DRUGS & THE ELECTION
What will a victory by either candidate mean for this country’s recovery and addiction landscapes?
With the election less than a week away, activists from all over the board are scrambling to make their voices heard and promote their causes to the electorate. Abortion rights or pro lifers; Israeli and Free Palestine activists; the economy; the border. The people I have not heard a lot from and the issue I have heard barely anything of substance about from either candidate has been drug policy and the fentanyl crisis that continues to ravage this nation.
Landscapes of drug use and recovery in this country vary greatly, and are influenced by policies in a number of fields. State and local elections are actually more influential, because of housing policies and funding for resources and (non-profit) outreach programs. But I know the attention is national this week, so I did some research. This post will take a little time to look into the policies assumed of and endorsed by both candidates and hypothesize the impact they may make.
ON THE BORDER:
Border policy, one of this election’s hot-button issues and one Donald Trump has held an extreme stance on since before he was elected in 2016 (and arguably the stance that won him the election), is closely tied to America’s overdose crisis. Fentanyl is manufactured in Mexico from precursor drugs shipped in from China and then smuggled across the border to dealers and consumers in the States. Critically, drug smuggling is largely done at legal ports of entry, frequently by American citizens who are paid by narcos. A wider border policy that would include trade regulation could help abate the epidemic. In this day and age, “the border” is not solely a geographic entity. International trade and the internet transcend physical borders and offer security threats just as (or arguably more) serious as those posed at the southern border. It is critical that the American government implement stringent trade policies to find and remove fentanyl precursors coming in from China before the finished product hits our illicit drug market. See my piece from last week!
Donny T:
In case you aren’t aware of Trump’s stance on the border, he wants to “close it.” It is hard for me to see any of Trump’s reasoning as coming from a good place and not entirely racist and xenophobic. Yes, he mentions the fact that drugs are trafficked over the border from Mexico by cartels, but his wording is just…
“Tens of thousands of innocent Americans are killed by the vast quantities of deadly, poisonous drugs that are smuggled across our nation’s very porous borders. They’re a lot less porous with us there, but they’re coming in bigger numbers, and part of that is because our country is doing so well economically. They’re coming up for that. And even the drugs — I guess the money that we’re spending, unfortunately, within the country, if we could just tell people not to be doing that, but they are doing that…
But we’re having tremendous amounts of meth, cocaine, heroin, and ultra-lethal fentanyl. That’s literally ultra-lethal. It gets stronger.
This comes at a great cost to our society. An excess of $700 billion annually is spent, and we think that’s a very, very small number compared to what the actual number is.”1
… nice. Reading this I immediately thought ok, one, maybe he should script his speeches. Two, “if we could just tell people not to be doing that,” shows a pretty clear lack of understanding of what addiction is. Three, his main concern about the United States’ drug crisis is the amount of money spent on it (costs2 related to crime, lost labor productivity, and health care i.e. rehabilitation and other services). This perceived lack of care for those struggling with or touched by addiction and the barrage of other out of pocket insults he enjoys throwing around makes it seem like the drug crisis is just another excuse for him to shit on immigrants and Latin Americans. Which inspires a lot of hatred and takes the attention away from the Americans actually struggling.
Vice President Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz, sums up my sentiment pretty nicely.
“They (Republicans) want to blame everything on migrants and they want to take no responsibility or come up with a plan.”3
Lack of a plan is the point I really want to push with both of these candidates. Addiction stays an issue that, while affecting so many Americans, continues to be pushed to the side. Unfortunately, Harris hasn’t taken up a policy that seems any more useful. Politico4 says it well, “There’s a rare point of agreement among Republican and Democratic candidates this election year: America has a drug problem and it’s fentanyl traffickers’ fault.”
Kamala:
VP Harris’ campaign website does include a section summarizing her plan for tackling the opioid and fentanyl crisis. It focuses largely on border security, mentioning her record as attorney general of California, during which she prosecuted many a drug trafficker, and the bipartisan border bill she will sign if elected that will, “fund detection technology to intercept even more illicit drugs.”
“Combating fentanyl is a public health issue and stopping it begins with securing the border.”
Vague but sure. I wish she would focus on the chemicals coming in from China, though! Demand isn’t gonna go away just because the border is tight.
Harris is struggling to combat the Republican talking point that the Biden administration’s lenient border policies (they weren’t that lenient) let in criminals and drugs.
**Read this! Everyone’s Tough on Drugs Again, By Carmen Paun for Politico
**And here’s a quick listen from NPR…
ON DOMESTIC POLICY:
(De)criminalization
Drug decriminalization gained traction in 2018, entering the mainstream in 2020 with cities like Portland and Washington, DC adopting policies that removed mandatory charges for possession of schedule one substances (heroin, meth, cannabis etc.). Society was reckoning with the fact that the “war on drugs” was not working. Locking people up for being addicts was not solving anything. In fact, many in the carceral system turn to or rely more on drugs once they are locked up. Decriminalization was meant to work in tandem with the implementation of safe injection sites and methadone clinics to provide addicts with monitored spaces to use — where they would not fear arrest, could be resuscitated in the case of overdose, and be introduced to treatment.
After a few years of this experiment on the non-consenting guinea pigs of society, NIMBYism has returned. Cities that had voted in favor of lenient drug policies are now leaning towards re-criminalization and budget cuts for clinics and safe injection sites. People who were theoretically comfortable with the idea of taking care of addicts (particularly those facing houselessness) have realized the uncomfortable realities of addiction in a system that has not provided care for decades.
“It’s one of those things that people don’t want in their community. They want a tough-on-crime stance on it. They want it to go away. They’re afraid for their families, they’re afraid for their children,” (Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-CT).5
People experiencing homelessness and addiction not being arrested anymore = they are seen = the rest of the public gets uncomfortable :’(
Donny T:
Trump’s stance around this issue, like many others, is unknown because it flip flops all of the time. In 2022, he proposed the death penalty for anyone caught selling drugs and continued with this stance through 2023 until it was brought to his attention that he had commuted (released) a woman serving a life sentence for participating in cocaine trafficking.
Relatedly, Governor DeSantis has held strong in his belief that drug traffickers crossing the border should be executed.
Kamala:
VP Harris hasn’t said much specifically on domestic drug criminalization during the campaign, but the electorate’s focus on safety has leant to a tough on crime stance from both candidates. VP Harris was district attorney in San Francisco, one of the cities facing a major public health/ addiction/ houselessness crisis, and so has that experience under her belt, perhaps giving her the upper hand. Although it was liberal policies that brought decriminalization and healthcare in the first place, a point the Republican Party is leaning heavily on.
Because this is more of a local matter, check the back of your ballot! That is where local ballot proposals are, and yours might be related to homelessness and drug criminalization.
Healthcare
The SUPPORT Act, signed into law in 2018 by then President Donald Trump, included, “critical provisions to standardize the delivery of addiction medicine; expand access to high-quality, evidence-based care; and address the impacts of the epidemic by increasing and strengthening our workforce.”6 Again, feelings toward this sort of policy have grown lukewarm among voters. The act’s renewal has been stalled in Congress.
Donny T:
Trump is following along with the Republican plan to slash healthcare. While Donny himself flip flops on how far he would go, the general sentiment among congressional Republicans is to end Medicaid and Medicare, forcing Americans to buy expensive private insurance plans, which many of us cannot afford.
A few weeks ago, RFK, the notoriously conspiracy-driven “health” advocate, was tapped to run federal health agencies in the case that Trump gets elected. This would not be good. RFK would likely roll back vaccine mandates for serious diseases such as measles, and try to get rid of HIPAA, an act that protects patient’s health information from becoming public.
Vox takes a deeper look into the Republican party’s plans for healthcare that I do not want to unpack in this piece.
Kamala:
Harris has a good record on healthcare as vice president of the Biden administration. The Biden-Harris administration made Narcan (naloxone) available over the counter, which was pretty huge. It’s expensive (around $40 for two doses) but $40 to save a life should not be a question. If you're in a city you can get them for free at community health centers/ overdose prevention centers/ crisis centers (different places use different names). Most will offer training on how to use it. The funding for these centers is largely a local issue. Some cities may not have a budget for them, and some small towns may. Again, check the back of your ballot!
Kamala, like most Democrats, is also in favor of national healthcare and lower prescription drug costs, which will help people who use insurance to get into treatment facilities as well as those who have prescriptions for medications such as methadone and those to treat underlying mental health issues and the lingering physical symptoms drug abuse leaves on the body.
**I highly recommend reading this anecdote by substacker (and huge influence of mine) Bill Shaner. Another little death that no one notices
I personally am not satisfied with either candidate’s plan to tackle the addiction and fentanyl crisis in this country, but I would definitely prefer Kamala Harris. Please vote. Tuesday, November 5.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-briefing-drug-trafficking-southern-border/
https://www.ndwa.org/drug-free-workplace/cost-of-substance-abuse/