“If you notice that every country that has the death penalty has no drug problem,” Trump falsely claimed at a meeting of the National Governors Association, held at the White House on February 21.

“Your states have the right to go death penalty also for drug dealers,” he said. “But only do that if you want to get rid of drugs.”

Trump was joined by 19 governors, Democrats and Republicans, to discuss a range of issues including disaster aid and tariffs. He had a hostile exchange with Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) over transgender athletes. Trump threatened her state with a loss of federal funding for not complying with his edict to ban transgender women from girls’ and women’s sports, to which she responded, “We’ll see you in court.”

Trump referenced his dialogue with Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose government carries out executions for drug convictions.

Drugs came up during a conversation with South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster (R), about fentanyl being smuggled into the state through packages sent from China. Trump referenced his dialogue with Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose government carries out executions for drug convictions.

Trump added that the federal government plans to launch a new anti-drug campaign, with advertisements explaining how “[it] destroys your skin, it destroys your teeth, it destroys your brain, it destroys everything.”

Like any reality TV show, Trump is a fan of recycling ideas. The anti-drug campaign is reminiscent of the 1980s and “Just Say No.” And he’s been a proponent of killing people for selling drugs since at least his first term.

In 2017, the Intercept reported, Trump congratulated then-President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines for an “unbelievable job” on the “drug problem.” Duterte waged a brutal campaign against poor Filipinos nominally suspected of selling or using drugs—with tens of thousands of victims of vigilante violence, arbitrary imprisonment and extrajudicial murders. The International Criminal Court has attempted to investigate Duterte’s actions, but was blocked by his successor, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Throughout his first term, Trump publicly and privately praised nations that execute drug sellers—embracing the idea while also sometimes backing off it. One senior official, for example, reported that Trump praised China and the Philippines for supposedly not having drug issues: “‘They just kill them.’” Trump tweeted his support for China’s use of the death penalty for fentanyl trafficking, saying that the “results will be incredible!” The then-president reportedly wished the United States had a “law to execute all drug dealers,” and told a law enforcement group, “We’re wasting our time” if the death penalty isn’t pursued.

Harm Reduction International found that at least 467 people were executed for drugs worldwide in 2023—the highest total the organization has counted.

In 2023 Trump reiterated the idea during a Fox News interview, when he bizarrely failed to realize that this policy would have executed Alice Johnson, who served 21 years in federal prison on a cocaine trafficking conviction. Trump pardoned Johnson during his first term. The day before the governor’s meeting, Trump appointed here as the White House “pardon czar.”

Worldwide, the numbers of people sentenced to death for a drug conviction, and those put to death, are growing. For years, the nonprofit Harm Reduction International has tracked these actions, which are shrouded in secrecy in some countries. In 2024, HRI found that at least 467 people were executed for drugs the previous year—the highest total the organization has counted in two decades of reporting. Drug convictions accounted for 42 percent of all known executions in the world that year. HRI also counted at least 3,000 people who remain on death row for a drug conviction.

There are plenty of countries Trump could look to emulate—in addition to China, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Singapore are known to have carried out executions for drugs in 2023. North Korea and Vietnam are “assumed” have done so too, according to HRI, but secretly.

There would be significant legal challenges to carrying out such executions in the US, however, according to Giada Girelli, a senior analyst with HRI’s human rights and justice team. The Supreme Court, she said, would likely rule such a sentence unconstitutional if a homicide or similar crime was not involved.

Trump’s Deparment of Justice issued a 2018 memo instructing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in “certain drug-related crimes,” like a killing associated with drug trafficking, but no death sentence was handed down for a trafficking charge alone. However, the increasing tendency for US jurisdictions to define overdoses as homicides leaves troubling room for doubt.

“The justification he uses will make discussions around abolition harder in retentionist countries—it will give these countries one more argument to defend use of the death penalty.”

Girelli also worries that Trump’s rhetoric will give license to law enforcement to take an even more punitive approach to drug users—and the impact won’t be limited to the US.

“At the international level, a direct consequence is it tarnishes the US and its self-proclaimed position as a protector and promoter of human rights,” she told Filter. “If there were executions or death sentences for drug offenses, the US would join a very extreme [group of] authoritarian governments … Unfortunately I don’t think the Trump administration is particularly concerned with this image around the world.”

Trump’s embrace of the death penalty could slow down efforts to abolish it in other countries, where there have been examples of progress. In 2023, Pakistan became the first country in a decade to abolish the death penalty for drugs. Saudi Arabia temporarily halted executions during the COVID-19 pandemic. And in Singapore, the Supreme Court overturned a drug death sentence as civil rights lawyers and advocates demanded an end to further executions.

“The justification he uses will make discussions around abolition harder in retentionist countries,” Girelli said. “The fact Trump is aligning himself with retentionist countries—that claim the death penalty is effective in reducing drug use or drug crime, and a very punitive approach is necessary—it will give these countries one more argument to defend use of the death penalty.”

There’s no question Trump is a fan of executions in general. In his first term, he was the first President since 2003 to resume executions for federal convictions. From 2019-2020, at the urging of then-Attorney General Bill Barr, the Trump administration oversaw 13 executions.

Reporting from ProPublica illustrated how the administration rushed to implement its cruel plan.

“Officials gave public explanations for their choice of which prisoners should die that misstated key facts from the cases,” wrote Isaac Arnsdorf. “They moved ahead with executions in the middle of the night. They left one prisoner strapped to the gurney while lawyers worked to remove a court order. They executed a second prisoner while an appeal was still pending, leaving the court to then dismiss the appeal as ‘moot’ because the man was already dead. They bought drugs from a secret pharmacy that failed a quality test. They hired private executioners and paid them in cash.”

President Joe Biden reversed this: Months into his term, his DOJ reinstated a moratorium on federal executions. Biden was the first president to publicly oppose the death penalty, and promised in his 2020 campaign to abolish it. Yet he failed to introduce any bill or executive order to do this, and his own DOJ sought the death penalty for the perpetrators of mass shootings in Pittsburgh and Buffalo. In his final days as president, Biden did give commutations to 37 of the 40 people then on federal death row, converting their sentences to life in prison.

On his first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order directing the attorney general to take all “necessary and lawful action” to provide states with enough lethal drugs to carry out executions. He also ordered the DOJ to once again seek the death penalty in federal cases.

We don’t yet know whether Trump will succeed in executing anyone for a drug conviction. But his words and related actions have already done great harm.

Photograph of Trump by Gage Skidmore via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Trump’s Backing of Death Penalty for Drug Sales Has Wide Consequences appeared first on Filter.

Their study, recently published in the journal Addiction, uncovered a complicated relationship between the quality of drugs and their source. While the dark web offered a safer supply of some substances, others appeared more reliable when purchased offline.

Coauthor Dr. Monica Barratt, a senior research fellow at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, said that this potential mismatch between expectation and reality is what motivated the team to conduct the research.

“A lot of the harms that come from using drugs arise from prohibition. And these sorts of marketplaces can end up with potentially a safer supply,” she told Filter. “But without the data, it’s like, is that actually true?”

The researchers focused on the five most common drugs sent in for testing: MDMA, cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine and LSD.

To find out, Barratt and her collaborators partnered with two of the world’s largest drug-checking services: Energy Control, an international NGO headquartered in Spain, and the Drugs Information and Monitoring System (DIMS), a national service commissioned by the Ministry of Health in the Netherlands. Both agencies shared test results for all samples submitted to their labs from 2016 through 2021, including FTIR, mass spectrometry and several other analytic techniques.

The researchers focused on the five most common drugs sent in for testing—MDMA, cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine and LSD—to ensure that there would be enough data points to produce reliable results in each case. They only included samples that were purchased in-person or on dark-web cryptomarkets, excluding samples that participants simply stated were from “the internet.” In total, 62,596 drug samples met these criteria.

Using the lab data about each sample’s composition, the research team investigated whether drugs from the dark web were more likely to contain the substance advertised and less likely to contain contaminants, compared to those bought offline. They also compared the average strength of drugs from each source. 

Their conclusions were mixed.

When purchased on the dark web, drugs sold as MDMA (in both powder and pill form), cocaine and LSD were significantly more likely to contain the substance advertised. This tallies with the idea that when buyers are often able to leave reviews on dark-web marketplaces, vendors there may be more accountable than their in-person counterparts.

For amphetamine and methamphetamine, however, there was no difference between dark-web and offline samples. 

Similarly, some cryptomarket drugs—MDMA powder and cocaine—were far less likely to contain adulterants. But others—amphetamine and LSD—were found to be more likely to be adulterated than samples acquired in-person. 

Finally, while MDMA powder, cocaine and meth purchased on the dark web tended to have higher purity, dark-web MDMA pills and amphetamine had lower purity on average. 

“I would imagine if we conducted this same study in the US or in Australia, it would be quite different.”

To wrap their heads around these contradictory results, the authors developed substance-specific explanations for how “the dynamics of the cryptomarket” might influence drug composition. For example, the ample in-person supply of MDMA in the Netherlands may drive the differences observed between cryptomarket and offline sources.

More broadly, the researchers stress that findings would differ depending on which local supplies are being tested, so their results must not be taken as universal.

“One of the caveats of the study is that the comparison group is the Netherlands, which is where most of the MDMA in the world comes from,” Barratt explained. “I would imagine if we conducted this same study in the US or in Australia, it would be quite different … the [offline] comparison group would be more adulterated.”

In Barratt’s eyes, these far-from-straightforward results underscore the importance of expanding drug checking services. When you can’t necessarily count on cryptomarkets offering a safer supply, local drug checking becomes even more essential. 

Barratt also emphasized that, as drug checking continues to be legalized, new service providers should prioritize asking people more specific questions about the source of their submitted samples. 

“It’s a sensitive question to ask,” she admitted, “but I doubt many of those services are asking the question in the right way.”

Asking the “right way,” according to Barratt, should yield enough information about the source of the substance to understand what type of risk it poses to the community if it turns out to be adulterated. This includes asking participants who say that their drugs are from “the internet” to provide more detail, if they feel comfortable doing so. 

Barratt envisions a future where harm reduction strategies are tailored to the source of the drug.

“If we find something particularly nasty and it turns out you’ve got them from, you know, an overseas darknet, that’s kind of important for us to know,” she explained. “It’s different if you got it from a local dealer, because then that local supply is here, and we probably need to do an alert.”

Barratt envisions a future where harm reduction strategies are tailored to the source of the drug. If a drug checking service knows where a substance came from, they can decide whether it’s more appropriate to share any alarming results locally or online.

“I feel like there’s a gap there, especially for peers and people maybe who straddle both worlds,” Barratt noted. “They might be harm reduction workers who also understand the dark net, who might then get some funding to actually go in there and do digital outreach.”

A single study can’t definitively prove whether the dark web offers a safer supply. But these results suggest that, while some substances were indeed less likely to be adulterated, purchasing there is not a silver-bullet harm reduction strategy—and that testing remains vital whatever the source. By paying close attention to where adulterated substances were purchased, local drug checking services can help participants make more informed decisions to protect their health.

Photograph by Wellness GM via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Safer Drug Supply on the Dark Web? It’s Complicated, Researchers Find appeared first on Filter.

Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate have introduced a package, consisting of Senate Bills 414, 415 and 316.

Bill 414 would set a mandatory minimum sentence for distribution of a controlled substance that results in death. Anyone who manufactures or sells a Schedule I or II drug would be held “strictly liable” for the death of anyone using that drug, and face a minimum prison sentence of 10 years.

Bill 415 would create further mandatory minimums. Activities involving at least 5 grams of fentanyl or its analogs will carry a minimum of 3.5 years in prison, rising to a minimum of seven years for 28 grams or more.

Bill 316 would additionallly penalize transporting fentanyl with intent to distribute, making it a Class A felony with a minimum five-year sentence. Vehicles or other assets used would be seized.

“We’re consistently seeing people arrested who are low-level users that shared small quantities. Why would it be different when we pile on a mandatory minimum?”

Harm reductionists oppose these measures. One advocate, whose work includes providing harm reduction supplies to people who use drugs in New Hampshire, said that these laws would end up targeting vulnerable people using drugs.

“Most of the larger dealers don’t enter New Hampshire, they generally don’t touch the product,” John Burns, executive director of SOS Recovery Community Organization, told Filter. “We’re consistently seeing people arrested who are low-level users that shared small quantities. We’re not seeing big dealers being charged for ‘death resulting,’ so why would it be different when we pile on a mandatory minimum?”

Regarding Bill 415 specifically, he added: “We have individuals that we serve in our harm reduction and recovery programs who use 5 grams a day. Drug use tends to happen in small community settings where people use together. People are often purchasing for three or four people at a time, then picking up and bringing it back and using together. This targets whoever in those social circles happens to pick up and have a car.”

The bills passed the Senate on March 7, and have since been considered by the House. On March 22, the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committe held an “executive session” to debate the bills. For Bills 414 and 316, the committee vote was a 10-10 tie, with unanimous Democratic opposition. Bill 415 received a 12-8 vote which recommends an interim study and delays consideration until 2025, according to reporting by the New Hampshire Union Leader. All the bills will now be subject to a debate and floor vote in the House.

While there’s a clear split along party lines, the committee debate also highlighted differences among party colleagues over the bills. The committee chair, Representative Terry Roy (R), argued that mandatory minimums are necessary to punish people he said “are bringing [fentanyl] into our state and poisoning our children.” Rep. John Sytek (R) voted for the bills, but admitted, “I am not very happy about it.”

Among Democrats, Rep. David Meuse slammed the proposals as “political theater,” doubting they would help at all with opioid-involved deaths. But his colleague, Rep. Karen Reid, claimed that people who sell drugs are attracted to New Hampshire because of relatively permissive laws compared to neighboring states.

“It seems backwards to increase penalties for people involved in an overdose … I anticipate it will just dissuade people from interacting with first responders.”

Rep. Amanda Bouldin (D) was among those who voted against the bills. Almost 10 years ago, she led a successful effort to pass a “Good Samaritan” law in New Hampshire, protecting people who call 911 for an overdose from being arrested for drug possession. She fears that harsh mandatory minimums will counteract the effects of that law, putting people at greater risk.

“It seems backwards to increase penalties for people involved in an overdose because it sounds like we’re going to roll back the clock to the overdose death rate we had before we started encouraging people to call 911,” she told Filter, while acknowledging that overdose rates have fluctuated in recent years. “I anticipate increased penalties will just dissuade people from interacting with first responders, and I want people to feel comfortable calling 911.”

Burns pointed to limitations of New Hampshire’s Good Samaritan law, however, which he said would only be exacerbated by the current bills. “We hear regularly from people who use drugs; most of the overdose reversals happen from them, far more than those reversed by first responders,” he said. “They communicate to us regularly they don’t want to call 911 because that [Good Samaritan] law doesn’t apply if there’s a ‘death resulting’ charge. They feel it’s already watered down to a point it doesn’t protect them. This will only make that worse.”

New Hampshire’s recent overdose figures have worsened much faster than in the country overall. The state medical examiner found that in 2022, 486 people died of overdose, the highest number since 2017. Preliminary data showed an increase of 14 percent from 2021-2022. In the United States at large, there was an increase of a fraction of 1 percent that year. It’s estimated that over 80 percent of New Hampshire’s overdose deaths involve fentanyl.

Rep. Bouldin explained what’s next for the new bills in the House, where Republicans hold a narrower majority than they do in the Senate. “These bills will go to the House floor vote soon, and there’s no more committees,” she said. “With the bills that came out of committee 10-10, there will be a debate on the floor. I hope the majority of Democrats will be on the side of criminal justice reform. And there is a pseudo-libertarian contingency of the Republican caucus that I anticipate will also be on [that side]. So I’m thinking odds are good these bills will die on House floor.”

On the other hand, Rep. Bouldin explained that under the rules of the legislature, Republicans could get together in a “committee of conference”—a closed-door meeting where members of the majority party can negotiate and adopt last-minute changes to legislation before it gets sent to the governor.

This tactic could be a “hail Mary,” she said, for Republicans to get the bills through late in the session. And if they do reach Governor Chris Sununu (R), she expects him to sign them into law.

Photograph (cropped) by Corde 11 via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post New Hampshire Is Weighing Harsher Fentanyl Punishments appeared first on Filter.

Cherelle Parker, a former majority leader of the City Council, beat eight other Democrates in the May primary. She faces Republican David Oh in the November 7 general election—and is strongly favored to win, when Philadelphia hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1947.

On October 23, she participated in a town hall hosted by TV station 6 ABC, where a participant asked her if she would request assistance from the National Guard to address crime in the city. Parker praised the force’s role in Philadelphia amid the 2020 racial justice protests, saying residents “respected the peaceful nature in which we partnered with the National Guard.”

“They will be a part of the solution.”

“Will I call on them to help us, for example, shut down the open-air drug market in Kensington that’s being allowed to prevail? They will be a part of the solution,” she continued. “What that looks like, I’m going to have an experienced police commissioner who’s going to define what that plan is.”

Parker elaborated in an October 24 statement that she would take “a strong intergovernmental approach to address the crisis ongoing in Kensington,” vowing to “ensure we put an end to the open-air drug market and drug use residents are being forced to live with.”

“The reality is, no one has a solution for Kensington,” Brooke Feldman, a Philadelphia social worker and harm reductionist, told Filter. Feldman previously helped fight for a bill to expand syringe service programs statewide in Pennsylvania.

“We know what has been tried that hasn’t worked,” she said. “We’ve heard all kinds of ideas proposed by people who aren’t drug policy experts and maybe don’t have experience being a drug user or living with substance use disorder. So we have policymakers and elected officials who grab at straws for solutions.”

Parker’s stance isn’t entirely surprising after she won her primary with a conservative message around crime, drugs and police. Her platform does include some harm reduction-adjacent measures like “community engagement and investment,” violence intervention, and expanding access to jobs, education, mentoring, housing, health care and food. But she promised to hire 300 new police officers, has opposed opening a safe consumption site in Philadelphia, and called the deeply controversial stop-and-frisk practice a “necessary” tool for police.

It’s nonetheless shocking to hear the likely mayor of one of America’s biggest cities speaking so casually about mobilizing National Guard troops to address a health and social crisis. It’s reminiscent of the infamous New York Times op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK), calling on the federal government to deploy troops to US cities in response to the 2020 protests after the murder of George Floyd.

Parker’s call to “put an end” to the drug market clearly hints at an enforcement role, liable to produce further harassment, abuses and violence.

There may be differences, however. While Cotton was calling for a deployment of armed troops to violently suppress mostly peaceful protests, Parker’s plan is more ambiguous. National Guard members can be deployed with permission from a state governor to respond to a disaster or emergency, including natural disasters like hurricanes, and were used in states like New York in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. National Guard members are not trained as law enforcement even if they work with local police forces, and legally cannot make arrests.

In 2022, Philadelphia City Council passed a nonbinding resolution to declare a state of emergency in Kensington, and Mayor Jim Kenney (D) and former Governor Tom Wolf (D) have both issued disaster declarations in Philadelphia related to the opioid-involved crisis.

A charitable interpretation would be that Parker might have National Guard troops distributing naloxone and other resources. But her call to “put an end” to the drug market clearly hints at an enforcement role, liable to produce further harassment, abuses and violence against people who use drugs.

“We saw in Philadelphia during civil unrest after George Floyd a National Guard presence, and in Kensington for people who live in the community there was a mixed reaction,” Feldman related. “Some people were happy to see them because they felt safer—but I think people who use and sell drugs obviously weren’t.”

Another major city has already called in the National Guard to assist in a crackdown on drug use and sales in a troubled neighborhood. San Francisco Mayor London Breed has overseen a years-long operation to “take back our Tenderloin.” It started with a heightened police presence as she proposed giving them new powers and overtime funding, and has expanded. In April 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom got the state involved by deploying Highway Patrol and National Guard members to work with San Francisco cops and “focus on targeting fentanyl trafficking, disrupting the supply of the deadly drug in the city, and holding the operators of drug trafficking rings accountable.”

In the first couple months, the joint forces reported seizing 8.1 kilos of fentanyl and made 115 felony and misdemeanor arrests in and around the Tenderloin. The National Guard specifically “provided critical analysis and technical support to law enforcement to shut down drug trafficking operations in the city.”

“The National Guard is more of an optical illusion of safety that would not [help]. And we need to get deeper at why Kensington is how it is.”

The Kensington neighborhood, on Philadelphia’s northeast side, has for years drawn headlines and stigmatizing portrayals around drug use and sales, overdose and homelessness. These crises played a role in this year’s mayoral primary, as candidates including Alan Domb and Rebecca Rhynhart spoke of declaring a public health emergency in the neighborhood and increasing police patrols.

Citywide, health department data show that over 1,400 people lost their lives to overdose in 2022—a record high—and deaths have been disproportionately concentrated in Kensington. The neighborhood has seen police raids against encampments of unhoused people cause many harms. It’s also seen high levels of gun violence over the years—according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, at least 300 people were shot near one intersection from 2015-2021.

“Kensington is the epicenter of the overdose death crisis and the results of the War on Drugs, and the forced, unregulated market,” Feldman said. “I’ve traveled around the country and I have not seen anywhere like Kensington. For Philadelphians and those who live around it, what to do about Kensington is a hot topic—as it should be, because it’s really not okay.”

Feldman holds out hope that whoever the next mayor is, harm reduction advocates will have the opportunity to lobby for a more humane approach to drug use and sales. She supports safe consumption sites, but also said that the long-running legal battle over Safehouse—a nonprofit that seeks to open a site in Philadelphia but was sued by the Trump administration and is still opposed by the Biden administration—has absorbed much focus and attention when other policies, like repealing the city’s outdoor smoking ban at drug treatment programs, are also important.

“Even though Parker’s rhetoric sounds very unfriendly to harm reduction, my hope is there are people who can get in there closest to the problem so we can work with this administration to get at solutions that help and don’t further the problems,” Feldman said. “The National Guard is more of an optical illusion of safety that would not [help]. And we need to get deeper at why Kensington is how it is.”

Photograph of Pennsylvania National Guard via offical Facebook page

The post Philly Mayor Candidate Wants National Guard to “Shut Down” Drug Markets appeared first on Filter.

Along with many others incarcerated here, I believe that such measures do nothing but harm. Rather, they lead to more violence and adverse health outcomes, and will not only fail to eradicate the drug market but could ultimately strengthen it. 

This lockdown caught all of us off guard. We’re used to a section or wing getting locked down for a day or two. But out of nowhere on September 6, they locked everything down, shut everything off and told us nothing… at first. 

Unit staff subsequently told us that they knew the lockdown was statewide. Then, on the new Securus tablets issued to prisoners here, videos appeared from TDCJ Executive Director Brian Collier and Inspector General Cris Love. They told us that “if you’re part of the narcotics trade, we are coming for you,” and “you will be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” 

What’s changed is that now, we have better ways of getting the truth out there, making TDCJ look bad—so here they come. 

It’s ironic; I have been incarcerated for 22 years, and drugs and violence have always been here. It has progressively gotten worse, but TDCJ has always just turned a blind eye. What’s changed is that now, we have better ways of getting the truth out there and making the public aware, making TDCJ look bad—so here they come. 

During lockdowns, we suffer through being held in our cells 24 hours a day, adding to widespread mental health challenges. Guys in the same cell can’t get away from each other at all, and right now those who do not use drugs are upset because they feel they’re being punished for the actions of those who do. Tensions rise and violence ensues—the very violence TDCJ claims to be addressing by implementing a lockdown in the first place. 

Mark Wright,* a fellow TDCJ prisoner, told Filter that “most but not all inmates are killed by their cellmates for one reason or another. When you coop two men or women up in an 8’x10’ box, you get on each other’s nerves and tempers [flare]… with a no-movement lockdown like this … you’re stuck in a cell 24/7 with someone you was already having problems with.” 

Indeed, at least two people in the system were killed during the statewide lockdown, with one killed by his cellmate. 

How are most drugs arriving in Texas prisons? Simple: the staff. But because they’ll never admit that, prisoners are punished. 

The fact that TDCJ’s attempt to solve a problem ends up having the opposite effect isn’t surprising. After all, previous steps TDCJ has taken to “address” the drug market haven’t worked either. 

Our mail is now fully digitized, and our visitors are searched to the point that many feel too violated to come in. So how are most drugs arriving in Texas prisons? Simple: the staff. But because they’ll never admit that, prisoners are punished. 

Some years ago, I witnessed an officer being questioned by one of his bosses about why he was bringing tobacco into the unit (something that’s not illegal, just against TDCJ rules).

He laughed and said, “My question is, why isn’t everyone? I make my monthly check, from which they take out taxes, fine. But by bringing this in, I make double that each week in cash—no taxes to bring this in. So in a month’s time, I get my taxed paycheck and equal to eight untaxed checks for doing this. I just put it in savings. So I’m fired? Ok, I’ve been doing this for three years now. I’m gonna be good for a while.”

The reason officers can be so cavalier about bringing in drugs and other items is that TDCJ is scared of losing staff. The department readily admits to this: Its most recent budget appropriations request to the Texas legislature states that “Correctional officer staffing is the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s … most significant operational issue.” 

“Because they are afraid to lose staff, the agency up until now did not search officers’ vehicles upon arrival or departure.”

Low pay rates help explain this. Finding enough staff has been a problem for TDCJ for years, but it got a lot worse once COVID hit, and the department never recovered. As Shadow, another prisoner here, told Filter, “because they are afraid to lose staff, the agency up until now did not search officers’ vehicles upon arrival or departure [for] each shift daily. They were only periodically sniffed by dogs, and are only pat-searched entering [after] each time they go to the parking lot.”

TDCJ knows how drugs are getting in, but is unwilling to take steps that might reduce the flow. When so many staff make money from drugs, removing their side incomes would prompt departures in addition to having to fire anyone caught, exacerbating TDCJ’s grave staffing crisis. 

Putting the blame on prisoners not only deflects from staff culpability, but carries other benefits: Staff say our unit gets money for disciplinary cases, plus extra funding for the “dangerous environment” ostensibly reflected by the presence of contraband.

Selling drugs makes good money because many people in here want to use as a means to get away. The system is set up to berate and belittle you. You are always talked down to and cussed out. It gets bad. For many who have trouble coping, they use drugs, which are expensive but rampantly available.

Paper soaked in K2 comes in a variety of different sizes, ranging from a letter-size sheet of paper ($300-$600) to a piece the size of a driver’s license photo ($50-$100). Meth or “ice” is $75-$125 for an amount the size of a ChapStick cap. I heard of some guys paying $600 for a 4-ounce bottle of K2, pouring it on 50 sheets of paper in a Ziploc bag, selling the sheets for $300 each and making a $14,400 profit. 

Such profits aren’t limited to drugs. “Phones are going for about 3k apiece and that’s not top-of-the-line stuff,” Wright said. “It is prepaids from Walmart or the dollar store that cost $30 to $40. Now, you take an officer that makes 30k a year and he goes to Walmart or Dollar General and spends $300-$400 on 10 phones and brings them into the unit. So he could bring in two or three a day and potentially earn a year’s salary in four days. Some incentive, huh?” 

Considering the prevalence of drugs in the system and the incentives officers have to sell them, folks in here don’t buy the premise of the lockdown. “I think they are trying to appease the public and make themselves ‘look good,’” Matthew King told Filter.

How else do you explain the ever-updating tally of “contraband found systemwide” on TDCJ’s website? Even officers are skeptical of TDCJ’s promise to “work to eradicate drugs.” Some of them, King added, “say they don’t believe it’s possible.”

“Demand will increase due to the fact that the ones that were holding had to either use what they had, or get rid of it by trashing or flushing it before they were shook down.”

Shadow, King and Wright, who all live on a wing where abstinence is expected, with many residents recovering from addiction, also expressed numerous frustrations about the lockdown, largely stemming from their lack of involvement in the drug market. 

Shadow said it made him feel “diminished in that all I do by following rules, being responsible, rehabilitating myself; being a positive role model equates to nothing because I am judged and punished by the actions of those who [sell or use drugs].” King and Wright both expressed anger, with Wright mentioning that “after a while you get tired of just a few people causing repercussions for everyone.”

These repercussions include changes to the drug market. “While we are on lockdown the supply will slow down, not stop,” Wright said, “‘cause some idiot will try to keep bringing the shit in, ‘cause in those people’s eyes the money is too good. And that is the driving force behind all of it.” 

“In actuality [the temporary scarcity] might make the market stronger for a while,” Wright continued. “Demand will increase due to the fact that the ones that were holding had to either use what they had, or get rid of it by trashing or flushing it before they were shook down and caught with it.” 

While none of us inside believe that a lockdown will eradicate the drug market, we know that the temporary disruption is likely to have harmful consequences. Besides increasing tensions and violence, TDCJ’s lockdown potentially also contributed to riskier patterns of drug use, when people couldn’t access their normal supply, or the buddies who normally look out for them when they use. Additionally, it made it more likely for prisoners’ medical needs to be ignored. 

If people can’t get their normal shit, they turn to pretty much anything, with replacement options often riskier.

With drugs temporarily scarcer and demand likely higher—some people will be going through withdrawal, others will just need an escape from the oppressive conditions of the lockdown—those who sell drugs will capitalize by charging more. 

Shadow agreed that the market “will get more costly and harmful,” both because people with lowered tolerances will be more likely to overdose and because drug shortages and enhanced surveillance will lead to riskier use. 

That’s how drug busts kill, outside of prison as well as inside. King said that “this lockdown will cause many to use quickly what they have so as to 1) not get caught with it and 2) not let it go to [waste]!” Rushed use is a known risk factor for overdose—all the more so in circumstances where people have, out of necessity, bought enough to last a while, or to share or sell.

Additionally, if people can’t get their normal shit, they turn to pretty much anything, with replacement options often riskier. It’s a phenomenon seen repeatedly in the outside world—from the Adderall shortage to people’s transition in the early 2010s from pharma opioids to heroin. 

In here, I’ve seen guys spray oven cleaner on paper, roll it up and smoke it. I’ve heard of people using barbershop solution, stainless steel cleaner (petroleum-based), certain epoxies (adhesives and plastics), lacquer thinners and acetones, even bug repellent with DEET. It’s a very ugly situation and some never recover. 

Punishing people, pushing them toward more dangerous alternatives and riskier use patterns, is the opposite of safety. 

Finally, people have died, and will die, because medical has become callous about people’s emergency calls. They automatically assume they’re drug-related, they do not care about drug-related emergencies, and that will only intensify. 

“Men with serious medical problems that need help are ignored when reported to officers or callously treated as a drug episode and response is slow,” Shadow said.  

If people want to use drugs, they will always find a way. TDCJ director Brian Collier claims that “[the department’s] interest is trying to make our prisons safe.” But punishing people, locking them up with no end in sight and pushing them toward more dangerous alternatives and riskier use patterns, is the opposite of safety. 

If TDCJ really wanted to get people to stop using drugs in prison, they’d address the major reason people are doing so in the first place, which is that they’re locked up and are trying to escape their current reality. Decarceration and abolition are harm reduction, because we know that there will never be such a thing as safe supply or safe use in prisons. 

This article was co-authored by T.S. Ganapathy, a drug policy researcher and prison abolitionist. They are using a pseudonym to be able to mail their work to their loved ones inside prisons without facing repercussions. 

*Names of all incarcerated sources have been changed for their protection.

Photograph by Matthias Müller via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Texas’s “Drug-Busting” Prisons Lockdown Will Only Harm Us appeared first on Filter.

Bell was able to move about his new environment without much fear, something incarcerated people rarely experience. His age, combined with his soft demeanor and his college-educated conversational skills, moved some of his prisoner peers to show him the ropes and look after him. Everyone else was content to leave him alone. Most were simply confused as to what exactly had landed him in here, and they were no less confused when they learned it was selling meth.

“If I had not found a community of friends in prison to help me,” Bell told Filter, “I would have never made it.”

Though his personal use never became chaotic, his relationship with meth did change.

Bell had grown up in a small town in Georgia, with a perfectionist mother who equated wealth and social status to success and happiness. She subscribed to the idea of children being seen but not heard. When his father left, Bell dutifully suppressed his emotions to please his sole caretaker, and took to heart that public perception mattered over all else. Decent people went to school, got respectable jobs, got married, had children, and kept their secrets buried deep. Not until the late 1990s, when Bell’s wife found a half-finished letter he was writing as part of their marriage counseling homework, did he begin living as an openly gay man.

In 2008, life threw Bell a curve ball he could not catch. In fact, it threw him several, smacking him in the head one after the other: He was diagnosed with HIV, cancer and shingles. He had to go on short-term disability, then long-term disability, and eventually lost his job and with it his health insurance. It wasn’t just his lifestyle—the nice car, the fancy neighbhorhood—that he could no longer afford. He couldn’t afford the many expensive medical treatments and medications he suddenly needed to stay alive. Though this was years before the Affordable Health Care Act, even today in 2023 Tennessee remains one of 10 states that has not expanded Medicaid coverage.

Some years earlier, Bell had used meth for the first time while on a business trip. He remembered the temporary escape from reality that the drug had brought him back then, and longed for a few more such moments. For a new friend who didn’t ask questions, who didn’t judge. Though his use of the drug never became chronic or chaotic, his relationship with it did change—once he realized that it represented a new revenue stream. He didn’t need to use it nearly as badly as he needed to sell it.

“I had to learn to live, or prepare to die. [So] I became a wholesaler.”

“I had to learn to live, or prepare to die,” Bell told Filter. “I became a wholesaler. I bought it cheap in one location during my travels and made a profit when I sold it back at home … I was able to pay the rent, buy my meds and just survive.”

When he came out about his sexuality all those years ago, the shame he’d been taught to feel about it was washed away. Today, he doesn’t see the point in pretending to be ashamed of anything. He served his time, got out and remained close friends with those who took him under their wing when he was incarcerated.

Despite the demonization of meth and the people who use and sell it, Bell doesn’t blame the drug for his detour into prison. It saved his life in that way, too; while incarcerated, at least his HIV medication was covered. Meth hasn’t been a part of his life in any capacity since the day he was arrested, but the personal-use aspect was always manageable for him. The reasons he no longer uses it have more to do with parole than anything else.

“I don’t have any choice, I have to pass drug screens,” he told Filter. “I have to live differently and find different coping mechanisms now that I’m in the system, and if I want to live free and not in a cage.”

“But I have to say, meth did not do bad by me. When I needed it, it came through.”

Photograph courtesy Kastalia Medrano

The post Selling Meth Sent Him to Prison. It Also Saved His Life. appeared first on Filter.

“I was angry. I was watching all these other people in my life die, and I’ve lost so many friends,” Field told Filter. “I hit the street just randomly yelling out of my window, asking people, ‘Do you need [syringes]?’ It was just ridiculous, but immediately word started spreading.”

One day while she was out distributing naloxone, someone asked her how much she could spare; he sold drugs around the neighborhood, and wanted to distribute the overdose-reversal medication to his customers. Field gave him 200 doses.

In that moment, she realized the potential of collaborating with local sellers as points of contact for distributing harm reduction supplies. Mobile outreach organization Mainline Harm Reduction was up and running by early 2022.

“We are directly around [drug users] the majority of every day—each and every day,” local seller A-Wex* told Filter. “I’ve got to be able to help them.”

A-Wex is able to give his customers sterile syringes because of the steady supply he gets from Field. “Everybody always paints the pictures they want to paint, but only the people who are really here know what’s going on at the end of the day,” he told Filter. “You have to get out here and do some footwork to know the truth.” 

“It might not hold up in court, but it definitely is an arrestable offense.”

Eleven of Tennessee’s 25 sanctioned syringe service programs (SSP) are mobile sites, but that number doesn’t include unsanctioned entities like Mainline. The sanctioned mobile SSP also differ from Mainline in that they provide services from a fixed location; Field drives around, handing out sterile syringes and other so-called paraphernalia, including glass pipes.

Possession of sterile syringes in Tennessee isn’t illegal in and of itself, but it becomes illegal for anyone who appears to be using them to inject state-banned drugs—unless they’re affiliated with a state-sanctioned SSP.

“It might not hold up in court,” Field said of Mainline’s work, “but it definitely is an arrestable offense.”

Tennessee legalized SSP in 2017, on the condition that programs have to offer treatment services to be eligible for state authorization. State law requires authorized SSP to distribute syringes and other safer injection supplies “in quantities sufficient to ensure that [they are] not shared or reused.” At the same time, it still directs SSP to “strive for one-to-one”—referring to the restrictive policy by which some states limit SSP to only giving sterile syringes to participants who bring in an equal number of used ones. The specter of illegality around needs-based distribution can pressure some programs to not stray too far from one-to-one.

Though sanctioned SSP aren’t permitted to use federal funding to pay for syringes or any other “drug paraphernalia,” many are able to do so using state- or county-level funds. Unsanctioned groups around the state are on their own. In the year and a half since she began Mainline, Field estimates she’s sunk around $15,000 of her own funds into keeping the program running.

“[We’re] barely scraping by in order to do genuine harm reduction, on the level that it really needs to be done.”

“[Fentanyl] is fucking up the economic side of things, because if that’s what it is I don’t bother with it.”

The most common reason sellers approach Mainline is drug-checking, which Field facilitates by sending samples for forensic analysis via a mail-in program. 

One of the first people to partner with Field was Q*, who sells cocaine and wanted to check their supply for fentanyl before it reached any customers. Though wary of Field’s intentions at first, Q told Filter, they soon came to appreciate the insight into their supply.

“The last three months [fentanyl in the coke supply has] been constant, it’s been every time,” Q said. “It’s fucking up the economical side of things, because if that’s what it is, I don’t bother with it.”

When opportunity presents itself, Q shares the information with other local sellers as well.

Fentanyl test strips (FTS) are more accessible than forensic lab equipment, and useful for stimulant supplies in particular. Possession of drug-checking equipment is illegal under the state’s “drug paraphernalia” statute, but Tennessee exempted FTS in 2022—except when they’re being used for the purpose of manufacturing, delivering or selling state-banned drugs.

The crux of the issue is lack of a safe supply. It’s also the wave of drug-induced homicide laws spreading across the country.

“Ross was just this incredibly beautiful, vibrant, amazing person,” Field said of the friend whose death pushed her to create Mainline. “And at his funeral, everyone was saying, ‘Oh, he lost his battle with addiction. [But] that’s just not what a drug overdose is.” 

Field says the crux of the issue is that people lack access to a safe supply. It’s also the wave of drug-induced homicide (DIH) laws spreading state by state across the country.

“[Anyone] who picks up and shares with a friend, not just kingpin drug dealers, might be the target of these particular laws,” Field said.

In 2018, Tennessee added fentanyl and carfentanil to its long-standing DIH law. This cleared the way for prosecutors to charge sellers with second-degree murder if they were linked to a fentanyl-involved overdose death, regardless of whether or not they knew fentanyl was in their supply.

As of July 1, the state’s “One Pill Can Kill Act,” has broadened the law to apply to all fentanyl analogues.

“Somebody could have ended up in prison for [Ross’ death], and I think that’s an incredible shame,” Field said. “Who gave him what, where he got it from … none of that actually matters.”

*Names have been changed

Photograph via United States Department of Veterans Affairs

The post In Tennessee, Unsanctioned Harm Reduction Work Gains a Foothold appeared first on Filter.

Speaking with Fox News host Bret Baier, Trump first defended his extreme position that drug sellers should be quickly convicted and executed, touting countries like China and Singapore for enforcing the lethal penalty. The 2024 Republican presidential candidate said that capital punishment “is the only way you’re going to stop” illicit drug use.

Baier contrasted that position with the president’s support for bipartisan sentencing reform legislation, the First Step Act, that he signed into law in 2018. The host asked Trump about criticism that the reform led to the early release of certain individuals involved in drug distribution who subsequently were convicted of violent felonies.

“But I focused on non-violent crime,” Trump said, citing his presidential commutation and pardon of Alice Johnson as an example. He said that Johnson, who was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole over her role in a cocaine distribution ring in the 1990s, “got treated terribly” and “unfairly,” equating her treatment to his own as he faces multiple federal counts over alleged violations of the Espionage Act.

Trump said that Johnson’s drug-selling activity was “mostly marijuana”—though her convictions largely concerned alleged cocaine sales. And when Baier reminded the former president that “she’d be killed under your plan,” Trump balked.

Trump said Johnson “wouldn’t be killed” because policy wouldn’t be retroactive.

“Huh?” he said.

“As a drug dealer,” Baier said.

“No, no, no, under my—oh, under that? It would depend on the severity,” Trump responded.

“She’s technically a former drug dealer. She had multimillion-dollar cocaine rings. So even Alice Johnson?” the host pressed.

“She can’t do it,” Trump said. Then he said she “wouldn’t be killed” because his death sentence policy wouldn’t be retroactive and would “start as of now.” And then he argued that Johnson wouldn’t have sold drugs if it had been punishable by death at the time, making a deterrence argument.

“She wouldn’t have been a dealer. Now, she wasn’t much of a dealer because she was sort of like—I mean, honestly, she got treated terribly. She was treated—she was treated sort of like I get treated,” he said. “But she was treated very unfairly.”

The exchange is another example of the enigmatic drug policy worldview of the former president, who at one point more than 30 years ago said that the country needs to “legalize drugs” to win the War on Drugs but is now campaigning on an aggressive drug warrior platform.

Trump has previously seemed to bask in the headlines about his criminal legal system reforms—namely clemency he granted to people during his time in the White House—but at the same time seeks to appeal to voters as a “tough-on-crime” candidate.

And while he’s voiced support for medical cannabis and the right of states to set their own marijuana policies, he’s also recently attempted to link mass shootings to “genetically modified” marijuana.

The seeming disconnect isn’t entirely dissimilar to that of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), another 2024 candidate seeking the GOP presidential nomination who has previously vowed to crack down on state-legal cannabis markets but pledged to “end” the drug war, to an extent.

Photograph via United States Embassy & Consulates in Italy

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Trump Vows Death Penalty for Drug Sellers, Then Realizes Implications appeared first on Filter.

All three ultimately rejected them. But the reasons for those rejections are not universally encouraging—and general political understanding of ways to address the crisis remains woefully inadequate.

DIH laws are currently in effect in 25 states. Thirty years of data show that these laws fail to disrupt drug supply or demand, and there’s evidence that they increase overdose deaths by engendering fears that calling 911 in the event of an overdose will result in prosecution. One study estimated that from 2000 to 2017, media coverage of DIH prosecutions was “associated with an approximately 7.7% increase in overdose deaths”—about 32,000 additional lives lost.

What’s more, nationwide research shows that half of all DIH prosecutions are brought against people who were using drugs alongside the person who died—often friends, relatives or romantic partners. The prosecutions overwhelmingly target people of color.

Ironically it was Colorado, the most progressive of the Mountain states, that not only had the most extreme DIH bill, but came closest to making it law.

The three Mountain states’ DIH bills differed in the details. Colorado’s bipartisan bill, SB23-109, originally covered all Schedule I and Schedule II substances, included situations of people sharing drugs together, and carried a maximum sentence of 32 years in prison.

Utah’s Republican bill, SB23-245, was limited to opioids and methamphetamine, didn’t include drug-sharing, and carried a maximum sentence of 15 years.

And Wyoming’s Republican bill, SF0181, was limited to fentanyl, heroin and meth, did include drug-sharing, and carried a maximum 20-year sentence.

Utah and Wyoming—states with huge Republican legislative supermajorities—rejected their DIH bills as misguided and ineffectual. The opposition was bipartisan: Democrats did not cast a single vote in support of DIH, and a majority of Republicans spurned them as well.

Ironically it was Colorado, the most progressive of the Mountain states, that not only had the most extreme DIH bill, but came closest to making it law. Although the 2022 elections gave Democrats their biggest and most liberal majority in the legislature in decades, those Democrats were split in their opinions. The DIH bill had bipartisan sponsorship, and meaningful Democratic support.

Colorado’s bill easily passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate floor votes. It was eventually killed in the House Judiciary Committee on May 5— thanks in part to a last-minute substitution on the committee of a progressive Democratic House member (Rep. Amabile) for a more conservative one (Rep. Daugherty). The bill likely had the votes in the House to pass, so if it had made it out of committee, it would have gone to the governor.

Grotesquely, Republicans’ opposition to DIH was also based on attributing blame to the victim.

While Colorado Republicans were universally in favor of the DIH bill, the same was not true of red-state Republicans in Wyoming and Utah. Some of them expressed reluctance to assign guilt to a person facilitating voluntary drug use without malice—a point with which harm reductionists would agree.

But grotesquely, their opposition to DIH was also based on attributing blame to the victim instead. Republicans in these states were concerned that DIH laws removed personal responsibility from people that died. For example, on February 24, the day Utah’s bill was killed on the Senate floor, Senator Lincoln Filmore (R) said of his no vote: “We appear to be absolving the person who is actually ingesting the drugs … and I’m concerned that we take a person who has no intent to kill and charg[e] them with murder.”

Wyoming Republicans also worried that their proposed law did not address intent, acknowledging that many people are likely selling substances containing fentanyl without knowledge of it, or without any intent beyond simply meeting a demand. “Even the suppliers are probably, at the street level, addicts as well,” said Sen. Case Cale (R) on February 1. “For those people, I’m not sure what charging them with murder achieves as far as a deterrent.” That bill was killed in the House on March 1.

Colorado, despite the eventual defeat of its DIH bill, seems to have gone backwards. The state had appeared to be firmly on the path towards decriminalizing low-level drug possession when, in 2019, state lawmakers defelonized the single-use possession of all Schedule I and II drugs.

But in 2022, spooked by the surge in fentanyl-involved deaths and looking to forestall being painted as “soft” on drugs and crime in an election year, Democrats in the legislature introduced and passed the Fentanyl Accountability and Prevention Act. This made possession of more than 1 gram of any substance—even baby aspirin—containing even a dusting of fentanyl a felony.

The bill also contained “historic funding” for harm reduction—largely funneled through the state’s jails and prisons. Its sponsor, Rep. Leslie Herod (D), has since called the legislation a mistake. “As I watch the Department of Corrections ask for more beds to fill with folks who are addicted without having enough providers to provide mental health services to those people? We were wrong,” she said in February. “We didn’t get it right.”

“We don’t have to guess what justice looks like for the families, because we have families who are telling us.”

Supporters of Colorado’s DIH bill framed it as advancing the interests of overdose victims’ families.

“These are real people who have families and friends who love them. They and their families deserve justice, and Senate Bill 109 provides a path to that justice,” said Sen. Kyle Mullica (D), the bill’s principal sponsor.

“Oftentimes we don’t keep the families in mind, those victims of these crimes,” said Rep. Mike Lynch (R), another sponsor. “The mother and brother who lost a loved one. What do we do for those folks? How do we as lawmakers approach those families?”

“I implore you to think about the victims in this,” he continued at the May 5 House Judiciary Committee hearing. “Where is their justice?”

There are some bereaved family members who advocate for DIH laws. But it was notable that none of them testified in support of the bill at that hearing. Many family members of people who died did come, however, to urge that the bill be rejected.

Referring to this, Rep. Elisabeth Epps (D) argued, “We don’t have to guess what justice looks like for the families, because we have families who are telling us.”

“We heard from Morgan [Godvin] and Ember [Gren],” she continued. “Morgan was convicted of DIH for the death of Justin. Ember, Justin’s mother … testified after the person … went to prison for the death of her own child and asked us not to do this.”

“This bill is all about trying anything. I don’t know how we couldn’t do whatever we could, whether it works or not.”

Bill sponsors in both Colorado and Utah seemed to admit that they were proposing DIH legislation simply because they had no idea what else to do about the overdose crisis.

“This is maybe a little out of desperation to do something about the rise in deaths from fentanyl and other types of drugs,” said Sen. Todd Weiler (R), sponsor of Utah’s DIH bill.

“I think most of you know this is a very personal issue to me, I have a family member in the throes of a fentanyl addiction,” said Colorado Rep. Marc Snyder (D) at the May 5 hearing. “I’m somewhat of a desperate parent who is looking for any answers I can find. I’m willing to try anything.”

“This bill is all about trying anything,” echoed Colorado Rep. Mike Lynch (R), one of the sponsors, at the same hearing. “I don’t know how we couldn’t do whatever we could, whether it works or not.”

“That’s half right,” replied Rep. Epps. “Whatever it takes, absolutely. But whether it works or not? Absolutely not. There’s something wrong with doing it when our neighboring states have tried it and it didn’t work.” 

Photograph via pxhere/Public Domain

Morgan Godvin is a member of the board of directors of The Influence Foundation, which operates Filter.

The post Why Three Mountain States Rejected Drug-Induced Homicide Laws appeared first on Filter.

House Bill 362, sponsored by Representative Tom Oliverson (R), would amend the state’s drug “paraphernalia” statute by removing fentanyl test strips—defined as “equipment that identifies the presence of fentanyl, alpha-methylfentanyl, or any other derivative of fentanyl.” By decriminalizing these simple tools, which can save lives by warning people if fentanyl is present in the drugs they plan to use, Texas would follow states like Kentucky, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

On April 11, HB 362 passed the House—which, like the Senate, is Republican-controlled—by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 143-2. The Senate then received the bill and sent it to the Criminal Justice committee—but to date, it hasn’t moved any further. In recent months, two similar bills (SB 207 and SB 868) have also been filed in the Senate; these have also stalled in committee.

A person could be charged with murder, manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide if they manufacture or deliver fentanyl or related substances, and someone dies.

In contrast, Senators are moving with House Bill 6: The Senate version, SB 645, already passed out of committee by unanimous vote. This would drastically increase criminal penalties related to fentanyl and its analogs. It amends the state’s “criminal homicide” statute to include fentanyl-related activity. A person could be charged with murder, manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide if they manufacture or deliver fentanyl or related substances, and someone “dies as a result of injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or introducing” the drug into their body.

HB 6 also adds a range of felony charges to existing statute that would produce extremely harsh sentences. For example, manufacturing, delivering or possessing with intent to deliver 200-400 grams of fentanyl substances would carry a first-degree felony charge, punishable by a prison sentence of life or 10-99 years, and a fine of up to $100,000. HB 6 also orders medical examiners to list “homicide” as the cause of death in fatal fentanyl-involved overdoses.

In 2021, according to CDC data, Texas suffered about 5,000 drug overdose deaths. According to the Texas health department, 1,612 deaths that year, roughly a third of the total, involved fentanyl substances. These deaths have been surging since 2018, when the fentanyl figure was just over 200.

The Senate’s response is to block the test-strips bill that could save lives—while seeking to ramp up criminalization in ways that will directly ruin lives and make it harder for people to access emergency aid and lifesaving resources.

Activists are refusing to tolerate this while members of their communities are dying. As local outlet KXAN reported, on April 27 protestors led by Texas Harm Reduction Alliance confronted staffers for Senator Joan Huffman (R), chanting “shame.”

Huffman sits on the Criminal Justice Committee, where the fentanyl test strip bill currently waits without action. And it was she who authored SB 645, the Senate version of House Bill 6.

The protesters then moved into the House gallery, chanting “no more drug war” in opposition to HB 6.

“We’ve heard from multiple sources that Joan Huffman is keeping the [fentanyl test strips] bill from getting a hearing [in committee],” Cate Graziani, executive director of Texas Harm Reduction Alliance, told Filter. “She has declined to comment.”

“We want there to be a public conversation about the dire need for fentanyl testing strips during this overdose crisis.”

“I’ve been in touch with her staff for many months trying to gain some insight and offer data and resources that might change her mind,” Graziani continued, “but the information we’re getting from her staff is she doesn’t have an opinion on the bill and wouldn’t until it was given a hearing.”

Huffman only has one vote on the seven-member committee, and advocates have also tried to pressure the chair to set a hearing, with or without Huffman’s support.

“We’ve asked [Chair John Whitmire (D)] if he’d be willing to do that,” Graziani said, “and he’s said on record the bill doesn’t have the votes and that’s why it hasn’t been given a hearing yet. We’d like him to set the bill anyway; we want there to be a public conversation about the dire need for fentanyl testing strips during this overdose crisis.”

Governor Greg Abbott (R) has voiced his support for decriminalizing fentanyl test strips. But he also supports the increased criminalization of fentanyl sellers championed by HB 6 and Huffman’s Senate equivalent.

“This is not a fentanyl overdose,” he said in March 2022. “This is poisoning by fentanyl, which we want to make a murder crime in the state of Texas.”

“Drug-induced homicide bills increase deaths and risks associated with drug use, because people are less likely to call 911.”

Graziani is clear that this would do nothing to protect people who use drugs and their loved ones.

“Not only do we know drug-induced homicide bills increase deaths and risks associated with drug use, because people are less likely to call 911 during an overdose if you’ve got a potential murder charge hanging over you,” she said, but “oftentimes the person supplying the drug is a friend or family member—they would be going after somebody else they care for and charging them with murder.”

HB 6 makes no distinction based on whether or not substances are sold to someone as containing fentanyl, Graziani noted.

“You’ve got folks who are choosing to use fentanyl,” she said. “I haven’t heard any discussion for what happens if somebody dies from a fentanyl-related overdose but it was their drug of choice. Are we still charging folks with homicide?”

“As long as we have an illicit drug supply,” she added, referencing the Iron Law of Prohibition, “we’re going to see things like fentanyl—strong, potent and cheap is what the drug market is going to do.”

Drug-induced homicide laws and prosecutions have spread around the country, including, for example, in Arizona, California, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. And while many politicians and public officials have been quick to pursue enhanced punishments for people who sell and use drugs, they’ve been much slower to legalize, expand and fund harm reduction.

“We’re going to continue to build people power.”

In Texas—the nation’s second-largest state by population and the largest by land area in the contiguous United States—even authorized syringe service programs are rare, with no state-run programs, and lawmakers have failed to support wider access. Sterile syringes are still classed as “paraphernalia.”

Despite the immediate urgency of the situation, Graziani tacitly acknowledged that progress is likely to be a longer game in the context of the current legislature.

“We’re going to continue to build people power,” she said, “so hopefully next session we can repeal any drug-induced homicide law [and] legalize harm reduction programs—as well as fentanyl test strips, if we don’t get that this session.”

Photograph of Texas State Capitol by Wally Gobetz via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Activists Crash Texas Legislature Over Contrasting Fentanyl Bills appeared first on Filter.