Drug War

The Simpleminded Opioid Narrative That Doomed Tom Marino

The drug czar nominee withdrew his name after being portrayed as the henchman of villains who profit from addiction.

|

C-SPAN

Today Tom Marino, the Pennsylvania congressman whom Donald Trump nominated to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy, withdrew his name because of a bill he was publicly bragging about just a year and a half ago. That bill, the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, was uncontroversial when it was enacted. Not a single member of Congress opposed it. Neither did the Justice Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), or President Obama, who signed it into law on April 19, 2016. Yet Marino's sponsorship of the bill killed his nomination because of the way the law was framed in reports by 60 Minutes and The Washington Post.

According to those reports, which were the product of a joint investigation, Marino was doing the bidding of the pharmaceutical industry, and everyone else involved in enacting his bill was either bought off, duped, or steamrollered. But that portrayal is persuasive only if you follow the lead of 60 Minutes and the Post by uncritically adopting the perspective of a hardline DEA faction that was unhappy with the bill.

"In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription narcotics onto the nation's streets," the Post reports. "In the midst of the worst drug epidemic in American history," says 60 Minutes, "the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's ability to keep addictive opioids off U.S. streets was derailed."

The provision highlighted by both reports limited the DEA's power to immediately suspend the registrations of manufacturers, distributors, pharmacists, and doctors based on an "imminent danger to the public health or safety." Marino's bill defined that phrase to mean "a substantial likelihood of an immediate threat that death, serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance will occur in the absence of an immediate suspension of the registration." It thereby constrained the DEA's ability to summarily stop people from prescribing or supplying controlled substances, requiring some evidence of a genuine emergency.

To my mind, any limit on the DEA's power is welcome. The DEA, not surprisingly, tends to take a different view. But the DEA's leadership, which at the time was trying to promote a less antagonistic relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, signed off on the new language, as did the Justice Department. Legislators read the DEA's approval to mean there were no law enforcement objections to the bill, which explains why it passed Congress with no resistance. Even ardent prohibitionists thought the clarification of the "imminent danger" standard was fair and reasonable.

"We worked collaboratively with DEA and DOJ…and they contributed significantly to the language of the bill," a spokesman for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told the Post. "DEA had plenty of opportunities to stop the bill, and they did not do so." A spokesman for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) likewise said the DEA never expressed any reservations, adding, "The fact that it passed the entire Senate without hearing any sort of communication that would have triggered concern of at least one senator doesn't really pass the smell test."

By contrast, the disgruntled drug warriors who were the main sources for the Post and 60 Minutes stories—most conspicuously, Joe Rannazzisi, who used to run the DEA's Office of Diversion Control—see the bill as a shameful surrender to the evil pharmaceutical companies that profit from opioid addiction. That is the view that the Post and 60 Minutes adopted, almost without qualification.

The reports give short shrift to the argument that the vague "imminent danger" standard was unfair and legally shaky, to the point that it threatened the viability of the DEA's cases. They pay no attention at all to the perspective of the bona fide pain patients who suffer when the government cracks down on opioids. There is not a whiff in either report of the ineluctable conflict between drug control and pain control, even though reconciling those irreconcilable goals was the main rationale for Marino's bill. Nor do the reports give any sense of the damage done by pushing addicts into the black market, where drugs are more variable and therefore more dangerous.

It does not matter much whether Marino or someone else becomes Trump's drug czar, a position with little real power that is useful mainly as an indicator of an administration's drug policy inclinations. But it does matter that the simpleminded narrative endorsed by the Post and 60 Minutes, in which opioid addiction is caused by rapacious capitalists with the help of their paid stooges in Congress, is so widely and credulously accepted that Marino was doomed once it tainted him. That narrative leaves no room for the complicated sources of addiction (which is not caused simply by exposure to drugs), the ways in which prohibition makes addiction more perilous, or the harm that restricting access to opioids does to innocent bystanders.

Addendum: Yesterday Hatch, who sponsored the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act in the Senate, noted that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who said Trump should withdraw Marino's nomination in light of the legislation, supported the bill at the time. So did Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who now says the law should be repealed. "Did the entire United States Congress decide to shield its eyes to the true sinister intent of this legislation?" Hatch asked in a floor speech.

While legislators' reluctance to read the bills they pass (even short bills like this one) should not be underestimated, they are on pretty shaky ground when they suddenly repudiate legislation they supported and portray sponsorship of it as disqualifying. Manchin and McCaskill are effectively saying they had no idea what they were voting for until they read about it in The Washington Post a year and a half later.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

27 responses to “The Simpleminded Opioid Narrative That Doomed Tom Marino

  1. How many people died from prescription opioids compared to street opioids, and how many people are now in pain because they can’t get them because the government is a bunch of retarded assholes.

    1. ^^^THIS^^^

      If someone becomes addicted to codeine and can’t get it, they’ll eventually find heroin. Especially if they can’t be effectively treated.

      While not a solution, I’d rather a doctor/patient coordinate an opioid addition (if such a thing is possible) if treatment isn’t feasible. Certainly better than turning to street drugs.

      1. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $70h to $86h.. Go this site and start your work..

        Good luck….. http://www.webcash20.com

  2. The Simpleminded Opioid Narrative was my nickname in the Laotian club scene.

  3. That is the view that the Post and 60 Minutes adopted, almost without qualification.

    I caught by accident a little bit of the 60 Minutes. It could have been written by drug warriors themselves. Maybe it was. Absolutely devoid of critical analysis.

    1. It’s bad. They just allow the head of the FDA talk extensively without questioning any of his points. His point being, that the heroin consumption now is directly related to them being denied the power to do anything by Congress. They were not able to fight big pharma.

      So, expect an extension of FDA power now.

  4. the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016, was uncontroversial when it was enacted.

    No doubt because everyone was humming “The Girl From EPAEDEA”.

  5. I turned my radio off this morning in disgust from something related to this. The radio personality was giving the argument that capitalism promises happiness from external goods. When that fails to provide happiness people inevitably turn to drugs. It was so inane that I just turned it off.

    The government and some lawyers are going to get a huge check soon from pharmaceutical companies. And everyone will know that justice was served. And people will keep on using heroin.

    1. The radio personality was giving the argument that capitalism promises happiness from external goods. When that fails to provide happiness people inevitably turn to drugs.

      “I mean, that’s what happened to *me*.”

      1. I’m always confused that this guy calls himself a libertarian, but rarely allows for individual responsibility or that the government had a negative impact.

        1. Who is “this guy”, anyway?

          1. John Curley of the Tom and Curley show in Seattle.

            1. Nyuck, nyuck!

  6. 60 Minutes and The Washington Post.

    I will say I’ve found it most interesting how quickly the left has gotten back on board with the War on Drugs vis-a-vis this opioid epidemic. I’ve never heard so many Democrats sound like Republicans.

    1. Another thing is how “nobody” had heard of fentanyl before Michael Jackson’s death.

      1. That was propofol, not fentanyl.

        1. Prince?

    2. Seeing Democrats turn in to characters from Red Dawn has been comforting to me over the last year or so.

    3. There’s always some new epidemic to keep the WoD alive, and most importantly keep it bipartisan. They lost some serious ground on marijuana so they have to retrench here

      I remember there was a tweet going around in leftist circles about how some DEA official resigned because he thought Trump wasn’t taking his job seriously or some shit, and to them it was just this sign of how horrible things had become that our officials weren’t feeling respected by Trump. Nevermind that this is one of the most evil agencies within our government and we should want them all to resign

      Watching the left defend intelligence agencies and the DEA has given me some serious whiplash

    4. When exactly did the left get off board?

      1. This. Democrats controlled congress for the start and first decade of the drug war. Then after a few years of split, had almost another decade of control. The drug war is something they did for votes, and they will no doubt continue to do as long as it benefits them in the voting booth, simple as that.

      2. The left has often paid lip service to various causes (much like the republicans with cutting spending now) to which there was either more pressing concerns or more research required to do properly, etc; drug decriminalization being front and center, nevermind at least a wing of conservatives were also making the case for legalization.

        This is more of an authoritarian vs. libertarian fight, regardless of flavor.

        I’m not privy to the breakdown of the most recent addiction data, but much of this has the same feel as the crack “epidemic” of the 90s, which is to say drug use patterns fluctuate, but over all addiction rates tend to stay static. which is less epidemic than moral panic.

  7. Marino stepping out was a featured story I just heard on local NBC news. No mention, of course, that Marino’s legislation was overwhelming bi-partisan and o.k.d by Obama administration.

    1. The “opioid epidemic” is giving politicians another weapon to beat others down. That being said, I don’t know enough about Tom Marino to say whether he would have been good or not.

  8. Trump wants to exempt big business from the ravages of the drug war while ratcheting up the pain for everyone else. Jeff Sessions at DOJ to attack the usual suspects and Marino as Drug Czar to protect the corporations. Yes and of course too many democrats are complicit in it all.

  9. 1932: Who’d a thunk glucose and yeast companies would benefit from making beer a felony?
    2017: Who’d a thunk asset looters and resellers of loot would benefit from making plants a felony?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.