Ouch!

Julian Sanchez | May 16, 2005

Radley Balko has a brutal takedown of DEA Administrator Karen Tandy's attempt to defend her agency's scorched-earth approach to pain doctors. After an ass-whuppin' like that, maybe someone should get her a Percocet?

Comments

|5.16.05 @ 11:11AM|#

Funny - I was just having a discussion with a co-worker this morning. She had a minor, very painful problem this weekend, which she had experienced in the past. The general treatment is do nothing, make yourself comfortable, and if it doesn't clear itself up in a few days, come back for more agressive treatment. (No, it is not an STD).

She couldn't get any pain treatment meds unless she checked herself into the hospital.

The chilling effect of these prosecutions is already evident.

|5.16.05 @ 11:14AM|#

Patients in pain must suffer so we can protect the children.

Don't you care about the children?

|5.16.05 @ 11:36AM|#

From the linked article:

You rarely see the DEA put out a press release celebrating the capture of someone who knocked off a pharmacy, or robbed a doctor's office. But the agency regularly boasts about the latest arrest of a doctor.


Know why? Because busting a drug dealer in the hood involves doing things like "investigating" and "police work." Who's more likely to shoot back when you send the SWAT guys out on a raid? Some doctor, or a gang-related drug dealer.

|5.16.05 @ 1:00PM|#

Pain is sacred. Why do you fools deny this? Only from the pain can one unlock their true self.

|5.16.05 @ 1:02PM|#

I need a drink!

Kid Handsome|5.16.05 @ 1:42PM|#

It's generally been even easier for regulatory authorities to go after doctors (any group subject to regulation) because of the mandatory sentencing guidelines (recently no longer mandatory, which is probably a meaningless distinction). Prosecutors require doctors to "cooperate" and if they mount a principled defense - the regulatory agency brings the hammer down.

I have long had the notion that we should enact a constitutional amendment that prohibits the government from profitting from law enforcement. If individual agencies couldn't make money from their efforts - they might actually pursue, you know, justice.

|5.16.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Kid Handsome,
That would be great. We could do it the same way pro sports leagues administer their fines. Have all fines distributed to non-profits. It would probably reduce the amount of taxation needed for social welfare programs and make the government less reliant on fining jaywalkers $90 on Sunset Strip while drunk drivers zig zag away.

David Nieporent|5.16.05 @ 5:09PM|#

That would be great. We could do it the same way pro sports leagues administer their fines. Have all fines distributed to non-profits. It would probably reduce the amount of taxation needed for social welfare programs...

Mo, Mo, Mo. How naive you are. When you think of "non-profits" you probably think of the Salvation Army or the Red Cross. You'd never make a good government bureaucrat. The trick is to create a dummy non-profit organization which lobbies for increased funding for your agency. That's what the government tobacco warriors do, for instance.

In this case, they wouldn't even need to create one. The Partnership for a Drug Free America, whose sole purpose is to whip up hysteria over drugs to increase support for the War on Drugs, already exists.