Bill Overview
Title: Crack is Whack Act
Description: This bill prohibits the use of federal funds to operate or control an injection center (i.e., a medically supervised injection site) in violation of a federal statute commonly known as the Crack House Statute. The statute generally prohibits making facilities available for the purpose of unlawfully using a controlled substance. The bill also prohibits (1) federal funds from being made available to any state, local, tribal, or private entity that operates or controls such an injection center; and (2) the use of federal funds by a federal agency to purchase or provide any drug paraphernalia directly or indirectly through grants or other assistance.
Sponsors: Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]
Target Audience
Population: People who use controlled substances and those impacted by addiction policies
Estimated Size: 20000000
- Medically supervised injection sites serve people who use drugs by providing a safe environment, thus targeting individuals who use controlled substances.
- Such facilities aim to reduce harm by preventing overdoses, hence primarily impacting drug users and indirectly their families and communities.
- The prohibition of federal funding could mean fewer resources available for harm reduction and overdose prevention services.
- Drug policy changes can also affect healthcare providers working in addiction services, as well as community health organizations.
Reasoning
- The population affected by the policy includes a significant number of individuals who use controlled substances, estimated at around 20 million in the U.S.
- The policy prohibits federal funding for medically supervised injection sites, likely reducing the support available to those who might use these services, such as people using opioids and other controlled substances.
- While the primary direct impact of the policy is on the users, it may also affect healthcare professionals working in harm reduction, community health organizations, and indirectly, family members of users.
- Considering the available budget, the policy restricts expansion or support to existing harm reduction facilities, leading to potentially fewer options for safe usage and overdose prevention.
- By incorporating perspectives across different demographics, we can evaluate both the immediate and longer-term perceptions and realities of this policy change.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think if they cut funding for safe places to use, there will be more overdoses.
- These centers save lives. Without them, I might end up using in unsafe environments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 6 |
Community Health Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is short-sighted and ignores the benefits of harm reduction facilities.
- Losing funding means cutting back on services that we know prevent overdoses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that this policy makes life more dangerous for those already living on the edge.
- Data shows that such centers reduce drug-related deaths; ignoring this is problematic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Retired (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While my life is stable now, I work with people who benefit greatly from harm reduction centers.
- Policies like this could lead to increased hospitalizations due to overdoses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
Student (Portland, OR)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Learning about harm reduction has shown me how effective safe injection sites are.
- If these services are cut, it could affect the most vulnerable populations negatively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Paramedic (Denver, CO)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen firsthand how critical harm reduction centers are in saving lives.
- This policy could lead to more people using drugs in alleys and parks, increasing health risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Journalist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might lead to more sensationalized reporting due to increased street drug use and related incidents.
- Harm reduction is about pragmatism. Ignoring it can escalate the crisis.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Police Officer (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've worked hard to build rapport with the community, using harm reduction strategies.
- This policy could reverse some of the progress we've made in trust and safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Nurse (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safe injection sites have made my job easier by reducing ER admissions linked to overdoses.
- Without them, I fear we'll see a surge in preventable deaths.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Retired (Houston, TX)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Losing my child made me realize how crucial harm reduction services are.
- This policy risks more families experiencing the pain I went through.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5100000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6200000)
Year 3: $5200000 (Low: $4100000, High: $6400000)
Year 5: $5400000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6700000)
Year 10: $5800000 (Low: $4500000, High: $7200000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential increase in healthcare and law enforcement costs due to fewer resources for harm reduction.
- The possible shift of financial and operational burdens to state and local governments.
- Administrative costs for enforcement of the funding restriction policy.
- Economic ripple effects stemming from changes in drug-related healthcare and legal outcomes.