Dr Lembke TED TALK “a doctor’s thoughts on the opioid epidemic” – facts or personal biases ?

In this presentation, Dr Lembke made the statement that “doctors are limited in what they can fix… “once it is broken ” after she stated earlier in the video stated that the “body can heal itself ” So the question has to be asked and answered… if the body can’t heal itself and the doctor’s skill set can’t fix it… what is a pt to do… particularly if some intensity of pain is the result of this “catch 22″…  ?  Accept taking some opiate therapy and try to optimize their QOL , become home, bed. chair confined and JUST SUFFER… or commit suicide or  opt for a  “death with dignity” process in those states that allow this.

She mentions that by the late 1990’s that doctors started prescribing more and more opiates… maybe that was because Congress passed a bill called “The Decade of pain law” that stated in 2000 H.R.2260 – Pain Relief Promotion Act of 2000   and the Joint Commission (JC) declared pain as the “Fifth Vital Sign” and it became a major standard for hospitals to meet in order to get JC accreditation, that enables hospitals to be able to bill Medicare & Medicaid and get paid.  Pts’ exit surveys then started include questions about how well their pain was managed while in the Hospital.

And what docs do for their pts in the hospital will influence how they prescribe when they see pts in their office practice.

Dr Lembke seems to like to identify with pt care 150 years ago… how many of us today would want to be seen by a prescriber with the skill sets of a physician 150 yrs ago ?  Life expectancy in 1870 was around 45 yrs.  Today, the fastest growing part of our population is 80+

She claims that we consume over 80% of the world’s opiate supply… does that suggest that we are over treated… or that the rest of the world is grossly UNDER TREATED ?

She has labeled the assembly line of medicine as the “Toyota industrialization of medicine “. Didn’t Henry Ford create the assembly line ?  Does she have fascination with Toyota or a hatred of Toyota ?

 

 

 

Guess who is coming to your door

 

The bureaucrats have decided that they are going to come KNOCKING at your door to make sure that you – and your entire family – has gotten vaccinated.  Think about it… our country has ordered – and paid for – hundreds of millions of vials of vaccines from at least 4 different companies.  All those UNUSED vaccinations are going to EXPIRE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

We have spent how many hundreds of millions – or billions – of dollars on testing everyone and their brother if they have been infected with COVID-19.

There has been a untold number of people that have had COVID-19 and survived and/or was asymptomatic when they had it.  The question has to be asked and answered… how many people now have a “natural immunity” because they had and survived COVID-19 ? Now many people are going to experience some unnecessary side effects of getting a COVID-19 vaccination when they already have natural antibodies.  Could that unintentionally throw a person’s immune system into “over-drive ” ?

Some have suggested that we have may have already reached “herd immunity”… Could it be that the bureaucrats are more concerned about throwing away all those millions of COVID-19 doses that have already been paid for and has little to do with good medical care and/or good pt outcomes ?

Don’t forget if/when someone shows up at your door asking for your HIPAA protected health information – IF YOU GOT VACCINATED ?- you have the right to tell them that they are trespassing on your property and to please leave. It has been stated that these people are not employees of any of our various bureaucracies … but… a bunch of “do-gooders”  Currently all the vaccines that are being pushed/promoted only have FDA’s EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION… have not went thru the normal FDA medication approval process… which can take up to 10+ yrs.

I am not anti-vaccine… but.. everyone needs to make an educated decision about what is put in their body…   It has been stated that the bureaucrats did not want to make the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory… since it does not have full FDA approval… they were expecting various businesses and educational facilities would do that for them and those entities have failed to take the bait and mandate the COVID-19 vaccine on people that they have authority over.

Liver injury from acetaminophen at low doses linked to fasting, heavy drinking

Liver injury from acetaminophen at low doses linked to fasting, heavy drinking

https://www.pharmacist.com/Pharmacy-News/liver-injury-from-acetaminophen-at-low-doses-linked-to-fasting-heavy-drinking

Acetaminophen is commonly used to treat minor aches and pains; however, patients have been cautioned about liver injury associated with overuse. Because of the extensive use of this medication, Louvet and colleagues at Hôpital Huriez and the Université de Lille (France) performed an evaluation of acute liver injury (ALI) associated with therapeutic doses (less than 6 g/d) of acetaminophen versus overdose levels.

The study, published in the May 2021 issue of Hepatology, included all patients admitted to Hôpital Huriez (Lille, France) with severe acetaminophen-related ALI from 2002 to 2019, either attributable to therapeutic doses (89 patients) or overdose (311 patients). Factors associated with ALI with therapeutic doses were fasting for one day or more (47.5% of patients taking therapeutic doses vs. 26% taking overdose levels of acetaminophen), excess drinking (93.3% vs. 48.5%), and repeated acetaminophen use (4 vs. 1 day). Patients with ALI associated with therapeutic doses were older than those with overdose levels (44 vs. 30.7 years) and had more severe liver injury. In the overall population, independent predictors of disease severity were older age, longer duration of acetaminophen use, and excess drinking. Thirty-day survival was lower in patients who had been given a therapeutic dose than in overdose (87.2% vs. 94.6%). The attorneys from Nimmons Malchow Johnson in Augusta are known to provide proper legal assistance. 

The authors concluded that ALI with therapeutic doses of acetaminophen is associated with more severe liver injury than overdose levels, and only occurs in patients who experience excess drinking and/or fasting. They suggest that a warning should be issued about the repeated use of nontoxic doses of acetaminophen in patients with those risk factors.

Bureaucracies: insisting on following the science until the science doesn’t conform to their agenda ?

the four articles included in this post is from a legal brief… of a prescriber as a defendant in defending being pursued by a state medical licensing board to revoke the prescriber’s state medical license over some FABRICATED BELIEFS on the prescribing of opiates to treat legit chronic pain pts.

I was thinking today as I watched several “talking heads” on the TV asking the question(s) in regards to the Pandemic… why is Dr Fauci, CDC and other bureaucrats  are NOT FOLLOWING THE SCIENCE… and publish guidelines or recommendations that goes against what THE SCIENCE suggests is just the opposite.  I can’t count the number of times that I have heard/read chronic pain pts make the same statement in regards to the war on drugs and the use of opiates to treat chronic pain – DO NOT FOLLOW THE SCIENCE…  Is there a parallel here with some bureaucrats being the COMMON DENOMINATOR ?

Kaiser Health News, “Patients with Chronic Pain Feel Caught in an Opioid-Prescribing Debate,”
https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/clinical-care/patients-chronic-painfeel-caught-opioid-prescribing-debate (Aug. 1, 2018).

Doctors avoid prescribing pain medication for fear of losing their medical license. See Terry DeMio, “Doctors are avoiding chronic pain patients, need more education, survey finds,”
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/10/24/opioid-crisisdoctors-pain-pill-subscription-report/4012269002/

(Cincinnati Enquirer, October 24, 2019). In other words, physicians are under-treating their patients lest they find themselves on the wrong end of a disciplinary action or a DEA investigation.
Authorities in the field, including the Mayo clinic, agree that opioids are appropriate for patients suffering from acute or chronic pain. See Mayo Clinic, “Treating Pain: When is Opioid the right Choice?”
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/prescription-drugabuse/in-depth/when-is-opioid-right-choice/art-20346884

Human Rights Watch some years ago decried the “harmful chilling effect, making doctors fear repercussions for prescribing even to patients with severe chronic pain who have a legitimate medical need for prescription opioids.” See HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, “US: Fears of Prescribing Hurt Chronic Pain Patients – Moves to Reduce Opioid Use Limit Treatment Options,”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/18/us-fears-prescribing-hurt-chronic-pain-patients  (December 18, 2018).

RIP: In her haunting words, she couldn’t do it anymore. “This is not survivable”

The beloved advocate, lawyer, & activist Erin Gilmer has passed on. She was suffering in #IntractablePain.

Her doctors ignored her to death.

How many must die to prove there is a TREMENDOUS problem in American Healthcare?

She begged for help for years, and no one listened. No one. When there is no end in sight, no relief, the #livingdeath of constant pain can literally lead to #suicide.

In her haunting words, she couldn’t do it anymore. “This is not survivable”, she shared.

HELP — HELP — HELP

Every week, sometimes multiple of times a day… I get emails, FB messages, phone calls from chronic pain pts that are being denied care and their medically necessary medication… sometimes from a prescriber, some from a pharmacy/pharmacist, insurance/PBM.

I am about to take on the task of being CFO for the non profit American Pain & Disability Foundation, so there is going to be one more alligator in my swamp…and I am getting tired/bored with giving out the same/similar advise over and over… hopefully after I finish this post they will read it first and/or if they don’t read it first..  I can just answer their question with referring them to this post first with a hyperlink.

FIRST THE PHARMACY/PHARMACIST

I often get some cryptic message about them being denied their medication – and I am suppose to fill in the blanks and come up with a recommendation.  Often, I am just replying with the same/similar words that I have routinely typed to other pts.

If the pt is going to a chain store… and you have been getting your meds without problem for months or years and all of sudden they are getting stonewalled.. Most likely, there has been a change in the staffing in the Rx dept of that store or they have encountered  a “floating pharmacist” that is working there for a day or week… covering a sick employee, a vacation, a pregnancy leave.  Often these Pharmacists don’t know your prescriber, don’t know you and won’t bother to look at your Rx records at the store…  JUST SAY NO…

They know that the pt calls HQ, they will be told that they stand behind their pharmacist’s decisions – can’t make a pharmacist to fill a Rx… probably get the same answer from the board of pharmacy.  They could ask the Pharmacist to provide the clinical information that they made their decision on… but.. that would create a virtually Tsunami of paperwork.

Another “reason” … “I’m not comfortable”… maybe the pt should ask the pharmacist what clinical information that he/she is not comfortable about ? – IMO “I’m not comfortable” is an EXCUSE not based on few if any FACTS.

Then there is a “we are out of stock”… what the Pharmacist hopes that the pt doesn’t know that the DEA requires that every pharmacy keep a hard copy PERPETUAL INVENTORY… Maybe the pt should document the date/time of being told that the pharmacy is out of stock and send a request to the pharmacy board to ask the pharmacy to provide a copy of the perpetual inventory sheet for the particular medication/strength for the particular day/time…  Does the Board of Pharmacy consider LYING TO PTS UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ?  If the Board won’t go as far as getting this information – then they apparently don’t.

The pt will probably be told that the Pharmacist has a “corresponding responsibility” which is in the control substance act of 1970…  Just have to make sure that the medication is being prescribed for valid medical reason…  IMO, corresponding responsibility should be a “two way street” … make sure that medication does not get into the hands of someone that really doesn’t have a valid medical necessity and make sure that the medication gets in the hands of someone that does have a valid medical necessity..  But Pharmacists don’t have access to the pt’s medical records – other than the Rxs they have filled at the store and/or pulled a state PDMP report…  Pharmacists don’t have the legal right, nor training, nor physical space,  nor time to do a physical exam…  If they have not called and talked to the prescriber.. the information that the Pharmacist has is fairly limited… so many use the term “corresponding responsibility” to JUST SAY NO. They turn this term into a ONE WAY STREET TO JUST SAY NO !!!

Other than the state of Alaska, I know of no pharmacists that have experienced any bad consequences for JUST SAYING NO !!

Perhaps, a pt – being denied their medication… share this chart with the Pharmacist… this chart shows the comorbidity complication of under/untreated pain and if a pt is intentionally thrown into cold turkey withdrawal those complications will come on very quickly and probably very intensively…  Think hypertensive crisis, stroke, death… how would that affect the pharmacist’s license ?

The quickest path for a pt to get their medication is to find a independent pharmacy … where the pt will be dealing with the Pharmacist/owner who tend to be less judgemental.. here is a website to locate one by zip code https://ncpa.org/pharmacy-locator

DENIAL FROM A PRESCRIBER

More and more prescribers are no longer in a private practice. Their practice has been sold to large hospital system and they are just an employee of that corporation and what they will/won’t prescribe is more likely being dictated by their corporate employer.

It is best if chronic pain pts are proactive when they are first told that they are going to participate in a involuntary forced reduction in their meds.  IMO… waiting until you are way down the path of reducing their doses… it is probably too late to back things up  Here is a post that I did a few months ago that should give the pt some direction of actions that they may be able to take https://www.pharmaciststeve.com/?p=35002

Insurance/ PBM problems/denials

Many insurance company will hire a PBM ( Prescription Benefit Manager) to handle the adjudication of Rx claims… they provide you the “drug card”. There are a handful of PBM’s that control the lion’s share of the market place.

If your insurance is thru your employer.. abt 50% of large employers are self insured that is referred to as an ERISA prgm – over seen by the Fed Labor Dept and insurance company is just an administrator to pay out your employer’s money for health claims for their employees and their families.  If you have this sort of “insurance” and you get denied…someone at your employer can just call up the insurance company and tell them to pay for your medications as your prescriber wrote for… after all it is your employer’s money that they are paying out.

If you are on Medicare or Medicaid… then you are probably dealing with a Part D Rx prgm… they have a three level appeal process.. they don’t have to tell you about the process unless you ask and then they have to give you the process in writing- today that is probably a website.  Be sure to meet the time limits of making the appeals… expect to get denied the first time because the same system/people that already denied it … is the one handling the appeal.. because a fair percent of pts getting denied will give up… after three denials there is a Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) again they have to tell you the process is writing… the very fact that you KNOW ABOUT the ALJ appeal level… may be enough to get them to cave… because they know that at least 50% get to this level will get approved.  Doesn’t cost the pt anything, and now a days… it is probably a ZOOM type meeting..  the pt doesn’t need an attorney… just needs to state way they need what was denied … it is a pretty straight forward process.

It is also good if the pt calls 800-MEDICARE or www.cms.gov and file a complaint against any provider for denying you care.

Any other kind of health insurance… you just have to ask what their appeal process is and if they don’t offer… ask for the details in writing… the more times you appeal … the more likely the pt will get a YES/APPROVED.

 

 

 

 

 

CMS: solicit applications for the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention

Today, CMS released a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to solicit applications for the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act post-planning period, demonstration project.

Open to only the 15 states receiving planning grants, this 36-month demonstration project seeks to increase the treatment capacity of providers, participating in the state’s Medicaid program, to provide substance use disorder treatment and recovery services.

Additionally, CMS released a technical supplement that provides detailed information regarding how the agency will implement the SUPPORT Act payment provision for the states that are selected for the demonstration.

Learn more about the NOFO here: https://lnkd.in/gwYKzgZ

Learn more about the Technical Supplement at: https://lnkd.in/gKQRisY

Missouri to probe pharmacists’ working conditions after hundreds of complaints

The chronic pain community needs to make note of this …  The PRIMARY CHARGE of the various State Boards of Pharmacy (BOP)  is to protect the health/safety of the general public. Historically, when Pharmacists complain about working conditions .. the typical BOP’s response – if they bothered to responded at all – is that they don’t have the authority to interfere in how the owner of the pharmacy runs their business.  It took HUNDREDS of complaints from Pharmacists to the MO BOP to get them to react and seemingly take action.  Under the original Pharmacy practice acts, there was a Pharmacist that was designated “Pharmacist in Charge” (PIC) .. ” back in the day” the majority of community pharmacies were independently owned … so the Pharmacist/owner ended up being the “Pharmacist in Charge” and was legally responsible to the BOP for the legal operation of the pharmacy… Starting in the late 80’s the pharmacy chains started expanding dramatically… it was reported at their peak … one such national chain was opening a “brand new store” every 15 hrs – 7 days a week.

Now that the chain drug stores dominate the local community pharmacies … many BOP or state legislatures have changed the term PIC to Responsible Pharmacies… and in the case of the chain stores.. the former (PIC) is in CHARGE OF NOTHING and RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT GOES WRONG.

Then this article appeared in 2008   Chains’ ties run deep on pharmacy boards   So the majority of BOP’s were dominated by corporate Pharmacists… many no longer practicing… just executives of the pharmacy chains… and since the chains are the ones with the most lobbying money… either the BOP changed the designation of the PIC or the chains used their lobbying money to influence the state legislature to make the change.

Those in the community who believe that a few complaints to any state medical licensing board will gets some action, should pay attention that it took HUNDREDS OF PHARMACISTS to get – MAYBE – for the BOP to take some actions to help protect the health and safety of the general health – THEIR PRIMARY CHARGE ALL ALONG !

Missouri to probe pharmacists’ working conditions after hundreds of complaints

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/missouri-to-probe-pharmacists-working-conditions-after-hundreds-of-complaints.html

Missouri’s board of pharmacy is forming a task force to investigate working conditions at pharmacies across the state after hundreds of pharmacists have alleged they’ve been overworked, pressured to meet metrics and don’t have time to fill prescriptions safely, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported July 3. 

Some pharmacists told the board they’re unable to take a break or go to the restroom during their shifts. Ron Fitzwater, CEO of the Missouri Pharmacy Association, told the Post-Dispatch: “I’ve heard pharmacists say that they don’t drink anything before they go on shift because they’re afraid they may not get a bathroom break. That’s not even healthy, much less a good business practice.”

The pharmacy board said it would appoint the task force this month, and that it will investigate pharmacists’ working conditions, including staffing, prescription volume and rest breaks. 

“While the board recognizes business needs, patient safety should not be jeopardized for company profits,” the board stated in April.

Of 963 pharmacists surveyed in Missouri in 2019, 60% said they agreed: “I feel pressured or intimidated to meet standards or metrics that may interfere with safe patient care at my practice site,” the Post-Dispatch reported.

Fifty-two percent said they didn’t have adequate time to do their job safely and effectively. A 2019 study by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy found 71 percent of U.S. pharmacists rated their workload as “high” or “excessively high.” 

Kimberly Grinston, executive director of the pharmacy board, told the Post-Dispatch that the COVID-19 pandemic has placed more demands on pharmacists, including administering COVID-19 vaccinations. There also have been more staff absences because of quarantine or illness, she said.

Some states have passed laws requiring breaks for pharmacists or mandating staffing ratios of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, but Missouri doesn’t have any such laws, the Post-Dispatch reported. 

Two of the nation’s largest retail pharmacy chains, CVS and Walgreens, both told the Post-Dispatch that they are committed to patient care.

CVS stated that it looks forward to “working cooperatively with the Board of Pharmacy in our common goal of providing safe and high-quality pharmacy services to Missouri patients.”

Walgreens said it is “committed to ensuring that the entire pharmacy team has the support and resources necessary to continue to provide the best care to our patients.”

Read the full article here

Cabell County, Huntington rests at opioid trial, judge weighing defenses’ dismissal request

Cabell County, Huntington rests at opioid trial, judge weighing defenses’ dismissal request

https://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/cabell-county-huntington-rests-at-opioid-trial-judge-weighing-defenses-dismissal-request/article_6867eb23-2e64-56c8-81cb-c15222941589.html

HUNTINGTON — After resting its months-long case in which the city of Huntington and Cabell County accused drug distributors of helping to cause the opioid crisis in the area, the municipalities faced their biggest obstacle Thursday — satisfying an inquisitive judge.

The trial stemmed from the local governments’ accusations against AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health and McKesson Co., who they accuse of fueling the opioid crisis by shipping 127.9 million dosage units of opioids to the community over eight years before a reduction of shipments made people with substance use disorder turn to illicit drugs.

The distribution companies argue the Drug Enforcement Administration, doctors’ prescribing habits and West Virginians’ history of poor health as the reasons behind the shipments.

After 32 days of testimony from witnesses, the plaintiffs rested their case Thursday, which was followed by a day of arguments from the defense, who seek to have the case tossed out.

A sharp statement by U.S. District Court Judge David A. Faber, the cases’ decider, set the tone at the beginning of Thursday’s arguments, begging the question if the public nuisance law was broad enough to address the plaintiffs’ cause of action, which seeks $2.54 billion to abate the opioid crisis over a 15-year period.

Faber, who is the ultimate decider in the bellwether bench trial, has been engaging with witnesses and attorneys since the trial began in early May, but his interest was heightened as he grilled plaintiff attorneys about the theory on which they built their case.

McKesson attorney Timothy Hester said the law did not cover the plaintiffs’ claims because they are attempting to disguise a damages case as an abatement one after having waived their claims for damages in exchange for a bench trial, he said.

“They are stuck in a box,” he said.

The abatement plan calls for prevention, treatment, recovery and the needs of special populations. The plan includes claims for future nuisance and treatment for future opioid use disorder (OUD) population, for which it would be improper for the judge to make them pay, Hester said.

The attorneys argued conduct must be proximate, not a remote cause of injury, for there to be guilt. They argued the proximate conduct was that of doctors over prescribing, illicit drug dealers and others. The plaintiffs lean solely on the high volume of pills being shipped to the county, the defense said, but the number of pills distributed matched the number of pills prescribed.

Hester said the plaintiffs bear a heavy burden of proving harm is reasonably certain in the future as a result of the defendants’ conduct. Hester said the plaintiffs did not prove during the trial future conduct by the defendants, and they don’t even know if the defendants would be shipping opioids to the county in the future.

The defendants have already highly reduced the number of pills shipped to the community, which remedies the future claims, he said.

Majestro said the defendants want to blame the people below and above them in the supply chain, but when it comes down to it, they were registrants with the DEA who had the same heightened responsibilities as others in the chain.

He pointed to a deposition the judge listened to in chambers in which someone testified the existence of an annual opioid quota set by the DEA did not negate the defendant’s duty to monitor and stop suspicious orders.

Hester said the court must avoid giving the two an “improper windfall.” He said it’s clear the community has a strong recovery community with the funds they have now.

The defendants did not say the plaintiffs did not prove their case; their argument is that their conduct was too remote for them to be held culpable, Majestro said.

Lane Heard, an attorney for Cardinal Health, said federal courts lack the power to grant relief not narrowly tailored to the wrongful conduct.

The defendants have continuously throughout the trial attempted to divide the opioid crisis into two — a prescription pill one and an illicit opioid drug one. The plaintiffs seek abatement for all opioid drug abuse and effects, but the defense argued it would be improper to blame the defendant’s for the illicit market. Several epidemiologists testified there is only one opioid crisis, which cannot be divided.

Heard said the plaintiffs want remedies for future addiction and the wrongs of others, remedies that are remote from Cardinal Health’s conduct and are instead related to the root causes of drug abuse.

Faber said the plaintiffs were seemingly casting a net too wide and called the gateway theory connecting heroin to prescription pills thin. Farrell said four out of five people who use heroin started opioid use with prescription pills.

He said what sets opioid use disorder aside from other harms, such as smoking, is that people with OUD are going into the community and creating community harms via crime, the spreading of disease and more.

Farrell asked the judge to imagine all people affected by the opioid use disorder placed in a pond polluted by multiple sources: community members, past and present prescription and illicit opioid users, governments, etc.

A company could be forced to clean the pond, but it would also screen out the pollutants dumped by others.

“It doesn’t negate the fact that a treatment facility is needed to begin with to treat this condition,” he said.

Neither the city nor the county run recovery programs or fund them fully, thus they cannot be awarded money to do so, and the plaintiffs did not evaluate the programs specifically to determine if they were enough, Hester said. Because of that, the plaintiffs did not give the judge enough guidance the court to know what type of relief would be proper, he said.

“There’s still an opioid epidemic in Cabell County, so whatever they are doing is not enough. (The current money) being spent is a drop in the bucket compared to what it’s going to take to eradicate the epidemic,” Majestro said.

Majestro said it’s not necessary for the plaintiffs to look at what the city and county are doing, because it is not enough. Most importantly, he said, what is happening now is not being done by the defendants, who caused it.

While the three defendants have reached several settlements with the DEA after alleged misconduct over the years, the defendants said those settlements did not prove guilt or wrongdoing by the companies.

The plaintiffs believe the evidence and testimony shows the trio had a systemic failure of their suspicious order monitoring programs; each defendant said they believe it proved the opposite.

AmerisourceBergen attorney Robert Nicholas said ABDC was sending shipment numbers to the DEA within two days, but the DEA witness said the amount of data was overwhelming and they didn’t know what to do with it.

The defendants said while the DEA took action against many of their various warehouses, none of them shipped pills to Cabell County.

“There’s no testimony the defendants’ policies were any different here than they were anywhere else,” Majestro said.

McKesson attorney Christian Pistilli said once you remove McKesson’s VA hospital shipments from the equation, it only accounts for less than 6% of the market share of opioids and much lower than the West Virginia average.

Faber took the defense’s motion under advisement and said he may rule on it later. The case will continue Friday, July 3, when the defense calls its first witness to the stand.

Clarence Thomas says federal laws against marijuana may no longer be necessary

Clarence Thomas says federal laws against marijuana may no longer be necessary

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/clarence-thomas-says-federal-laws-against-marijuana-may-no-longer-n1272524

“The federal government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana,” the conservative Supreme Court justice wrote.

Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court‘s most conservative justices, said Monday that because of the hodgepodge of federal policies on marijuana, federal laws against its use or cultivation may no longer make sense.

“A prohibition on interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government’s piecemeal approach,” he wrote.

His views came as the court declined to hear the appeal of a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary that was denied federal tax breaks that other businesses are allowed.

Thomas said the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2005 upholding federal laws making marijuana possession illegal may now be out of date.

“Federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning,” he said. “The federal government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.”

Thirty-six states now allow medical marijuana, and 18 also allow recreational use. But federal tax law does not allow marijuana businesses to deduct their business expenses.

“Under this rule, a business that is still in the red after it pays its workers and keeps the lights on might nonetheless owe substantial federal income tax,” Thomas said.

The Department of Justice has instructed the nation’s federal prosecutors not to pursue cases against marijuana businesses that follow state law. And since 2015, Congress has prohibited the Justice Department from spending federal money to prevent states from carrying out their own laws.

But the IRS continues to enforce its own rules against growers and dealers.

The federal government’s “willingness to look the other way on marijuana is more episodic that coherent,” Thomas said.