🚨The DEA is soliciting public comments on their production quotas for Schedule 1 and 2 drugs and they are due in 2 days - at 11:59pm Tuesday Nov 16th.🚨
Some of these quotas are GREAT! Some aren't.
Join us at @DrugPolicyOrg and submit your comments today!!
A thread 🧵(1/n)
Why should you submit comments? Because the DEA decides annually how much of these Schedule 1 and 2 drugs should be produced every year for:
🩺 medical purposes,
🔬 scientific purposes,
🔍 research purposes, and
🏭 industrial purposes.
(2/n)
Drugs in Schedule 1 like heroin, marijuana, LSD and others have been deemed to have "no medical use" and "high abuse potential" even though many of us know they DO have medical uses. Higher quotas are good because we can study them more to find uses. (3/n)
Please read this excellent piece by @MarijuanaMoment about how it's actually GREAT that the DEA has proposed higher production quotas in 2022 for a lot of Schedule 1 drugs including marijuana and psychedelics because researchers want to study them. marijuanamoment.net/dea-proposes-d…
To show your support for this positive expansion, please consider submitting your comments to the DEA by following the directions and reading more about the details here: federalregister.gov/documents/2021… (5/n)
Because our comments could not possibly be 100% positive (lol- I mean, it is the DEA!) I had to dig to see if there's anything we wouldn't like about the proposed quotas. I found some things that may concern you too. (6/n)
1) I compared 2021 quotas to these proposed 2022 quotas and focused on certain opioids.I saw that fentanyl quotas went down, as did oxycodone, hydromorphone, and others used for pain. This is bc of stigma, not science.
Pain patients and groups like @national_pain may be interested in commenting on this.
A factor that weighs heavily in their calculations for quotas is "diversion" even though we know Rx opioid overdoses have gone down, diverted fentanyl is rare. POC still undertreated.
2) I was angry to see that methadone quotas did not increase in 2022, which to me just reflects the complete apathy about this life-saving medication. And the acknowledgment that 20 years into this crisis, we don't plan on making it any more accessible for more patients.
3) Although fentanyl analogues are a niche issue for many, I was irritated that these quotas were not increased. When Biden expanded their temporary Schedule 1 status, his admin said that any research suggesting their medical use could get them rescheduled. We need more to study.
If this thread sparked your interest, please visit the landing page where you can read more about these quotas and get directions to submit your comments! federalregister.gov/documents/2021…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We often talk about the ‘success’ of our public health measures to reduce cigarette smoking- taxes, smoking bans, stigma, etc.
But no policies are neutral-we see racial disparities in smoking rates, also by class, ability, and education status.
Smoking still stratifies us.
As long as cigarettes:
- Are cheaper than therapy,
- Help us work long hours,
- Suppress appetite while food prices go up,
- Help us manage medication side effects,
- Are less stigmatized than e-cigarettes, and
- Make us function in this neoliberal hellscape, we will smoke.
And they did something absolutely unforgivable that will cost people their lives and freedom: They proposed extending the class-wide scheduling of fentanyls.
1) Currently, fentanyl is a scheduled substance. Some analogues with proven high potency have been scheduled as Schedule 1.
Class-wide scheduling means that EVERY FENTANYL ANALOGUE EVER SEIZED IN THE FUTURE will be treated as a Schedule 1 drug with harsh penalties. Huge problem.
2) Schedule 1 status means a drug has "high abuse potential" and "no medical use." It also means harsh penalties.
But not all fentanyl analogues are psychoactive or are potent. Some have no effects or milder effects than fentanyl. This incorrectly presumes analogue = dangerous.
2) Although the sample size is small, based in Dayton OH, their findings are aligned with several other recent studies highlighting similar motivations for use.
Here's a part of their descriptive table showing how many used it to manage opioid withdrawal and for other reasons:
3) The study used the Drug, Set, and Setting model to really synthesize and tie together the numerous factors that contribute to increased use.
Setting: Increased availability of meth
Set: Expectancies and beliefs about how it could work
Drug: Meth characteristics being helpful
✅Illicit drug use occurs in every zip code but drug arrests don't.
✅A drug arrest record (even without a conviction or incarceration) can mess up your life.
✅The drug war has made social workers, doctors, teachers, etc. into frontline enforcers like cops.
✅Drug use disorders are the only health condition where being actively 'symptomatic' makes you a 'criminal' too.
✅The drug war and criminalization makes recovery harder to achieve.
✅The drug war incentivizes unsafe drug use and behaviors to avoid law enforcement detection.
✅You're still a drug warrior if you only want to free your drug of choice (looking at you, plant activists)
✅You're still a drug warrior if you see drug users as 'victims' who need saving
✅You're still a drug warrior if you only want decrim, but not a safe supply
🧵A THREAD 🧵 1) I've been doing harm reduction work for 15 years and I've learned a few lessons about how to talk about it with people who aren't quite there yet.
I presented on this a few years ago and I'm going to share my slides and talking points here with you today -
2) First of all, it's important for US to reframe.
Rather than seeing non-harm reductionists as RESISTANT, I think it's more helpful to see them as RELUCTANT.
This helps us to approach conversations with more compassion and patience (altho not always easy!)
3) Then it's important to think about the types of reactions and responses you often hear from folks who may be reluctant about harm reduction.
One of my final points at the #StigmaSummit was the need for us to include people who CURRENTLY use drugs in
➡️developing programmatic policies to address stigma and barriers,
➡️evaluating them, and
➡️ measuring them.
And that they need to be compensated for their time. (1/3)
And that researchers must include and PAY people who CURRENTLY use drugs in research abt them & their needs:
➡️Developing questions
➡️Gathering data
➡️Analyzing/interpreting data
➡️Writing and presenting on findings
If you are a community org that has been contacted by a research team for data collection, YOU HAVE RIGHTS. Some tips:
➡️Form review committees to vet researchers (charge for the review process!)
➡️Create a detailed Memorandum of Agreement #StigmaSummitdrugpolicy.org/sites/default/…