Bill Overview
Title: Zero Tolerance for Deceptive Fentanyl Trafficking Act
Description: This bill adds five fentanyl analogues and the entire category of fentanyl-related substances to schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. A schedule I controlled substance is a drug, substance, or chemical that has a high potential for abuse; has no currently accepted medical value; and is subject to regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal penalties under the Controlled Substances Act. Additionally, the bill establishes a new criminal offense and penalties with respect to the deceptive sale of fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, or fentanyl-related substances.
Sponsors: Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals affected by the scheduling and regulation of fentanyl and its analogues
Estimated Size: 5000000
- Fentanyl and its analogues are increasingly involved in substance abuse and overdose cases worldwide.
- The scheduling of these substances may deter their distribution and potentially reduce misuse, impacting those who engage in illicit drug use.
- This legislation affects drug manufacturers, distributors, and traffickers involved in the production or distribution of fentanyl and its analogues.
- By strengthening penalties, the bill may also impact law enforcement operations and judicial systems around the world as they adapt to the new legal framework.
- Increasing regulation impacts healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors either directly involved or indirectly concerned with opioid medications.
Reasoning
- The budget constraint will limit the extent and intensity of enforcement actions and public health initiatives, so understanding a range of possible real-world effects on various population segments helps to gauge practical policy outcomes.
- Fentanyl and its analogues have a pronounced presence in regions with high opioid misuse rates. These areas will inevitably experience varying impacts based on their socioeconomic profiles, healthcare infrastructure, and law enforcement resources.
- Wellbeing scores are crucial to gauge personal and community-level resilience or vulnerability to policy changes.
Simulated Interviews
Pharmaceutical technician (West Virginia)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will decrease the number of illegal substances circulating.
- It may make my job safer as there could be less chance of drug diversion.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Addiction counselor (Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased enforcement could help lower substance availability, but we need more treatment resources.
- This policy needs to work in tandem with healthcare reforms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Law enforcement officer (New Hampshire)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new penalties might deter trafficking, but could also strain our resources.
- Training and equipment need matching budget considerations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Healthcare administrator (Ohio)
Age: 57 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing community availability might lessen ER admissions initially.
- Long-term, it's crucial we have something to offer patients therapeutically.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Freelance writer (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Prohibition can sometimes lead to more harm if not coupled with treatment and education.
- I'm worried about black market changes.
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 |
College student (New York)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tough laws might make drugs harder to get, but education could achieve more.
- The focus should be preventative.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Advocacy worker (Texas)
Age: 47 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to an increase in incarceration rates without addressing root causes.
- Rehabilitation is key.
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 | 4 | 3 |
Logistics manager (Illinois)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this shift logistics needs but also create opportunities for legal products.
- Compliance will be key for safety and efficacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired nurse (Florida)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The right policy could safeguard patients but cutting supply too sharply could harm those in need.
- Pain management requires balance.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Data analyst (Georgia)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Data will shed light on fentanyl trends, helping to evolve policy direction.
- Balanced analysis is crucial to understand these impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31200000, High: $104000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32448000, High: $108160000)
Year 5: $57953376 (Low: $34772026, High: $115906752)
Year 10: $64408957 (Low: $38645374, High: $128817915)
Year 100: $134317860 (Low: $80590716, High: $268635718)
Key Considerations
- The regulatory change aims to reduce opioid-related deaths and public health costs.
- Potential shift of resources needed in law enforcement and judicial systems.
- Potential for increased incarceration rates with resultant societal and financial costs.
- Balancing strict regulation with medical and pharmaceutical needs for opioids.