Bill Overview
Title: Stop Pills That Kill Act
Description: This bill increases criminal penalties for offenses relating to the manufacture of fentanyl or counterfeit substances. It also establishes requirements for federal agencies to address the use of counterfeit substances. Specifically, the bill applies an increased criminal penalty for possessing, manufacturing, or distributing certain equipment or materials that are used to illegally manufacture fentanyl, an analogue of fentanyl, or a counterfeit substance (the increased penalty is currently limited to offenses involving methamphetamine). The bill also requires the United States Sentencing Commission to review sentencing guidelines and amend them, if appropriate, to include an enhanced penalty for those who knowingly misrepresent counterfeit pills that have fentanyl, a fentanyl analogue, or methamphetamine as legitimate pills. The Drug Enforcement Administration must establish and implement a plan to address counterfeit fentanyl or methamphetamine substances through law enforcement action and education and prevention efforts. In addition, the Department of Justice must annually report on the collection of counterfeit fentanyl or methamphetamine substances by law enforcement and on related prosecutions.
Sponsors: Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO-4]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide affected by drug policy and enforcement changes concerning fentanyl and counterfeit drugs
Estimated Size: 30000000
- Fentanyl is a potent opioid and has been a major contributor to drug overdose deaths worldwide.
- Counterfeit drugs often contain dangerous substances that can severely harm or kill individuals unwittingly using them.
- The bill targets manufacturers, distributors, or possessors of fentanyl, its analogues, and counterfeit substances, implicating people involved in the illegal drug trade.
- The bill could indirectly impact public health by potentially reducing the availability of counterfeit substances, thereby reducing instances of overdoses and drug-related harm.
- Law enforcement agencies worldwide will be involved in implementing the bill's provisions, impacting those working within these sectors.
- Drug users could be indirectly impacted due to changes in available substances and potentially increased drug prices due to scarcity of counterfeit drugs.
- Healthcare providers and harm reduction organizations may see changes in patterns of drug use and potentially fewer overdose cases.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a small segment of the population directly involved in the manufacture, distribution, or consumption of fentanyl and its analogues. Therefore, the interviews focus on those likely to be impacted either directly or indirectly.
- The primary focus is on individuals involved in the illegal drug trade, law enforcement officers, healthcare providers, and potential users of counterfeit drugs.
- Given the budget and the specific target, the policy's immediate impacts will primarily be seen in areas with high rates of fentanyl-related incidents.
- Consideration must be given to the wider societal impact of decreased availability of counterfeit drugs, potentially altering drug markets and user behaviors.
- The policy is limited by budget constraints, meaning not all aspects may be enforceable or monitored comprehensively.
Simulated Interviews
Healthcare worker (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see so many overdose cases due to fentanyl. Anything that reduces this is positive.
- More resources on education and prevention would be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Law enforcement officer (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives us more tools to tackle the fentanyl issue.
- Increasing penalties will hopefully deter some criminals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Recovering addict (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could make it safer if fewer counterfeit pills are on the street.
- Rehabilitation and support are still needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Judge (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced penalties might help, but prevention is key.
- The policy misses on addressing the root problem of addiction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Pharmaceutical employee (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation might improve trust in our industry.
- Counterfeit drugs are dangerous; eliminating them prioritizes safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Street pharmacist (illicit drug dealer) (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tougher penalties might push me to lay low for a while.
- The risks are higher now; it might cut into profits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Substance abuse counselor (Memphis, TN)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this reduces overdoses, it’s good.
- Long-term support for addicts is still necessary regardless of the policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Advocate for drug policy reform (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m critical of increased penalties; they don’t solve addiction.
- We need more on the prevention side.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Policy analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Resource allocation is key; simply increasing penalties without support measures can backfire.
- Implementation costs need careful oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College student (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see action on this issue; safety is a concern for students.
- Education on drug safety is also important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 2: $92000000 (Low: $72000000, High: $112000000)
Year 3: $94000000 (Low: $74000000, High: $114000000)
Year 5: $98000000 (Low: $78000000, High: $118000000)
Year 10: $107000000 (Low: $87000000, High: $127000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- The impact on the prison system, including capacity and costs associated with increased incarceration rates.
- Potential resistance from public health advocates who may argue for increased treatment options instead of criminal penalties.
- The bill's reliance on law enforcement to significantly curb counterfeit substances, which may shift rather than eliminate illegal activities.
- The overall social impact, particularly in communities heavily impacted by drug-related laws—could be considerable and contentious.