Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Controlled Substances Act to fix a technical error in the definitions.
Description: This bill makes technical corrections in the definitions section of the Controlled Substances Act.
Sponsors: Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who interact with or are regulated by the Controlled Substances Act
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) impacts any individuals who handle, consume, or are in any way connected to controlled substances.
- This includes individuals who use controlled substances, legally or illegally.
- Healthcare providers, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical companies who deal with controlled substances will be affected because they need to adhere to the definitions set by the CSA.
- Law enforcement agencies and personnel also deal with controlled substances and thus are affected by changes in this act.
- The global population that deals with controlled substances either legally through medication or healthcare systems, or illegally through drug use, should be considered.
Reasoning
- The people affected by this policy include those involved in handling or using controlled substances, such as healthcare professionals, pharmacists, and patients using prescribed medications.
- Considering the policy affects definitions within the Controlled Substances Act, the immediate impact may not be significant, but it could influence long-term practices or legal interpretations.
- The overall budget constraint limits the extent of re-education or enforcement changes that could be implemented based on these definition adjustments.
- Since the policy involves technical corrections, it might have negligible direct effects on the general population, but may cause minor adjustments in compliance or enforcement procedures.
- Some individuals, particularly those working directly with legislation or controlled substances, might notice clearer or more consistent regulatory language, which could subtly impact their work or compliance efforts.
Simulated Interviews
Pharmacist (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The clarification in definitions might help streamline some of our work, reducing confusion during audits and compliance checks.
- While it might not directly change my day-to-day workload, consistent definitions are helpful when dealing with prescriptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Police Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better definitions might provide improved clarity for enforcement, but it's more of an administrative change.
- It won't majorly affect my wellbeing or job performance, barring any major legislative shifts.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Healthcare Administrator (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Revising definitions can help reduce legal risks for the institution if it addresses ambiguities.
- This could mean better training materials for staff, but it doesn't affect my personal Wellbeing significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Pain Management Patient (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on prescription medications, so clear definitions ensure I can continue accessing what I need safely.
- Changes in definitions usually affect behind-the-scenes work more than direct patient care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Drug Policy Analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Technical corrections are minor but they can pave the way for larger reforms if interpreted broadly.
- I welcome anything that could potentially lead to clearer policies in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Recreational Cannabis User (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in the Controlled Substances Act might not affect state laws around cannabis, but federal clarity could influence larger scale decriminalization efforts.
- There's a level of indirect impact here, as it could affect perceptions and future legal structures.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Substance Abuse Counselor (Austin, TX)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes probably won't affect my work directly unless new guidelines for treatment or legal interpretations arise from it.
- It's always good to have clarity in legal definitions, though, even if it doesn't immediately impact my clients.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
CEO of Pharmaceutical Company (Columbus, OH)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We navigate a plethora of regulations, so any refinement could support compliance procedures.
- It's mainly operational for us, ensuring that new definitions align with production and distribution guidelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Emergency Room Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved definitions might slightly streamline our documentation processes, which can be beneficial.
- It's a minor improvement but any improvement in workflow clarity is appreciated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Judge (Boston, MA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clarifying technical definitions is beneficial for the judiciary to ensure consistency and fairness in rulings.
- Even in my retired capacity, I see the value this could add in long-term legal contexts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $750000)
Year 2: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 3: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 5: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 10: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Key Considerations
- The bill clarifies language, reducing potential legal ambiguities and misunderstandings, which is beneficial for stakeholders in legal contexts.
- Given its nature as a technical amendment, the financial and operational impacts are minimal.
- The primary concern is ensuring that changes are correctly communicated to all relevant parties, which is an administrative task that can normally be handled within existing agency frameworks.