Another Happy Advocate

Somehow she blames me for losing a “friend” because she attacked me, Shasta & our Organization. Trying to spread false accusations & defame us ALL BECAUSE we are actively engaging an advocacy campaign for our community

This is not normal human behavior. This person messages me claims that I caused them to lose friends. Meanwhile I was ASLEEP, minding my own business and taking care of my own life when she took it upon herself to bash me & take to DM’s to tell people lies about me and stay away from me.

Unfortunately this is not the only person that suddenly seems to be on a mission to tell everybody NOT to engage in our Calls to Action.

Organizations & individuals that tell you not to share your feelings with your Lawmakers is a big red flag 

While we are openly critical of other organizations, for being dishonest with the public, we also never tell people who they can, and cannot advocate with. We just want you to know what the organizations stand for before you make that decision. Because we’ve seen a lot of people be told that organization stand for trying to restore access to opioids, and all of their work is actually to help get rid of the opioids. You should be able to choose what organization represents your values, and work with them, without being harassed by other people .

I have even been told that some people are afraid to participate in a call to action because of a woman that has been terrorizing this community for years, a woman that will remain nameless because I don’t want her to bother me

Again, this is a red flag. You should not be afraid to participate in a call to action because someone will “be angry”

Why would anybody be angry for you Advocating for your rights & doing something you believe in? Unless they are not being forthright about what they’re real problem is and what their real motives are themselves.

Always do what you believe in. Do not let other people, who you barely know online, tell you what you should and should not be doing.

If you ever have questions about what we’re doing and the goals and where we’re headed with our work you are encouraged to ask. I will always answer questions because I want you to understand what we’re doing. It’s important to me to help actually empower others. It’s the reason I started this organization. There was no other organization in the nation that did this work so I decided that we would become that organization. And over the years we have done so. There are other organizations doing work. But not the type of work conducted at CIAAG,  not the type of work that will help restore your access to Opioids. Most organizations are working on other issues, advocating for research dollars, and helping implement opioid sparing policies.

If you are interested in Advocating to get your rights to pain medicine restored, then you should stick with CIAAG. As that’s a primary mission of ours, to restore rational access to pain medications & fix the systems that have caused us to be so heavily abused and stigmatized.

If you want research or promoting complementary care, or want to participate in a sort of support group to share your feelings, then you have every right to do so! We just want to make sure you’re fully informed and not mislead by organizations that claim to be advocating to help restore rational access to opioids, when they are not.

Over the years, I’ve become a target as many people online. I actually don’t speak to most people and keep very close to Shasta only because of it. Yet I have so many people who make up outrageous accusations against me, all in an effort to STOP our advocacy from taking place.

This is not only unfair to me, because it sabotages my character, and makes people think I am some horrible monster that is so far from who I really am. But it hurts the entire community and goes out of their way to stop people from doing anything that might actually help them. They want you to keep telling your pain story over and over and over again so that other advocates can take your story and use it to change publichealth policy behind the scenes without even telling you what they’re trying to do. So when we say, don’t keep telling your pain story, it’s not because we want you not to talk. It’s because we don’t want you to be exploited and we want you to use your pain story to advocate for yourself. Don’t let other people use your story to make public health policies that will end up hurting. Also, lawmakers do not respond to pain stories. They respond to policy recommendations which is what we are focused on at CIAAG, fixing the policies that got us here which will in turn help restore the rational access we need.

As always, I’m accused of doing some sort of awful thing. But I’ve never done anything to anyone. If anything, I’ve had nothing but awful things done to me for six years now. By everyone I attempted to collaborate with in good faith (except for Shasta & the organization’s we have partnered with)

This is unfortunately just the way it is. But I want people to see it because I want them to be aware of what’s going on around them, I’m the online spaces in the event you come across it. We are running an organization, and one of the biggest things that we have up against us is our own community online working to spread false information and convince other people that it’s NOT a good idea to advocate. And that the best thing you could do is just tell your pain story and do nothing. Last I checked just telling your pain story over and over again is not gonna change public policy. What it will do is keep us perpetual victims to be used and abused by the people in power.

We want to make change so you do not suffer

It is easy for anyone to claim to be a chronic pain advocate and it easy for some to put up a façade as being a advocate.  Anyone who has been to Disney’s Hollywood studios https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/destinations/hollywood-studios/ and been on their back lot that some of it looks like the main street of a small town, but you open the door of the houses/stores on this street you will find there is nothing behind the door, maybe a outside storage area of misc stuff, not what it appears to be from the street 

 

Filed under: General Problems | 5 Comments »

What everyone seems to ignore is that all the opioids that pts take… are metabolized many times into another opioid (active metabolite ) and it is excreted into our sewer system, via the urine or feces. If all people threw down the toilet all unused meds, it is highly unlikely to even add one part per million or billion – however, that is measured. As the old saying goes, this is much to do about nothing.

FDA seeks comments on in-home disposal of opioids

https://ncpa.org/newsroom/qam/2023/06/28/fda-seeks-comments-home-disposal-opioids

Through Aug. 28, the FDA has issued an opportunity to solicit public comments and gather information to help its assessment of in-home disposal methods of opioids. (Currently, the FDA has not decided whether to expand its Opioid Analgesic Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy to include in-home disposal products.) Do you think comments will be logged and forgotten? Not necessarily. Last June, NCPA submitted comments to FDA officials on its proposed program regarding mail-back envelopes and education on safe disposal with opioid analgesics. In April 2023, FDA announced that it was requiring manufacturers of opioid analgesics dispensed in outpatient settings to make prepaid mail-back envelopes available to outpatient pharmacies and other dispensers as an additional opioid analgesic disposal option for patients. It’s a win for patient safety (not to mention government receptiveness).

Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »

THE REAL CAUSE OF AMERICA’S SO-CALLED OPIOID CRISIS IS THE DEA’s PILLS FOR PUSSY PROGRAM and THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FAILURE OF OVERSIGHT

Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »

Has anyone of you considered what it means to put a “positive” or “negative” emoji on a post or comment? I opened my FB account in Oct 2008 and have never looked it up until now. The text below outlines what FB does to individuals who make posts that get positive or negative emoji.  It appears to me that FB will  THROTTLE the sharing of the post to others and/or maybe THROTTLE the sharing of the owner’s entire FB page. Apparently when someone posts an emoji .. all FB is doing is creating a profile for/on you as to what FB shares with you and others – particularly those who get a certain number of NEGATIVE emojis. Most of the things I post/share on FB is from my blog. My goal has always been to educate and motivate those within the community. A lot of what I share, those in the community may not like – but – it is what others are saying about those in the community. The community needs to be aware of what “enemies” of the community are saying about the community and/or actions that are done or plan on being done against the community.  The majority of the FB pages that are orientated toward the pain community are “closed” or “private” and there are probably several thousand FB pages. I often see multiple times in my notifications when someone has made the same post on multiple FB pages.  Those in closed/private groups many very well throttle some posts made on the FB page because of FB’s policies on negative emojis.  Others can do what they want with their FB pages, but I see my personal choices as deleting negative emoji  on my comments, just stop sharing my blog posts to other FB pages. I own the domain www.pharmaciststeve.com that my blog is on and there is no censorship there – other than my own. Everything that I post, starts out on my blog and everything that I post on a internet site that belongs to me.. IS SHAREABLE… if I share something on a FB page that is closed/private… you have to click on the post and go back to my blog in order to share it. There is 12 or so links at the bottom of each post as to where the post can be easily shared.  How many of us had our parents tell us that if you can’t say something nice about someone… don’t say anything at all… this seems to apply here? 

What does it mean to “Like” something on Facebook?

Clicking Like below a post on Facebook is a way to let people know that you enjoy it without leaving a comment. Just like a comment, anyone who can see the post can see that you liked it.
For example, if you click Like below a friend’s video:
People who can see the video will be able to see that you liked it.
The person who posted the video will get a notification that you liked it.
When you like something, this lets us know to show you other content that we think you’d also like to see.

Is there a way to dislike something?

You can react to a post or comment (example: ) to express a specific response to something. Reactions include Like, Love, Haha, Wow, Sad and Angry.
Posts that receive a lot of Angry reactions tend to be a factor in negative experiences on Facebook. We use Angry reactions to evaluate and rank content in Feed and reduce those negative experiences. For example, if we see that a post has a lot of Angry reactions, this may affect whether the post will be shown to other people.

Other ways to dislike something

You can hide, snooze or unfollow a post or report something that you dislike. This lets us know that you don’t want to see similar posts in the future.

Filed under: General Problems | 1 Comment »

CVS also has a 3 yr project to close 900 stores over 3 yrs. These chains are creating “pharmacy deserts” in many cities and many of these stores – some have stated – are in low-income areas. I saw one person state that these stores are NOT LOSING MONEY – just not making as much profit as the company would like,  I don’t know if this is an accurate fact. Looks like those who patronize one of these chains should be expecting longer waits and “poorer service” 

Walgreens Closing 150 Stores, Cutting Hours

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/walgreens-store-closing-inflation-consumer-spending/2023/06/29/id/1125345/

Walgreens is closing 150 stores in the U.S. this year and will continue to cut hours at its stores, on top of having already curtailed hours at 500 stores in the third quarter.

To date, 1,100 Walgreens have shorter hours, TheStreet.com reports.

CEO Rosalind Brewer told analysts on the Tuesday earnings call “a more uncertain and challenging economic environment” has prompted Walgreens to increase its target savings this year to $4.1 billion, up from a previous target of $3.5 billion.

There’s a “robust pipeline of additional opportunities” to cut back, the company added.

Consumers can expect far more Walgreens stores to close, then, as well as lay off additional corporate workers and cut back on store and pharmacy hours, since it has nearly 9,000 outlets in the U.S., of which only 12% have seen their hours cut.

In other words, Walgreens—which sells everyday necessities that are presumably inflation-resistant—is warning that the economy is potentially weaker than what other retailers, including Target, Best Buy and Macy’s, have reported.

As TheStreet puts it: “Walgreens’ take on consumer demand should alarm retailers that no one is safe from an economic slowdown that might cut deeper than people expected.”

Walgreens significantly reduced its profit guidance due to fewer COVID-19 vaccines and testing. This is understandable since the Biden administration ended the nation’s emergency response to the coronavirus pandemic in April.

Moreover, instead of using shareholder cash to expand, the drug store chain said it will repurchase shares and boost its dividend.

 

Filed under: General Problems | 3 Comments »

I would like everyone to know my fellow colleague and good friend Norman J. Clement RPh., DDS, MS  After getting a pharmacy degree, he went back and got a dental degree. Norman is the first person, that I have ever given permission to make original posts on my blog.   Norman has had a couple of rough years,  the DEA has fabricated “some issues ” with his Florida independent pharmacy, no charges filed… but.. has cost Norman a small fortune fighting them off. As far as I know his pharmacy is no longer open and operational.  You know the DEA, raid a place… confiscate everything… never file any charges and it takes all sorts of legal fees to get your business’ assets back. Like many in the chronic pain community, Norman has been screwed by the DOJ/DEA and if you notice some of his posts are sort of “bitter” … you will understand.

 

Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »

JESSICA SPAYD, ANP, OF ALASKA, SENTENCED 30 YEARS PRISON IN FAILED OPIOID “ABSURDITY” WAR AGAINST PATIENTS IN PAIN AND HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS

Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »

I have read where that collectively, the states involved in the multi-billion Tobacco Settlement, – suing the manufacturers for selling a legal product… a low single percent of that money was spent on what the settlement agreement ..between the Tobacco manufacturers and the states was stated what the states were supposed to spend it on, but many just put the $$ in the state coffers, to spend as they pleased.

Here, once again, all these states are- this time – suing not only the manufacturers but the wholesalers and retailers for selling a legal product and claiming it caused a opioid crisis and basically legally extorting hundreds of billions of dollars out of these legal businesses over  what appears to be a fabricate opioid crisis because – at least – Ohio is attempting to hide from the citizens in Ohio where the 1.1 billion that Ohio is getting out of all these lawsuits so far. Does this mean that Ohio has no intention of spending that money on what they signed in the agreement?

Ohio legislature to legalize accepting bribes for opioid settlement money

https://www.harmreductionohio.org/ohio-legislature-to-legalize-accepting-bribes-for-opioid-settlement-money/

The Ohio legislature is preparing to make $1.1 billion in opioid settlement spending secret. In addition to preventing the public from knowing how money is spent, the legislature plans to take the unprecedented step of revising the OneOhio opioid settlement agreement to legalize the bribery of elected officials to influence who gets the money.

The extraordinary changes were placed, both last minute and unannounced, into a giant 9,128-budget bill (HB 33) that legislators are rushing to pass before the budget year ends on June 30. The two-page measure to make spending secret and bribery legal was added to the 9,198-page budget bill on Wednesday, June 14, shortly before the Senate Finance Committee approved the sending the budget bill to the full Senate.

No senator has taken credit for the change. Senate Finance Committee Chair Matt Dolan, (R-Chagrin Falls), did not acknowledge the change during his 12-minute summary of what the bill included.

On Thursday, June 15, the Ohio Senate approved the budget bill without mentioning the two pages in the OneOhio budget amendment open meetings public records that legalize bribery for opioid settlement funds or the changing the law to keep spending secret.

The Ohio Senate and the Ohio House of Representatives have both passed different versions of the state budget. The House version, approved on April 26, does not include the secrecy and bribery provisions. The Senate version, approved June 15, does. Next, the leadership of both chambers will appoint a committee to work out differences between the House and Senate budgets.

If this “conference committee” leaves the opioid settlement measures in the final version, Ohio will have a state budget that makes history in an unexpected way: legalizing bribery to get $1.1 billion in government funds and requiring that all details on spending and decision-making be kept from the public.

Dark money: $1.1 billion in settlement funds

Ohio will receive $2 billion over 18 years from opioid settlements reached with about 10 defendants (wholesale distributors, pharmacies, manufacturers).

The 11-page OneOhio opioid settlement agreement — approved by nearly every county, municipality and township in Ohio — requires that decision-making and spending be done in accordance with open meeting and public records laws. The agreement divides money:

• 15% directly to the state of Ohio.
• 30% directly to local government.
• 55% to the newly created OneOhio Recovery Foundation

Ohio’s 110 local health districts and 50 mental health boards are separate governmental entities and were excluded from the settlement, despite their dominant governmental role dealing with opioid problems.

The proposed secrecy and bribery rules would apply only to money controlled by the OneOhio Recovery Foundation’s 55% share of the total payout. The $900 million that state and local governments spend directly will still be available to the public and bribing to get the money will remain illegal.

The $1.1 billion that goes to the OneOhio Recovery Foundation is what would become secret and eligible for bribery if the change slipped into the budget passes.

The OneOhio Recovery Foundation is run by a 29-member board appointed by the governor, attorney general, legislative leaders and local governments. Most board members are public officials themselves, with elected county commissioners being the most commonly appointed.

Going secret: 19 OneOhio regional boards

The regional boards were created by local Ohio governments and their members are appointed by county commissioners, city councils and township trustees. These 19 regional boards have considerable control over who receives the foundation’s $1.1 billion.

The secrecy-bribery provision also converts 19 regional opioid settlement boards, which now operate publicly in open meetings, into secret organizations exempt from the Ohio Open Meetings Act. If the secrecy-bribery rule survives the budget process, these government board meetings will go dark when Gov. Make DeWine signs the budget, probably July 1.

In all, the 19 regional boards have 289 board members. Harm Reduction Ohio identified 259 of these. These 19 government boards include the following board members:

131 elected officials (county commissioners, mayors, city council members, township trustees, sheriffs, judges, prosecutors, etc.)
81 government employees (mental health board directors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, law directors, county and municipal administrators, etc.)
41 private citizens (health care providers, lawyers, ministers, treatment providers, etc.)
3 whose profession could not be determined
Under the Senate plan, these board members could accept bribes. They would also conduct deliberations and make decision in secret.

Violating OneOhio agreement

The OneOhio settlement agreement approved by 800+ local Ohio government requires that all meetings and records be conducted according to Ohio’s open meetings and public records laws. (See Section 12 of the agreement above.)

However, from the very first state board meeting on May 16, 2022, OneOhio has claimed it did not have to follow the transparency requirements of the settlement.

Harm Reduction Ohio sued the board for violating Ohio Open Meetings Act and the Ohio Public Records Act. Harm Reduction Ohio won both cases.

On March 9, a Franklin County judge ruled the OneOhio foundation must follow the open meetings act. In April, after OneOhio continued to hold secret meetings, the judge issued a temporary restraining order that ordered OneOhio to immediately comply with his earlier ruling. The judge said both the settlement agreement and Ohio required OneOhio to conduct open meetings.

On May 11, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that the OneOhio foundation must follow the public records act. The court ruled that Ohio law — not just the settlement agreement — required compliance with public records law.

The language snuck into the budget bill would override the court decision and Section 12 of the settlement agreement requiring transparency.

Sen. Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, a member of OneOhio’s board, is the politician who snuck the secrecy and bribery language into the state budget. He explained his rationale to The Columbus Dispatch:

State Sen. Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, who serves on the OneOhio board, said the private foundation was never intended to be a public agency that is bogged down by state requirements. “That would really hamper the amount of public good it can do.”

Instead, the foundation should operate under its own rules and bylaws and hold open, public meetings, he said.

The OneOhio Recovery Foundation’s argument is that it is a private non-profit, even if 100% of its money is public money and its board is controlled by elected officials. In the foundation’s view, it should be able to spend money as if it is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation spending Bill Gates’ Microsoft fortune. The courts rejected these arguments. They ruled that, based on the foundation’s source of funds and who controls the foundation, the OneOhio Recovery Foundation was the “functional equivalent” of a governmental body.

One difference, of course, is that this is not Bill Gates’ money or that of private donors. It is public money being spent by public officials.

The budget bill would override the court decisions and convert $1.1 billion into private money once it arrives at the foundation. The public would have no right to know who receives money from the OneOhio foundation or how decisions were made.

From OneOhio’s perspective, bribery would be an internal problem, not a legal issue. The foundation has passed a conflict-of-interest policy that says the board “shall take appropriate disciplinary and corrective action” if a conflict occurs.

The legislature’s see-no-evil approach to OneOhio bribery has no precedent in Ohio law.  Even JobsOhio, the state’s non-profit economic developed arm, explicitly banned bribery.

Redefining reality to OK bribery 

 

 

The legislature legalizes OneOhio bribery by exempting elected officials directing OneOhio money from who is considered a “public servant” and “public official.”

Ohio’s anti-corruption statute (Ohio Revised Code 2921.01) defines “public official” as “any elected or appointed officer, or employee, or agent of the state or any political subdivision, whether in a temporary or permanent capacity, and includes, but is not limited to, legislators, judges. and law enforcement officers.”

The law defines “public servant” even more broadly, to include (a) “any person performing ad hoc a government function, including, but not limited to, a juror, a member of a temporary commission, master, arbitrator, advisor or consultant,” and (b) candidates for public office.

Anyone who meets this definition found in ORC 2901.01 cannot do what is defined as “Bribery” in ORC 2921.02. Bribery is offering, soliciting or accepting “anything of value” to influence a decision related to a public servant’s official’s duty.

Under the law tucked into the state budget, these public officials directing OneOhio money do not count as public officials. Specifically, the language says:

An employee, officer, or appointed member of the OneOhio Recovery Foundation is not any of the following…A public official as defined in section 2921.01 of the Revised Code.

Simple as that. With a skilled legislative knife, bribery is legalized without mentioning the word.

 

The change makes it legal to offer bribes to public officials, as well as for those public officials to accept them.

The change also ensures that public officials can legally accept grants and contracts directly from OneOhio because “Having an unlawful interest in a public contract” (ORC 2921.42) no longer applies to the foundation.

The budget measure overrides the court decisions requiring OneOhio to act in the open with a similar technique. It exempts OneOhio and its 19 regional boards from ORC 149.011 and ORC. 121.22, which are the Public Records Act and the Open Meetings Act, respectively.

On top of that, it exempts OneOhio and its board members and staff from Ohio ethics law, competitive bidding rules, being reviewed by the Ohio State Auditor or on making spending public information in databases.

Senator: Opioid settlement secrecy for “public good”

Sen. Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, a member of OneOhio’s board, is the politician who snuck the secrecy and bribery language into the state budget. He explained his rationale to The Columbus Dispatch:

State Sen. Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, who serves on the OneOhio board, said the private foundation was never intended to be a public agency that is bogged down by state requirements. “That would really hamper the amount of public good it can do.”

Instead, the foundation should operate under its own rules and bylaws and hold open, public meetings, he said.

The OneOhio Recovery Foundation’s argument is that it is a private non-profit, even if 100% of its money is public money and its board is controlled by elected officials. In the foundation’s view, it should be able to spend money as if it is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation spending Bill Gates’ Microsoft fortune. The courts rejected these arguments. They ruled that, based on the foundation’s source of funds and who controls the foundation, the OneOhio Recovery Foundation was the “functional equivalent” of a governmental body.

One difference, of course, is that this is not Bill Gates’ money or that of private donors. It is public money being spent by public officials.

The budget bill would override the court decisions and convert $1.1 billion into private money once it arrives at the foundation. The public would have no right to know who receives money from the OneOhio foundation or how decisions were made.

From OneOhio’s perspective, bribery would be an internal problem, not a legal issue. The foundation has passed a conflict-of-interest policy that says the board “shall take appropriate disciplinary and corrective action” if a conflict occurs.

The legislature’s see-no-evil approach to OneOhio bribery has no precedent in Ohio law. Even JobsOhio, the state’s non-profit economic developed arm, explicitly banned bribery.

Redefining reality to OK bribery

Would not apply to $1.1 billion in OneOhio foundation.

The legislature legalizes OneOhio bribery by exempting elected officials directing OneOhio money from who is considered a “public servant” and “public official.”

Ohio’s anti-corruption statute (Ohio Revised Code 2921.01) defines “public official” as “any elected or appointed officer, or employee, or agent of the state or any political subdivision, whether in a temporary or permanent capacity, and includes, but is not limited to, legislators, judges. and law enforcement officers.”

The law defines “public servant” even more broadly, to include (a) “any person performing ad hoc a government function, including, but not limited to, a juror, a member of a temporary commission, master, arbitrator, advisor or consultant,” and (b) candidates for public office.

Anyone who meets this definition found in ORC 2901.01 cannot do what is defined as “Bribery” in ORC 2921.02. Bribery is offering, soliciting or accepting “anything of value” to influence a decision related to a public servant’s official’s duty.

Under the law tucked into the state budget, these public officials directing OneOhio money do not count as public officials. Specifically, the language says:

An employee, officer, or appointed member of the OneOhio Recovery Foundation is not any of the following…A public official as defined in section 2921.01 of the Revised Code.

Simple as that. With a skilled legislative knife, bribery is legalized without mentioning the word.

Read the change

The change makes it legal to offer bribes to public officials, as well as for those public officials to accept them.

The change also ensures that public officials can legally accept grants and contracts directly from OneOhio because “Having an unlawful interest in a public contract” (ORC 2921.42) no longer applies to the foundation.

The budget measure overrides the court decisions requiring OneOhio to act in the open with a similar technique. It exempts OneOhio and its 19 regional boards from ORC 149.011 and ORC. 121.22, which are the Public Records Act and the Open Meetings Act, respectively.

On top of that, it exempts OneOhio and its board members and staff from Ohio ethics law, competitive bidding rules, being reviewed by the Ohio State Auditor or on making spending public information in databases.

 

Filed under: General Problems | 4 Comments »