Bill Overview
Title: CRACK Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits community-based overdose prevention programs, syringe services programs, and other harm reduction programs from using funds made available through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to procure or distribute pipes or other paraphernalia that can be used to smoke, inhale, or ingest narcotics.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People who use smoking paraphernalia for narcotics
Estimated Size: 50000
- Harm reduction programs are present globally, particularly in regions experiencing high drug usage, such as parts of North America, Europe, and Asia.
- The World Health Organization has reported on the prevalence of smoking drug use, which includes hundreds of thousands using pipes or similar paraphernalia.
- Community-based organizations that provide harm reduction services serve diverse groups, including people who use drugs, healthcare providers, and local communities.
- Individuals who use drugs and depend on harm reduction services for safe supplies will be directly impacted.
Reasoning
- The CRACK Act of 2022 aims to limit the distribution of tools that might potentially encourage narcotic use via harm reduction programs. This policy may have varying impacts depending on individuals' dependence on paraphernalia provided by such programs. Some individuals might find themselves at higher risk without access to safer alternatives for drug consumption.
- Those living in urban areas, which generally have higher instances of drug use and harm reduction initiatives, may feel a more intense impact. Participants in these programs may also face challenges adapting to the policy change, which can impact their overall wellbeing.
- A significant number of people might remain unaffected initially, as the policy doesn't reduce other support services offered by harm reduction programs, like syringe exchanges or overdose prevention education.
- Not all users of harm reduction services depend on the specific paraphernalia targeted by this policy, which results in differential impacts based on personal habits and geographical access to alternative harm reduction resources.
Simulated Interviews
Freelance Graphic Designer (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy endangers my safety by limiting access to safer drug use options and thus increasing my health risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Barista (Cincinnati, OH)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might drive some people away from safe practices, affecting community health.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Unemployed (Charleston, WV)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Losing access to provided pipes worsens my safety and health—it's a backward step.
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 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 1 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 3 |
Community Health Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My wellbeing isn't directly affected, but the community impact concerns me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Counselor (Columbus, OH)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this ignore evidence showing harm reduction saves lives.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Artist (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This isn't a crucial issue for me personally, but it's a step backward for public health.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I am not directly affected, I fear the policy could worsen public health metrics.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Healthcare Administrator (Tampa, FL)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy restricts effective harm reduction measures—there's potential public health backlash.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Non-profit Volunteer (Portland, OR)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see firsthand how crucial these supplies can be—it’s worrying to see this change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retail Manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the government should focus on treatment and support, not restrictions.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill shifts the focus of funding within harm reduction programs rather than reducing the total budget.
- Potential public health impacts due to reduced access to safer consumption supplies could increase healthcare costs.
- Community-based programs may face challenges adapting to funding changes.