On February 27, 2014, DEA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to move hydrocodone combination products from schedule III to schedule II, as recommended by the Assistant Secretary for Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and as supported by the DEA’s own evaluation of relevant data. This NPRM proposes to impose the regulatory controls and sanctions applicable to schedule II substances on those who handle or propose to handle hydrocodone combination products. The NPRM is available on the DEA’s website, www.dea.usdoj.gov. Members of the public are invited to submit comments or request a hearing. Electronic comments must be submitted, or written comments postmarked, by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on April 27, 2014. Requests for hearings must be submitted by March 31, 2014.

3

price and availability. Abusers who have recently switched to heroin are at high risk for accidental overdose. Unlike with prescription drugs, heroin purity and dosage amounts vary, and heroin is often cut with other substances, all of which could cause individuals with less tolerance to higher potency opioids to accidentally overdose.

A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO NON-MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION DRUG USE, DIVERSION AND AVAILABILITY

Non-medical drug use cannot be addressed through law enforcement action alone. The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s 2011 Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Plan, a multi-pronged approach that includes education, tracking and monitoring, proper medicine disposal, and enforcement is a science-based and practical way to address this national epidemic.

Education

The DEA educates the registrant population, including pharmacy personnel, as well as parents, community leaders and law enforcement personnel regarding diversion trends, the scope of the prescription drug diversion problem, and how to best address prescription drug diversion in communities throughout the United States.

DEA, along with state regulatory and law enforcement officials, and in conjunction with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, hosts Pharmacy Diversion Awareness Conferences (PDACs) throughout the country; to date, 34 separate PDACs have been held in 16 different states. Each one-day conference is held on a Saturday or a Sunday for the convenience of the pharmacy community. The conference is designed to address the growing problem of diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substances at the retail level. The conference addresses pharmacy robberies and thefts, forged prescriptions, doctor shoppers, and illegitimate prescriptions from rogue practitioners. The objective of this conference is to educate pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacy loss prevention personnel on methods to prevent and respond to potential diversion activity. In addition, the DEA Office of Diversion Control routinely makes presentations to the public, educators, community-based organizations, registrants, and their professional organizations, industry organizations, and law enforcement agencies regarding the diversion and non-medical use of pharmaceutical controlled substances.

DEA also established the Distributor Initiative Program in 2005 to educate registrants on maintaining effective controls against diversion, and monitoring for and reporting suspicious orders. This program was initially designed to educate wholesale distributors who were supplying controlled substances to rogue Internet pharmacies and, more recently, to diverting pain clinics and pharmacies. The goal of this educational program is to increase distributor awareness and vigilance so that they cut off the source of supply to these and other schemes. Wholesale distributors are required to design and operate a system that will detect suspicious orders and report those

4

suspicious orders to DEA. Through the Distributor Initiative Program, DEA educates distributors about their obligations under the CSA, as well as provides registrants with current trends and “red flags” that might indicate that an order is suspicious, such as the type of drug(s) ordered, orders of unusual size, orders that deviate from a normal pattern, frequency of orders, breadth and type of products ordered, and the location of the customer.

Monitoring

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are typically State-run electronic database systems used by practitioners, pharmacists, medical and pharmacy boards, and law enforcement. These programs are established through state legislation and tailored to the specific needs of each state. DEA strongly supports PDMP programs and encourages medical professionals to use them to detect and prevent doctor shopping and other forms of diversion. Currently, 48 states have an operational PDMP (meaning they collect data from dispensers and report information from the database to authorized users). Additionally, DEA makes its registrant database available to any state, without a fee, for use in their PDMP or in other state agencies charged with investigating healthcare fraud or controlled substance diversion. These programs, however, are only as good as the data in each system and the willingness of practitioners and pharmacists to use them consistently.

Medication Disposal

Another factor that contributes to the increase of prescription drug diversion is the availability of these drugs in the household. In many cases, dispensed controlled substances remain in household medicine cabinets well after medication therapy has been completed, thus providing easy access to non-medical users, accidental ingestion, or illegal distribution for profit. Accidental ingestion of medication, including a controlled substance, by the elderly and children, is more likely when the household medicine cabinet contains unused medications that are no longer needed for treatment. The medicine cabinet also provides ready access to persons, especially teenagers, who seek to use these medications non-medically. Removing household medication that is unwanted or no longer needed is a key component to limiting the availability of and access to these drugs by children and drug seekers for non-medical purposes.

DEA has responded to this problem by coordinating, every six months, Nationwide Prescription Drug Take-Back Days with our Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement partners. Prescription drug take-back days are convenient opportunities for the public to safely dispose of unused, unwanted or expired medications. Since September 2010, DEA has held seven Nationwide Prescription Drug Take-Back Days. On October 26, 2013, the most recent Nationwide Take Back Day, 647,211 pounds (324 tons) of prescription medications were collected from members of the public. Collectively, the seven Nationwide Take Back Days have removed a total of 3.4 million pounds (1,733 tons) of medication from circulation. The eighth national take-back day is scheduled for April 26, 2014.

5

In addition, DEA is fully engaged in ensuring proper disposal of controlled substances and is developing a final rule implementing the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act. The Act authorizes DEA to promulgate regulations allowing additional ways for Americans to dispose of their unwanted or expired controlled substance medications in a secure and responsible manner. DEA’s goal is to implement the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010 by expanding the options available to safely and securely collect pharmaceutical controlled substances from ultimate users for purposes of disposal, to include: take-back events, mail-back programs, and collection receptacle locations. With the final regulations on the horizon, the DEA hopes that all Americans will be able to remove unwanted controlled substances more readily from their households, thereby helping to reduce diversion and the public health concerns regarding these substances.

Enforcement

Over the past several years, DEA has uncovered two types of illegal schemes used to divert powerful and addictive controlled substance pharmaceuticals. Florida was the epicenter of many illegal operations whereby hundreds of millions of dosage units of controlled substances were diverted into the illicit marketplace across the United States. Between 2005 and 2009, the diversion of millions of dosage units of schedule III hydrocodone products was facilitated by rogue internet pharmacies and unscrupulous prescribers who provided prescriptions to drug seekers utilizing these sites. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act that took effect in April 2009 responded to the explosion of domestic rogue internet pharmacy diversion. This law, combined with intensified law enforcement and regulatory actions, virtually eliminated domestic- based rogue internet pharmacies that were involved in internet distribution of prescription opioids.

As the number of domestic, Internet-based pharmacies began to decline in 2008, law enforcement observed a significant rise in the number of rogue pain clinics, particularly in Florida.6 Instead of hydrocodone combination products, the practitioners in these clinics dispensed millions of dosage units of oxycodone, a schedule II controlled substance that is just as dangerous as hydrocodone combination products when taken for a non- medical use. There was a sharp increase in pain clinics located in the tri-county area of South Florida (comprised of Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach Counties) in 2009. According to data provided by the State of Florida, by 2010, Broward County alone was home to approximately 142 rogue pain clinics. Federal, state and local law enforcement investigations identified thousands of drug seekers that routinely traveled to Florida-based rogue pain clinics to obtain pharmaceutical controlled and non-controlled substances, such as oxycodone, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol, alprazolam, clonazepam, and carisoprodol. They then would travel back to their home states and illegally distribute the drugs that ultimately flooded the illicit market in states along the entire East Coast and the Midwest.

6 It addition, the amount of heroin seized at the South West border increased over 300 percent from 2008 to 2013. 6

Not unexpectedly, increased diversion leads to increased enforcement activity. The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) collects results of drug chemistry analyses conducted by Federal, state, and local forensic laboratories across the country. As such, NFLIS can provide detailed analytical results of drugs seized by law enforcement, including trends in the diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substances into illegal markets.

As of December 2013, 49 state laboratory systems, 96 local laboratory systems, and one territorial laboratory system were participating in NFLIS. In 2012, an estimated 1.6 million drug analysis records were reported to participating NFLIS state and local laboratories. The increase in opioid pain medication analyses conducted by NFLIS-reporting laboratories from 2001 to 2012 is staggering: 275 percent for oxycodone, 197 percent for hydrocodone, and 334 percent for morphine.

DEA intelligence reveals that heroin trafficking organizations are relocating to areas where the non-medical use of prescription drugs is on the rise. Correspondingly, NFLIS shows an increase in the heroin cases and reports 7:

This Cato Institute paper, “The DEA’s War on Prescription Painkillers,” investigates the origins and consequences of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s increased focus on prescription opioid diversion since the late 1990s. The author, Ronald T. Libby, argues that the DEA’s aggressive law enforcement tactics, modeled on the War on Drugs, have frightened physicians away from prescribing necessary pain medication, leading to the undertreatment of chronic pain for millions of Americans.

Libby contends that media-fueled hysteria surrounding drugs like OxyContin, often based on flawed data, has exacerbated this problem and that the DEA’s self-funded structure creates incentives for targeting physicians. The paper draws parallels to the historical persecution of doctors under the Harrison Act and concludes by advocating for a cessation of the DEA’s aggressive pursuit of pain doctors in favor of addressing illegal drug diversion through other means.

Briefing Doc: The DEA’s War on Prescription Painkillers

Source: Ronald T. Libby, Treating Doctors as Drug Dealers: The DEA’s War on Prescription Painkillers, Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 545, June 16, 2005.

Main Themes:

• The undertreatment of pain in the United States. Libby argues that millions of Americans suffer from undertreated pain due to the government’s aggressive prosecution of doctors who prescribe narcotic painkillers.
• The DEA’s shift in focus from illicit drugs to prescription painkillers. Libby criticizes the DEA’s decision to target pain doctors as part of its “war on drugs”, arguing that it has created a climate of fear that prevents doctors from adequately treating their patients.
• The questionable justification for the DEA’s OxyContin campaign. Libby challenges the DEA’s claims about an “OxyContin epidemic” and argues that their data are flawed and risk assessments are inflated.
• The harmful effects of the DEA’s crackdown on pain management. Libby details the negative impact of aggressive DEA tactics on the doctor-patient relationship, including patient distrust and fear of being labeled an addict.
• The problematic nature of the DEA’s Diversion Control Program. Libby criticizes the program’s self-financing structure and lack of accountability, which he argues incentivizes targeting doctors for asset forfeiture.

Most Important Ideas/Facts:

• Untreated pain is a significant problem: “The American Pain Foundation… puts the number [of Americans suffering from pain] at 75 million—50 million from serious chronic pain (pain lasting six months or more), and an additional 25 million from acute pain caused by accidents, surgeries, and injuries.”
• Fear of prosecution deters doctors from treating pain: “A 2001 study of California doctors found that 40 percent said their fear of an investigation affected how they treated chronic pain.”
• The DEA’s focus on OxyContin mirrors the Harrison Act: “The OxyContin Action Plan bore a remarkable resemblance to the Harrison Act in that it enabled the federal government to prosecute physicians who prescribed an otherwise legal narcotic drug, due to unfounded fears of a ‘dope menace’ sweeping the country.”
• The DEA’s data on OxyContin deaths are misleading: “The DEA counts as an “OxyContin-related death” any death in which oxycodone is detected without the presence of aspirin or Tylenol… Obviously the mere presence of OxyContin in the system of the deceased, or the mere mention of the drug by friends or family members is far from verification that OxyContin… actually caused a premature death.”
• Media hype has contributed to fear of painkillers: “It would be difficult to overstate how much the Sentinel series contributed to nationwide OxyContin fears.”
• The DEA’s Diversion Control Program is self-financing and incentivizes targeting doctors: “It is a perverse system that allows law enforcement officials to keep the assets of suspected drug defendants for their own, local police departments.”
• The DEA has lowered its evidentiary standards: “The DEA continues to lower its evidentiary standards, making it nearly impossible for many doctors to determine what is and isn’t permitted.”
• Aggressive DEA tactics damage the doctor-patient relationship: “The DEA’s aggressive investigative procedures poison the doctor-patient relationship from both sides.”
• Doctors are being prosecuted despite lack of evidence of intent to profit: “The DEA now insists that prosecutors do not have to prove a doctor’s malicious intent or desire to profit from narcotics diversion to secure a conviction.”

Key Quotes:

• Dr. Russell K. Portenoy: ““The medical ambiguity is being turned into allegations of criminal behavior… We have to draw a line in the sand here, or else the treatment will be lost, and millions of patients will suffer.””
• Asa Hutchinson: “Hutchinson announced that the DEA would reallocate many of its resources from illegal drugs in urban areas to illicit prescription drugs in rural areas in order to address the emerging opioid threat.”
• Temple pharmacology professor Robert Raffa: “The idea that your mom will go into a hospital, be exposed to morphine, and automatically become an addict is just plain wrong.”
• Professor David Brushwood: “Five years ago, if law enforcement saw a problem beginning to develop… they would very early on go to the doctor or pharmacist and say, ‘We think there’s a problem here.’ By the same token, physicians or pharmacists felt comfortable calling law enforcement and saying, ‘Something strange is going on. Come help us out.’ It was a culture of early consultation. The early consult is gone.”

Conclusion:

Libby’s analysis paints a concerning picture of the DEA’s crackdown on prescription painkillers. He argues that the agency’s actions are driven by unfounded fears, flawed data, and a self-serving financial structure, and ultimately result in the denial of essential medical care to millions of pain patients.

DEA Tactical Diversion Squads (TDSs) investigate suspected violations of the CSA and other Federal and state statutes pertaining to the diversion of controlled substance pharmaceuticals and listed chemicals. These unique groups combine the skill sets of Special Agents, Diversion Investigators, and a variety of state and local law enforcement agencies. They are dedicated solely towards investigating, disrupting, and dismantling those individuals or organizations involved indiversion schemes (e.g., “doctor shoppers,” prescription forgery rings, and practitioners and pharmacists who knowingly divert controlled substance pharmaceuticals).

Between March 2011 and March 2014, DEA increased the number of operational TDS’s from 37 to 66. With the expansion of TDS groups across the United States, the number of diversion-related criminal and administrative cases has increased significantly.

7 In NFLIS, a “case” is a law enforcement investigation; a “report’’ is an analysis of an exhibit pertaining to an investigation. There are typically many reports in a single case.

1. What is the main issue discussed in the source?

The source, “Treating Doctors as Drug Dealers: The DEA’s War on Prescription Painkillers”, criticizes the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) aggressive crackdown on physicians who prescribe opioid painkillers. The author argues that this approach has created a climate of fear among doctors, leading to the undertreatment of pain for millions of Americans while doing little to address the root causes of prescription drug abuse.

2. Why is the DEA targeting doctors who prescribe painkillers?

The DEA argues that a small group of doctors is overprescribing painkillers, leading to a rise in addiction and diversion to the black market. Facing criticism for its perceived ineffectiveness in reducing the illegal drug supply, the DEA shifted its focus to prescription drugs, viewing doctors as easier targets compared to illicit drug dealers.

3. What is the evidence for an “OxyContin epidemic”?

The DEA’s claims of an “OxyContin epidemic” are based on flawed data and questionable methodology. The agency’s criteria for “OxyContin-related deaths” are broad, often attributing deaths to OxyContin based on mere presence of the drug without conclusive evidence of causation. Furthermore, the DEA fails to account for the significant number of OxyContin tablets that are stolen or diverted through channels other than doctors’ prescriptions.

4. How has the media contributed to the problem?

The media has largely accepted and amplified the DEA’s narrative about the dangers of prescription painkillers, often using sensationalistic language and failing to provide balanced reporting. This has contributed to public fear and misunderstanding about the legitimate medical use of opioids for pain management.

5. What are the consequences of the DEA’s crackdown for pain patients?

The DEA’s actions have made it increasingly difficult for legitimate pain patients to access the medication they need. Doctors, fearing investigation and prosecution, are reluctant to prescribe opioids, even to patients with severe chronic pain. This has left many patients suffering needlessly or resorting to dangerous alternatives.

6. How does the DEA investigate doctors suspected of overprescribing?

The DEA uses a “red flag” system to identify doctors for investigation. However, these red flags are often subjective and based on circumstantial evidence, leading to investigations of legitimate physicians. The agency employs aggressive tactics like surveillance, undercover agents posing as patients, and reviewing billing practices, creating an adversarial relationship with the medical community.

7. Is there a difference between physical dependence and addiction?

Yes, pain specialists make a critical distinction between physical dependence and addiction. Patients taking opioids for pain management may develop physical dependence, meaning their body requires the medication to function normally. However, this is distinct from addiction, which is characterized by compulsive drug-seeking behavior and harmful consequences. The DEA often fails to recognize this difference, leading to the misclassification of pain patients as addicts.

8. What are some solutions to the issues presented in the source?

The source advocates for several policy changes, including:

• Clearer guidelines and evidentiary standards for DEA investigations of physicians.
• Increased education and training for law enforcement officials on the legitimate medical use of opioids.
• Protection for pain patients from prosecution and harassment.
• Reform of asset forfeiture laws to prevent the abuse of power by law enforcement.
• Increased funding for research and development of alternative pain management therapies.

Ultimately, a more balanced and compassionate approach is needed to address the complex issue of prescription drug abuse while ensuring that legitimate pain patients have access to the care they need.

Timeline of Events

Early 20th 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, viewing them as enablers of addiction rather than healers.
• 1970: The Harrison Act is repealed and replaced with the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (DAPCA).
• 1975: The Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Moore upholds the criminalization of doctors treating addicts by prescribing controlled substances, confirming that doctors can be prosecuted for prescribing outside the “usual course of professional practice.”

Late 20th Century

• 1990s: The DEA focuses its resources primarily on illegal black market drugs like heroin, cocaine, and marijuana in urban areas.
• 1997: Positive media coverage highlights the undertreatment of pain and the efficacy of opioid therapy when properly administered.
• Late 1990s: Concerns about prescription drug abuse begin to emerge.

2000s

• 1999-2001: Congress criticizes the DEA for lack of progress in reducing the illegal drug supply. The Department of Justice rebukes the DEA for goals inconsistent with the National Drug Control Strategy, prompting the DEA to seek a new front for the War on Drugs.
• 2001:The DEA launches the OxyContin Action Plan, targeting the prescription painkiller OxyContin.
• Negative media coverage begins, linking OxyContin to heroin and fueling public fear.
• The Orlando Sentinel publishes a series on OxyContin overdoses, later found to be flawed and misleading, but significantly contributing to nationwide OxyContin fears.
• 2002:The DEA reallocates resources from illegal drugs in urban areas to prescription drugs in rural areas, focusing on combating the “illegal diversion” of legal medication.
• The DEA expands its reach through partnerships with state and local law enforcement agencies via task forces.
• The DEA justifies its OxyContin campaign by using flawed data and questionable interpretations of “OxyContin-related deaths.”
• 2003:The DEA doubles licensing fees for doctors and pharmaceutical companies to fund the Diversion Control Program, making doctors financially responsible for investigating colleagues.
• The DEA uses the threat of imprisonment to coerce pain patients into turning in their doctors.
• The National Association of Diversion Investigators (NADDI) conference focuses on targeting pain specialists and seizing their assets.
• Florida, fueled by the Sentinel series, becomes one of the most restrictive states for pain treatment.
• 2004:The DEA disavows its own pamphlet providing guidance to pain specialists on legal prescribing practices, reinforcing doctors’ fears of prosecution.
• Dr. William Hurwitz is convicted for prescribing opioids, despite no evidence of malicious intent or profit from diversion.
• Dr. Frank Fisher is acquitted of murder, fraud, and manslaughter charges 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 and the chilling effect on pain treatment.
• Media continues to perpetuate OxyContin fears despite evidence suggesting other sources of illicit drugs.

Cast of Characters

Government Officials & Agencies

• Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA): The federal agency responsible for enforcing drug laws. The DEA shifted its focus to prescription painkillers, particularly OxyContin, in the early 2000s, leading to aggressive investigations and prosecutions of doctors.
• Asa Hutchinson: DEA administrator during the launch of the OxyContin Action Plan. He played a key role in framing the narrative of OxyContin as a dangerous, widely abused drug, comparing it to heroin and cocaine.
• Glen A. Fine: Inspector General of the Department of Justice who questioned the DEA’s focus on illegal drugs and suggested they combat prescription drug abuse.
• Mark Lytle: U.S. Attorney who compared Dr. William Hurwitz to a street-corner crack dealer during his indictment.
• James McDonough: Florida director of drug control who praised the (flawed) Orlando Sentinel series on OxyContin and highlighted Florida’s aggressive actions against doctors.

Doctors

• Dr. William Hurwitz: Virginia pain specialist who was indicted on 60 counts, compared to a “street-corner crack dealer,” and ultimately convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison despite evidence suggesting his patients deceived him.
• Dr. Russell K. Portenoy: Pain specialist and pioneer in opioid pain therapy who criticized the DEA’s crackdown on pain doctors, arguing it would harm patients in need of pain relief.
• Dr. Frank Fisher: California physician who was falsely accused of murder, fraud, and drug diversion, enduring years of legal battles and asset seizures before being acquitted.
• Dr. John F. Lilly: Orthopedist and pain clinic proprietor investigated for diversion, accused of running a “pill mill.”
• Dr. James Graves: Former Navy flight surgeon convicted on four counts of manslaughter for prescribing oxycodone.
• Dr. Sarfraz Mirza: Convicted of trafficking in OxyContin.
• Dr. Asuncion Luyao: Prosecuted for prescription overdose deaths (case ultimately ended in a mistrial).
• Dr. Eli Schneider: Physician whose assets were seized before any charges were filed, highlighting the practice of asset forfeiture before due process.
• Dr. Ghassan Haj-Hamed: Kentucky physician whose clinic was accused of diversion, forcing him into a settlement with the DEA due to the financial strain of asset seizures.

Other Key Figures

• Doris Bloodsworth: Orlando Sentinel reporter who wrote the widely criticized series on OxyContin deaths, later resigning after the series’ inaccuracies came to light.
• Richard Paey: Florida pain patient with multiple sclerosis who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for possessing a large quantity of pain medication, even though it was for personal use.
• David Brushwood: University of Florida professor of pharmacy and lawyer who criticized the DEA’s shift to aggressive tactics and the breakdown of the previously cordial relationship between law enforcement and medical professionals.
• Detective Dennis M. Luken: Member of the Warren-Clinton Drug Task Force and treasurer of NADDI who advocated for seizing doctors’ assets to bolster law enforcement budgets.

Organizations

• National Association of Medical Examiners: Provided data on “OxyContin-related deaths” to the DEA, which was later criticized for its methodology and interpretation.
• National Association of Drug Diversion Investigators (NADDI): Organization focused on investigating and prosecuting pharmaceutical drug diversion, playing a key role in training law enforcement to target physicians.
• National Association of Attorneys General: Expressed concern about the DEA’s aggressive approach to fighting diversion and its negative impact on pain patients’ access to treatment.

This timeline and cast of characters provides a comprehensive overview of the key events and individuals involved in the DEA’s crackdown on prescription painkillers. It highlights the shift in the DEA’s focus, the flawed data and media coverage used to justify their campaign, the aggressive tactics employed against doctors and patients, and the consequences of this approach, including the chilling effect on pain treatment and the erosion of the doctor-patient relationship.

Enforcement: Diversion Groups

When the DEA was established in 1973, DEA regulated 480,000 registrants. Today, DEA regulates more than 1.5 million registrants. The expansion of the TDS groups has allowed Diversion Groups to concentrate on the regulatory aspects of enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. DEA has steadily increased the frequency of compliance inspections of specific registrant categories such as manufacturers (including bulk manufacturers); distributors; pharmacies; importers; exporters; narcotic treatment programs. This renewed focus on oversight has enabled DEA to take a more proactive approach to educate registrants and ensure that DEA registrants understand and comply with the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations.

The TDS’s and the Diversion Groups have brought their skills to bear on Florida-based pain clinics and as the pill mill threat is driven out of Florida and moves towards the north and northwest, DEA will continue to target the threat with the TDS groups’ proven law enforcement skills, the Diversion Groups’ regulatory expertise, and by educating registrants.

CONCLUSION

Non-medical prescription opioid use is a major factor contributing to the increase in heroin trafficking and use throughout the United States. Any long-term solution to reduce non-medical opioid use must include aggressive actions to address prescription drug diversion while educating the public about the dangers of the non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, educating practitioners on methods of diversion and trends of non-medical pharmaceutical use, and treating those individuals with substance use disorders. The increase in heroin use and non-medical prescription opioid use and trafficking leads to addiction. Preventing the availability of pharmaceutical controlled substances to non-medical users and educating practitioners and the public about pharmaceutical diversion, trafficking and abuse are priorities for the DEA. As such, DEA will continue to work in a cooperative effort with other Federal, state, local, and tribal officials, law enforcement, professional organizations, and community groups to address this epidemic. The DEA and our Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and regulatory counterparts are attempting to control the diversion of prescription opioids into the illicit marketplace, as well as controlling the rise in heroin use. The increase in heroin use derives, in part, from the non-medical use of prescription opioids and the addiction made possible by abuse and availability. DEA and its partners will continue to address this epidemic through a holistic approach.

A 60 Minutes/Washington Post investigation, as reported by CBS News, reveals how the opioid crisis in America was significantly worsened by the actions of the drug industry (distributors, manufacturers, and pharmacies) and the United States Congress. Former DEA agent Joe Rannazzisi, along with other DEA insiders, details how drug distributorsknowingly shipped excessive amounts of opioid pills to problematic pharmacies, ignoring legal requirements to report suspicious orders. Late 1990s:

This briefing document summarizes the key findings and allegations presented in the 60 Minutes report featuring former DEA agent Joe Rannazzisi. The report argues that the opioid crisis in the United States was significantly fueled by the actions (and inactions) of the pharmaceutical drug industry, including manufacturers and particularly distributors, aided by lobbying efforts and congressional legislation that weakened the DEA’s ability to control the flow of addictive painkillers. Rannazzisi and other former DEA officials detail how distributors allegedly ignored suspicious orders, prioritizing profit over compliance, while Congress passed a bill that severely hampered the DEA’s enforcement powers. The report paints a picture of an industry with immense influence leveraging its financial resources to undermine regulatory oversight during the height of the opioid epidemic.

Main Themes and Important Ideas/Facts:

1. Distributors as a Key Driver of the Opioid Crisis:

• Former DEA agent Joe Rannazzisi, who headed the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control, asserts that the drug distribution industry played a critical role in fueling the opioid crisis by “allow[ing] millions and millions of drugs to go into bad pharmacies and doctors’ offices, that distributed them out to people who had no legitimate need for those drugs.”
• Rannazzisi identifies Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen as the three largest distributors, controlling “probably 85 or 90 percent of the drugs going downstream.”
• He states unequivocally, “That’s not an implication, that’s a fact. That’s exactly what they did,” when asked if these companies knowingly pumped drugs into communities that were killing people.

1. Ignoring “Suspicious Orders” and Prioritizing Profit:

• Under the Controlled Substances Act, distributors are required to report and stop “suspicious orders” of opioids, such as unusually large or frequent shipments.
• DEA investigators, including Jim Geldhof, a 40-year DEA veteran, contend that many distributors ignored this requirement, driven by greed. Geldhof stated, “All we were looking for is a good-faith effort by these companies to do the right thing. And there was no good-faith effort. Greed always trumped compliance. It did every time.”
• The report highlights an example of a pharmacy in Kermit, West Virginia (population 392), ordering nine million hydrocodone pills over two years, which DEA officials considered a blatant “suspicious order.”

1. Weakening of DEA Enforcement Powers by Congress:

• The report focuses on a specific piece of legislation, introduced in the House by Congressman Tom Marino and Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, which aimed to change how the DEA could freeze suspicious shipments of narcotics.
• Jonathan Novak, a former DEA attorney, argues that this bill “essentially would strip the DEA of its most potent tool in fighting the spread of dangerous narcotics” by making it “nearly impossible” to hold wholesale distributors accountable.
• A Justice Department memo obtained by 60 Minutes stated that the bill “could actually result in increased diversion, abuse, and public health and safety consequences.”
• Former Attorney General Eric Holder also warned that the law would undermine law enforcement efforts.

1. Influence of the Drug Industry and Lobbying:

• Rannazzisi believes the drug industry, including manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and chain drugstores, exerted unprecedented influence over Congress through lobbying and financial resources. He stated, “Because I think that the drug industry — the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and chain drugstores — have an influence over Congress that has never been seen before. And these people came in with their influence and their money and got a whole statute changed because they didn’t like it.”
• The report notes that during the two years the “Marino bill” was considered, the drug industry spent $106 million lobbying Congress on this and other legislation.

1. The “Revolving Door” Phenomenon:

• The report highlights the movement of individuals between the DEA and the drug industry, often referred to as the “revolving door.”
• Linden Barber, a former DEA associate chief counsel, left the agency and within a month joined a law firm where he lobbied Congress on behalf of drug companies and even wrote the “Marino bill.” His advertisement stated he could assist clients facing DEA scrutiny.
• Jonathan Novak noted that former DEA attorneys working for the industry “know all of the — the — the weak points” in DEA cases and can influence their former colleagues. The report mentions at least 46 investigators, attorneys, and supervisors from the DEA being hired by the pharmaceutical industry and related law firms.

1. Pushback Against DEA Efforts and Rannazzisi’s Removal:

• Rannazzisi recounts instances where his efforts to hold distributors accountable faced pushback, including attorneys for the companies going over his head to the Justice Department.
• He believes his pursuit of large corporations led to increased scrutiny and ultimately his removal from his position. Matt Murphy, Rannazzisi’s lieutenant, suggested the industry may have used political ties and donations to have him removed.
• Congressman Marino, a sponsor of the bill weakening the DEA, requested an investigation into Rannazzisi for allegedly trying to “intimidate the United States Congress.”

1. The Passage of the “Marino Bill”:

• Despite warnings from the DEA and the Justice Department, the bill passed both the House and the Senate by unanimous consent, with little debate or recorded votes.
• President Barack Obama signed the bill into law without ceremony.
• DEA chief administrative law judge John J. Mulrooney assessed that the new legislation “would make it all but…impossible” to prosecute unscrupulous distributors.

1. Consequences and Lack of Accountability:

• Rannazzisi expresses regret that the opioid crisis unfolded “under my watch” and laments the fact that he was unable to arrest corporate officers involved in the decision-making process that fueled the epidemic.
• Despite the revelations, the report notes that Congress has taken no action to rewrite the law that weakened the DEA’s enforcement powers.
• While Congressman Marino’s nomination for drug czar was withdrawn after the 60 Minutes report, he is now running for re-election.

Key Quotes:

• Joe Rannazzisi: “This is an industry that allowed millions and millions of drugs to go into bad pharmacies and doctors’ offices, that distributed them out to people who had no legitimate need for those drugs.”
• Joe Rannazzisi: “That’s not an implication, that’s a fact. That’s exactly what they did.” (Regarding distributors knowingly pumping drugs into communities).
• Jim Geldhof: “All we were looking for is a good-faith effort by these companies to do the right thing. And there was no good-faith effort. Greed always trumped compliance. It did every time.”
• Jonathan Novak: “I would say it makes it nearly impossible.” (Regarding the impact of the “Marino bill” on going after wholesale distributors).
• Joe Rannazzisi: “Because I think that the drug industry — the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and chain drugstores — have an influence over Congress that has never been seen before.”
• John J. Mulrooney (DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge): The new legislation “would make it all but…impossible” to prosecute unscrupulous distributors.

Conclusion:

• Opioids like oxycodone and hydrocodone become a routine medical treatment for chronic pain.
• Drug companies assure doctors and Congress that these medications are effective and safe, with Purdue Pharma stating in a 2001 hearing that addiction is rare in properly managed pain patients.

Early 2000s:

• Opioid prescriptions skyrocket, leading to increased addiction.
• “Pill mills” (pain clinics with rogue doctors and complicit pharmacists) begin to emerge as a source for controlled narcotics.

Early to Mid-2000s:

• Joe Rannazzisi, head of the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control, observes the escalating opioid crisis and notes that it surpasses the crack epidemic.
• Rannazzisi’s team begins arresting unscrupulous doctors and pharmacists but realizes this is not stemming the overall epidemic.

Around 2008:

• The DEA starts focusing on drug distributors as a “choke point” in the opioid supply chain due to the massive quantities of pills they were shipping.
• McKesson is fined $13.2 million and Cardinal Health is fined $34 million by the DEA for filling hundreds of suspicious orders.

Around 2011:

• Over 17,000 Americans die from opioid prescription overdoses.
• Cardinal Health begins pushing back against Joe Rannazzisi’s aggressive approach, with company attorneys contacting the Justice Department.
• Rannazzisi vows to intensify efforts against the distributors.

Around 2013:

• Jonathan Novak, a DEA attorney, notices a “sea change” in how cases against large distributors are handled, with previously straightforward cases facing increased scrutiny and roadblocks.
• Jim Geldhof, a DEA investigator, experiences similar roadblocks in his investigations of distributors.
• The drug industry begins lobbying Congress for legislation that would weaken the DEA’s enforcement powers.
• Congressman Tom Marino and Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn introduce a bill in the House, purportedly to ensure patient access to pain medication. Joe Rannazzisi believes the bill will cripple the DEA’s ability to fight the opioid crisis.

2015:

• A Justice Department memo states that the proposed bill “could actually result in increased diversion, abuse, and public health and safety consequences.”
• An internal Justice Department email reveals that Linden Barber, a former DEA attorney who moved to a law firm representing drug companies, wrote the “Marino bill.”
• Former Attorney General Eric Holder warns that the new law would undermine law enforcement efforts.
• The pharmaceutical industry and related entities spend $106 million lobbying Congress on the bill and other legislation.
• Joe Rannazzisi testifies before Congress against the bill, leading to accusations from Congressman Marino that Rannazzisi accused him of supporting criminals.
• Marino and Blackburn request the Justice Department’s Inspector General to investigate Rannazzisi.
• Joe Rannazzisi is stripped of his responsibilities at the DEA and subsequently resigns.

March 2016:

• The “Marino bill” passes the Senate by unanimous consent with no objections or recorded votes.
• The bill passes the House in a similar manner.
• President Barack Obama signs the bill into law without a formal ceremony.

Post-Passage of the “Marino Bill”:

• Drug distributors declare victory, claiming the law will not limit DEA enforcement.
• DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney writes that the new legislation “would make it all but…impossible” to prosecute unscrupulous distributors.
• Seven months after the bill’s passage, Congressman Marino’s Chief of Staff, Bill Tighe, becomes a lobbyist for the National Association of Chain Drug Stores.
• Numerous DEA investigators, attorneys, and supervisors, including many from the Office of Diversion Control, leave the agency to work for the pharmaceutical industry and law firms representing them.
• The Justice Department, after the “60 Minutes” report airs, urges Congress to rewrite the law.
• Congressman Tom Marino, nominated to be President Trump’s drug czar, withdraws his nomination shortly after the “60 Minutes” report.
• Joe Rannazzisi consults with state attorneys general suing drug distributors.
• As of the time of the report, Congress has taken no action to repeal or replace the “Marino bill.”

Jason Hadges: A senior DEA attorney overseeing enforcement cases who joined the pharmaceutical and regulatory division of the law firm Hogan Lovells.

Joe Rannazzisi: Former Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control. A key whistleblower who exposed how the drug industry and Congress allegedly fueled the opioid crisis by allowing the unchecked distribution of millions of pills. He is highly critical of the distributors and the legislation that weakened the DEA’s enforcement powers.

Bill Whitaker: Correspondent for “60 Minutes” who conducted the interview with Joe Rannazzisi and investigated the opioid crisis.

Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen: The three largest drug distributors in the United States, controlling a vast majority of the drug distribution network. Rannazzisi and other DEA officials accuse them of fueling the opioid epidemic by failing to report and stop “suspicious orders” of opioids.

Jim Geldhof: A 40-year DEA veteran who ran pharmaceutical investigations from the DEA’s Detroit field office. He corroborates Rannazzisi’s claims about the distributors’ negligence and the DEA’s attempts to enforce regulations.

Frank Younker: Supervised the DEA’s operations in Cincinnati and was Rannazzisi’s supervisor. He echoes the frustration felt by DEA agents regarding the industry’s actions and the restrictions placed on their enforcement efforts.

Jonathan Novak: Former DEA attorney who prosecuted cases brought by Rannazzisi’s investigators. He witnessed a significant slowdown in the prosecution of large distributors around 2013 and attributes it to pressure from the industry and a change in approach within the DEA’s legal office. He believes the “Marino bill” made it nearly impossible to hold distributors accountable.

Tom Marino: Former Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania who co-sponsored the legislation that weakened the DEA’s enforcement powers. He defended the bill as a way to ensure patient access to pain medication and accused Joe Rannazzisi of misrepresenting the bill and intimidating Congress. He was nominated to be President Trump’s drug czar but withdrew his nomination after the “60 Minutes” report aired.

Marsha Blackburn: Republican Congresswoman from Tennessee who co-sponsored the bill. She defended the legislation and questioned Joe Rannazzisi during his congressional testimony. She is now running for the Senate.

Linden Barber: Former Associate Chief Counsel of the DEA who left the agency and became a lobbyist for a law firm representing drug companies. He is identified as the individual who wrote the “Marino bill.” He was later hired by Cardinal Health as a senior vice president.

Eric Holder: Former Attorney General of the United States who warned that the “Marino bill” would undermine law enforcement efforts to combat the opioid crisis.

Mitch McConnell: Senate Majority Leader who brought the “Marino bill” to the Senate floor, where it passed by unanimous consent.

Barack Obama: The President who signed the “Marino bill” into law without a formal ceremony.

John J. Mulrooney: DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge who wrote that the “Marino bill” would make it “all but…impossible” to prosecute unscrupulous distributors.

Bill Tighe: Congressman Tom Marino’s Chief of Staff who became a lobbyist for the National Association of Chain Drug Stores seven months after the “Marino bill” became law.

Matt Murphy: Former lieutenant to Joe Rannazzisi at the DEA who later became a consultant for the drug industry. He expresses shock at the animosity towards Rannazzisi and believes the industry lobbied for his removal.

Mike Gill: Chief of Staff for the DEA administrator who was hired by HDJN, a large healthcare law firm.

This investigative report further exposes how the drug industry lobbied Congress to pass legislation weakening the DEA’s enforcement powers, facilitated by former DEA attorneys who then represented the industry. The report suggests that profit motives overshadowed compliance and public safety, contributing to a crisis that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Yeah, sure. Tell us another one.