Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8845

Bill Overview

Title: Felony Murder for Deadly Fentanyl Distribution Act

Description: This bill makes the distribution of fentanyl resulting in death a first degree murder. An individual who is guilty of first degree murder by distributing fentanyl is subject to death or life in prison.

Sponsors: Rep. Gonzales, Tony [R-TX-23]

Target Audience

Population: people involved in the fentanyl distribution chain and victims

Estimated Size: 2000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Illegal Drug Distributor (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 32 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think this new law is too harsh. I'm not the only one responsible for what happens after a sale.
  • This could ruin lives of people like me who may be struggling to make ends meet, leading us to sell drugs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 2 3
Year 2 2 3
Year 3 2 3
Year 5 3 4
Year 10 3 5
Year 20 4 6

Former user (Baltimore, MD)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might deter a lot of people from selling dangerous drugs, which could save lives.
  • I've seen too many friends die from overdoses. This policy could make a difference.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 8

Mother of OD victim (New York, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While this policy won't bring my son back, it makes sure the ones responsible are held accountable.
  • It might prevent others from suffering the same pain I've experienced.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 4
Year 2 4 4
Year 3 5 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Public Defender (Houston, TX)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could lead to more severe legal battles and overcrowding in prisons.
  • I worry about the long-term legal ramifications and costs associated with implementing this policy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 4 5
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 5 6
Year 20 5 7

Police Officer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy gives us a stronger legal framework to target major fentanyl distributors.
  • Ultimately, it represents a serious step in fighting the opioid crisis.

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 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 8

Activist (Austin, TX)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like this lead to more incarceration, not solutions.
  • We need to focus on treatment and rehabilitation, not hefty punishments.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 4 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 6
Year 20 6 7

Health Care Worker (Detroit, MI)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Stopping fentanyl distribution is critical, but fear of harsh punishments might push it further underground.
  • We need comprehensive policies, not just strict laws.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 8 8

Law Student (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 25 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This law may have unintended consequences, especially on disadvantaged communities.
  • We need a balanced approach focusing on both law enforcement and prevention.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 8

College Student (Philadelphia, PA)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's critical to address the root causes of addiction, not just punishments.
  • I'm worried this policy is reactive rather than proactive about prevention.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 7 7

Social Worker (Seattle, WA)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies should ensure they do not unfairly target marginalized communities.
  • I believe in rehabilitating individuals rather than punishing them severely.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 8 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)

Year 2: $315000000 (Low: $262500000, High: $367500000)

Year 3: $330750000 (Low: $275625000, High: $385875000)

Year 5: $363825000 (Low: $303187500, High: $424462500)

Year 10: $441232500 (Low: $367601250, High: $514863750)

Year 100: $1260830771 (Low: $1047583802, High: $1474077740)

Key Considerations