• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The drug industry’s triumph over the DEA

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,335
Reaction score
38,873
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...p-banner-main_deanarrative-hed:homepage/story
A Washington Post/‘60 Minutes’ Investigation
The chief advocate of the law that hobbled the DEA was Rep. Tom Marino, a Pennsylvania Republican who is now President Trump’s nominee to become the nation’s next drug czar. Marino spent years trying to move the law through Congress. It passed after Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) negotiated a final version with the DEA.

“The drug industry, the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and chain drugstores, have an influence over Congress that has never been seen before,” said Joseph T. Rannazzisi, who ran the DEA’s division responsible for regulating the drug industry and led a decade-long campaign of aggressive enforcement until he was forced out of the agency in 2015. “I mean, to get Congress to pass a bill to protect their interests in the height of an opioid epidemic just shows me how much influence they have.”
To deny US laws are not influenced by big Pharma and other large corps is to deny reality.
Just another nail in the coffin of draining the swamp.
Big Pharma 106 Mill spent between 2014-16 on lobbying Congress
1.5 Mil to the 23 pushing this bill thru
4 years DEA fought this bill and lost.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...p-banner-main_deanarrative-hed:homepage/story
A Washington Post/‘60 Minutes’ Investigation

To deny US laws are not influenced by big Pharma and other large corps is to deny reality.
Just another nail in the coffin of draining the swamp.
Big Pharma 106 Mill spent between 2014-16 on lobbying Congress
1.5 Mil to the 23 pushing this bill thru
4 years DEA fought this bill and lost.

That story is awfully thin on details about what exactly is supposedly so bad about the law. As someone who's not much of a fan of the DEA OR the "drug war," nothing in the story leaped out at me. Care to elaborate?

In any case, it was signed off on by the Lynch DoJ and signed into law by Barack Obama, so the "draining the swamp" dig is gratuitous.
 
That story is awfully thin on details about what exactly is supposedly so bad about the law. As someone who's not much of a fan of the DEA OR the "drug war," nothing in the story leaped out at me. Care to elaborate?

In any case, it was signed off on by the Lynch DoJ and signed into law by Barack Obama, so the "draining the swamp" dig is gratuitous.

Nope the man pushing it will be the new Drug Czar- prior to the change the DEA could hold shipments, check why susbtantial numbers of drugs were and where they were being shipped.

Nothing jumped out? OK some points from the link

The law was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled narcotics to the black market. The industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress, pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns.

For years, some drug distributors were fined for repeatedly ignoring warnings from the DEA to shut down suspicious sales of hundreds of millions of pills, while they racked up billions of dollars in sales.
 
Nope the man pushing it will be the new Drug Czar- prior to the change the DEA could hold shipments, check why susbtantial numbers of drugs were and where they were being shipped.

Umm . . . the bill was passed in April, 2016, with the blessing the DoJ, and signed into law by Barack Obama.

Nothing jumped out? OK some points from the link

There's a lot of innuendo there, but there's not a lot of concrete analysis. Actually citing the law itself, for example, would be nice.

And as I said, not particularly being a fan of the DEA or the drug war, I'm going to need that kind of detail in a piece which is flagrantly cheerleading for the DEA.
 
Umm . . . the bill was passed in April, 2016, with the blessing the DoJ, and signed into law by Barack Obama.



There's a lot of innuendo there, but there's not a lot of concrete analysis. Actually citing the law itself, for example, would be nice.

And as I said, not particularly being a fan of the DEA or the drug war, I'm going to need that kind of detail in a piece which is flagrantly cheerleading for the DEA.

It's Trump's fault and that's all you need to know.
 
It's Trump's fault and that's all you need to know.

The guy pushing it was a major supporter of this change- So no draining of the swamp, just throwing another alligator in the swamp- except he is for Big Pharma.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...p-banner-main_deanarrative-hed:homepage/story
A Washington Post/‘60 Minutes’ Investigation

To deny US laws are not influenced by big Pharma and other large corps is to deny reality.
Just another nail in the coffin of draining the swamp.
Big Pharma 106 Mill spent between 2014-16 on lobbying Congress
1.5 Mil to the 23 pushing this bill thru
4 years DEA fought this bill and lost.

Yep. Trump isn't draining the swamp. He is moving swamp dwellers into even higher positions of power.
 
It's Trump's fault and that's all you need to know.

There is a lot you need to know. But, I am not sure you'll ever bother trying to actually get to know it though.
 
Umm . . . the bill was passed in April, 2016, with the blessing the DoJ, and signed into law by Barack Obama.



There's a lot of innuendo there, but there's not a lot of concrete analysis. Actually citing the law itself, for example, would be nice.

And as I said, not particularly being a fan of the DEA or the drug war, I'm going to need that kind of detail in a piece which is flagrantly cheerleading for the DEA.

I'm watching this story right now on 60 minutes. Not good and the OP is ust a hint at the power Big Pharma has.
 
Yep. Trump isn't draining the swamp. He is moving swamp dwellers into even higher positions of power.

There is no way this is on Trump. Nice try though.
 
lol...right. It's only Trump's nominee we are talking about. :roll:

No, the threads about the Marino law and how it hurt the DEAs war on drugs.
 
The money and influence belongs with the insurance companies. Ask anyone in the health industry about how much power they have to influence laws and they'll probably point out continued abuse by insurance companies turning in record profits. Ask any pharmacist about PBM's underpaying for medications and doing dirty charge-backs at the pharmacy level and double charging rebates on patient copay's to screw them over. Talk to the MD's who increasingly have to deal with paperwork for insurance reasons or hospitals bending over for the insurance company to have their way. They 3rd party payer's have the biggest say in healthcare.

That said, there is an opioid epidemic but it's not the drug manufacturers fault. They don't need to push to MD's to prescribe narcotics, the drugs do that themselves. When's the last time you saw a commercial for an opioid? Hell the only one I've seen is for a new drug to reverse opioid induced constipation. The DEA needs to crack down on pill-mill prescribers doling out RX's for narcotics like candy and on the addicted patients who divert, seek, abuse, overdose, and continue on the cycle. That's where the biggest faults lie. There are so many clinics out there that push patients out in 10 minutes and they know to say "I have chronic pain, anxiety, and muscle spasms" and they leave with the trinity of a benzo, opioid, and some carisoprodol. It's far far far too common.
 
Last edited:
That story is awfully thin on details about what exactly is supposedly so bad about the law. As someone who's not much of a fan of the DEA OR the "drug war," nothing in the story leaped out at me. Care to elaborate?

In any case, it was signed off on by the Lynch DoJ and signed into law by Barack Obama, so the "draining the swamp" dig is gratuitous.
The swamp Trump ran on draining included Obama and much of the leadership team he had. Or at least it seems likely.

A nice vague term/phrase his supporters could cheer.

And I don't disagree with that swamp being drained, however much I disagree with Trump's idiocy being unable to do so, and/or his lies covering the fact he just wanted to dive in and get some of the muck for himself.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...p-banner-main_deanarrative-hed:homepage/story
A Washington Post/‘60 Minutes’ Investigation

To deny US laws are not influenced by big Pharma and other large corps is to deny reality.
Just another nail in the coffin of draining the swamp.
Big Pharma 106 Mill spent between 2014-16 on lobbying Congress
1.5 Mil to the 23 pushing this bill thru
4 years DEA fought this bill and lost.

I would say its more like collusion than domination.
 
That story is awfully thin on details about what exactly is supposedly so bad about the law. As someone who's not much of a fan of the DEA OR the "drug war," nothing in the story leaped out at me. Care to elaborate?
...

I can't find any reference to the law Rannazzisi is referring to using google for 10 minutes. Usually they put a link to the law with such stories. No doubt it's complicated.
Some lawyer help us?
 
Is Marino toast??

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...able-main_marino-1213pm-winner:homepage/story

President Trump said Monday that he will declare a national emergency next week to address the opioid epidemic and declined to express confidence in Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.), his nominee for drug czar, in the wake of revelations that the lawmaker helped steer legislation making it harder to act against giant drug companies.

Trump’s remarks came amid widespread reaction across the political spectrum to a Washington Post/“60 Minutes” investigation that explained how Marino helped guide the legislation, which sailed through Congress last year with virtually no opposition.
 
Just heard- he is out
 
Umm . . . the bill was passed in April, 2016, with the blessing the DoJ, and signed into law by Barack Obama.

There's a lot of innuendo there, but there's not a lot of concrete analysis. Actually citing the law itself, for example, would be nice.

And as I said, not particularly being a fan of the DEA or the drug war, I'm going to need that kind of detail in a piece which is flagrantly cheerleading for the DEA.

Yes it did pass under Obama, and it's legitimate to blame him and especially Lynch for that bill. Holder had opposed previous versions and got them killed.

And it's a long article and I don't have time right now to find the quotes, but the law did two things. First, it changed the standard on stopping shipments because of a risk to public health to one that is impossible to meet in reality - imminent risk of death as I recall. Prior to that, DEA could determine that a store receiving 10 or 20 times normal of pain pills was being used as a distribution hub for illegal drugs, and shut off shipments to that location. As important, this tool was a club to hold over the heads of bad actors which incentivized them to stop the crap.

Second, before fines or other actions, the distributors have to be given the opportunity to fix problems first. Sounds fine, but if a distributor doesn't notice it's sending 10s of millions of pills into a county with a population of 20,000, FAR in excess of what can possibly be legitimately used in that county, they are DELIBERATELY ignorant, because being ignorant makes them $billions. They know damn well they're doing nothing more supplying drugs to corner dealers like a common drug lord, but they don't care and if caught want the ability, after the fact and after they've made their money, to do what they should be doing in the ordinary course of business.

Pro Publica ran an article detailing a lot of these problems with Oxycontin, and the execs there got reports weekly as I recall showing the shipments to regions and even stores, and the drug dealing locations were completely obvious, and they did nothing because they make $billions off drug addicts and drug addiction. It's fantastic for business.
 
Yes it did pass under Obama, and it's legitimate to blame him and especially Lynch for that bill. Holder had opposed previous versions and got them killed.

And it's a long article and I don't have time right now to find the quotes, but the law did two things. First, it changed the standard on stopping shipments because of a risk to public health to one that is impossible to meet in reality - imminent risk of death as I recall. Prior to that, DEA could determine that a store receiving 10 or 20 times normal of pain pills was being used as a distribution hub for illegal drugs, and shut off shipments to that location. As important, this tool was a club to hold over the heads of bad actors which incentivized them to stop the crap.

Second, before fines or other actions, the distributors have to be given the opportunity to fix problems first. Sounds fine, but if a distributor doesn't notice it's sending 10s of millions of pills into a county with a population of 20,000, FAR in excess of what can possibly be legitimately used in that county, they are DELIBERATELY ignorant, because being ignorant makes them $billions. They know damn well they're doing nothing more supplying drugs to corner dealers like a common drug lord, but they don't care and if caught want the ability, after the fact and after they've made their money, to do what they should be doing in the ordinary course of business.

Pro Publica ran an article detailing a lot of these problems with Oxycontin, and the execs there got reports weekly as I recall showing the shipments to regions and even stores, and the drug dealing locations were completely obvious, and they did nothing because they make $billions off drug addicts and drug addiction. It's fantastic for business.

You say all this as though your take on it is self-evidently true. What you obviously see as outrageous, I see has as having legitimate due-process protection implications. And while you are obviously a Drug Warrior, you quoted me as saying that I am not.

I also do not assign "blame" for anything having to do with this. Never mind that "blame" would imply there's something bad to be "blamed" for, "blame" was never the point of what I said.
 
You say all this as though your take on it is self-evidently true. What you obviously see as outrageous, I see has as having legitimate due-process protection implications.

You appeared to ask what changed, and I described the changes with commentary. Furthermore, you've identified no "due process" abuses under the old law. It was rarely used - only 65 immediate suspension orders across the country per year at their peak. And if you approve of people selling millions of pills, knowing without a shred of doubt they're supplying street dealers, then giving them the opportunity to correct that before facing consequences, explain why.

Where else do we give people that kind of get out of jail free card? In the U.S. it's actually pretty common, if you're wealthy....

And while you are obviously a Drug Warrior, you quoted me as saying that I am not.

In general I'm not a "drug warrior." Our approach has failed. But the problem here is a low level pill seller faces years in prison and if multiple convictions, life in prison, and in many states the death penalty if one of their customers dies from a drug overdose. But their supplier, the drug lord, kingpin, which are mostly Fortune 500 companies, buys Congress and laws that provide immunity from the consequences of knowingly supplying that low level dealer. The hypocrisy is staggering and IMO unconscionable. It's the kind of thing we see in Mexico and other countries in central and South America where those drug lords own government. The only thing missing is the armed militias - no need here - they spread around a relative pittance, a few $million, and buy Congress and the enforcement agencies.

I also do not assign "blame" for anything having to do with this. Never mind that "blame" would imply there's something bad to be "blamed" for, "blame" was never the point of what I said.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that.
 
You appeared to ask what changed

No, I asked what was supposed to be the problem.

and I described the changes with commentary. Furthermore, you've identified no "due process" abuses under the old law. It was rarely used - only 65 immediate suspension orders across the country per year at their peak. And if you approve of people selling millions of pills, knowing without a shred of doubt they're supplying street dealers, then giving them the opportunity to correct that before facing consequences, explain why.

Where else do we give people that kind of get out of jail free card? In the U.S. it's actually pretty common, if you're wealthy....

I don't have to identify previous due-process abuses to indicate that the new law seems to advance due-process protections.

In general I'm not a "drug warrior." Our approach has failed. But the problem here is a low level pill seller faces years in prison and if multiple convictions, life in prison, and in many states the death penalty if one of their customers dies from a drug overdose. But their supplier, the drug lord, kingpin, which are mostly Fortune 500 companies, buys Congress and laws that provide immunity from the consequences of knowingly supplying that low level dealer. The hypocrisy is staggering and IMO unconscionable. It's the kind of thing we see in Mexico and other countries in central and South America where those drug lords own government. The only thing missing is the armed militias - no need here - they spread around a relative pittance, a few $million, and buy Congress and the enforcement agencies.

Seems like you're not quite seeing the bigger possible fix implied by what you're saying here.

You're also taking the article's spin as gospel.


I guess we'll have to disagree on that.

There's no room for "disagreement" -- it is factually the case that "blame" was never the point of what I said.
 
Back
Top Bottom