DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Senators Cite Nancy Reagan’s ‘Just Say No’ Efforts in Call to Complete Bipartisan Antidrug Bill

So, anybody got any intel on what is exactly in this bill? cause it sounds like another push to start the war on drugs again.


http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-dr...drug-bill/?_r=1

The Senate returns on Monday to resume work on legislation to combat the nation’s growing opioid epidemic, but there are continued signs that the bipartisan bill is getting caught in the increasing nastiness surrounding the Supreme Court fight.

On Thursday, with tempers flaring, the Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, objected to plans by the majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to debate amendments to the bill, forcing Mr. McConnell to initiate procedural steps to overcome a filibuster. Until now, the bill has enjoyed bipartisan support, and it is still likely to win passage.

But the deepening acrimony over the Republicans’ insistence that they will not consider any Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Obama is now dominating much of the discussion on the Senate floor.

Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, who is a chief author of the antidrug legislation and keen to keep it in a path to approval, invoked on Sunday the memory of Nancy Reagan, the former first lady, as inspiration for getting it done.

“I would like to acknowledge her significant contributions in the struggle to end drug abuse and addiction,” Mr. Portman said on Sunday as part of a statement honoring her life. “She was a true leader on this issue, and I have no doubt that her focus on education and prevention, as well as treatment and recovery, helped save many Americans from the disease of addiction.”

Mr. Portman was hardly the only Republican to note Mrs. Reagan’s push against drug addiction.

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said in a statement on Sunday: “I often think it is too little appreciated that her historic leadership inspired millions of good citizens to rise up and take action to stop the catastrophic surging rate of drug abuse and addiction. It is a fact that her ‘Just say no’ initiative which spread all over the nation was the key to the effort. Many scoffed, but after sustained efforts drug use started downward to levels that were half what they were when she started.”

Mr. Sessions added, “It is good to remember this work and strive not to let an increasing drug cycle begin again.”

As the Senate continues work on the antidrug bill, the House will meet only in pro forma session, allowing most representatives to be home gearing up for the November elections.

If anyone has anything on this I'd also like to hear it...the war on drugs was/is a complete failure. They must be trying to justify the money the spend on the war on drugs what a joke.

Man my Dr told me I had to take certain medicines and he wouldnt prescribe them...I had to go to a pain clinic...pretty damn eye opening what you see and what is done in those places. People barely able to walk in but get that script in their hand and are in a all out sprint to the car.

People Ive never met in my life telling me their life stories and people straight up admitting their scamming the place for pills.

I suggested to one of the Dr's to put a mic out in the waiting room and listen to whats being said...her response?? yeah we have a couple bad apples...no lady, you have more then a few and this is disgusting.

I pay for my own private Dr for primary care and writes the scripts I use now...1 hand I should be for the war on drugs after witnessing whats going on in these places...but I think we focus to much on jail instead of treatment.

Man this topic is a screwed up one....but if anyone knows about this Id like to hear....but screw you Mike Dewine and your crap answers your minions gave when I contacted you and asked questions on this very subject.

Sorry rant over.

I don't remember the "Just Say No" plan actually working. Do you?

It would be nice to know the bill number, that way we could look it up.

But, knowing how congress works, the bill would say something about drugs...bad, and $100 million for this project that that senator wanted, and $50 million for road repair in that senators constituency, and 75 million for research on whether left or right turns are better, and 25 million for a restroom in that senators park, etc.

Just say No was the most successful anti drug campaign we have ever had!

It was sweet gentle Nancy's way of saying...

When someone offers you Drugs, just say No! Take a stand for yourself and say NO! Use common sense for the health of your body and soundness of your mind by choosing NO!

When you say Yes, you have chosen to be a low life blood sucker of family and friends, people are killed getting you those drugs! You have chosen to be part of the problem instead of a good citizen fighting for good! Just say No, scumbag!

That is what sweet Nan Nan was really saying in her polite way.

i told you man, the "war on drugs" empowered cartels to heights we have never seen before.

people don't understand how much worse it made everything. the prices of the drugs skyrocketed, and never mind the fact that a handful of individuals who owned the private prison systems made out like bandits.

So i'd really like to know what's going down with this anti-drug bill. because if it's nothing more than a continuation of putting people in prison for dime bags, then every last politician supporting this nonsense needs to be fired.

AKA, i guess we are gonna need a bunch of new politicians. cause damn near all of them support it.

not at all. the stats say it didn't work at ALL.



the country straight up failed this dude.

is that why you still smoke cigarettes?

Just say no wasn't a plan that I recall, it was just a slogan for the kids.

I agree my man...it didnt work and never will.

40 the just say no I agreed with but if you think the war on drugs is a winner...well I just dont know what to say to that.

bro i'm trying to find any info on this, so far all i got is that the bill is specifically targeting heroin and other opiates.

translation: they have no idea what they are actually trying to combat.

Wake up man, smell that coffee!

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said in a statement on Sunday: “I often think it is too little appreciated that her historic leadership inspired millions of good citizens to rise up and take action to stop the catastrophic surging rate of drug abuse and addiction.

It is a fact that her ‘Just say no’ initiative which spread all over the nation was the key to the effort. Many scoffed, but after sustained efforts drug use started downward to levels that were half what they were when she started.”

everything else is just about the anti drug bill in 1986.

The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015

This is an article, not the actual bill... but it does give a little more information that might help you find it.

thanks bro.

yea so i found the bill from you link here:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s524/summary

here's the meat and potatoes:

Expand the availability of naloxone — which can counter the effects of a heroin or opioid overdose — to law enforcement agencies and other first responders

Improve prescription drug monitoring programs to help states monitor and track prescription drug diversion “and to help at-risk individuals access services,” because inefficiencies and loopholes in the current programs allow many individuals to game the system and obtain more drugs than they should

Shift resources towards identifying and treating incarcerated people who are suffering from addiction, rather than just punishment as is often the case currently

Prohibit the Department of Education from including questions about the conviction of an applicant for the possession or sale of illegal drugs on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) financial aid form

____________

so i have a ton of questions and criticisms about the way this will work.

but the one that bothers me the most is the last one:

Prohibit the Department of Education from including questions about the conviction of an applicant for the possession or sale of illegal drugs on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) financial aid form

so, the hippy side of me agrees with the possession part. a kid who got caught with a dime bag or something shouldn't be kept from going to school.

a conviction from selling, though. seems counter productive. it's already insanely easy to get whatever drug you want, but this could potentially open a flood gate.

i dunno about that. the /tin foil hat within myself says this is a way to bust more people and throw them in prison, sort of an indirect way of making sure the prison systems stay overpopulated.

the second to last point:

Shift resources towards identifying and treating incarcerated people who are suffering from addiction, rather than just punishment as is often the case currently

_______

what does that even mean? this is vague. are they saying that the goal is to put people in treatment centers over prison, first?

is this at the discretion of the local level judges? or a federal mandate to lower the number that goes into the prison system?

reads to me like they are still going to put them in jail, they are just going to offer them treatment while they are there.

i thought the prison systems already "offered" those type of programs?

"Improve prescription drug monitoring programs to help states monitor and track prescription drug diversion “and to help at-risk individuals access services,” because inefficiencies and loopholes in the current programs allow many individuals to game the system and obtain more drugs than they should"

It means they are going to overregulate pain medication. This has already started. I had hurt my back, and I used to get 6 months of pain meds and muscle relaxers at a time. Now, you have to go back every month, and the pain doctor will run a urinalysis on you once a month. That's a specialist copay each month, and an extra unneeded test.

that sucks bro. seriously, i wish they didn't do you and others like that.

question. do you know off the top of your head if that benefits the doctors? as far as prescribing goes?

i'm not a medical expert(duh), but when i read your post, i instantly went "ok, the more the doctors have to prescribe, the more they get paid, as well as the drug suppliers"

Actually most pain meds prescribed and commonly mentioned such as oxycodone are available in generic form and aren't on the high end of prescription costs. I would find it hard to believe that with their costs being so low that there would be much incentive offered in the way of a kick back. Those are usually paid to doctors for name brand drugs with a huge profit margin.

In Ohio I had to get MRI's and tests much more frequently than I do here in Tennessee. They served no purpose and was a huge increase in co pays.

It's much more cost effective to get the same medicine here in Tennessee and I only have to make an office visit every two months. They don't even drug test me every time. It's random.

They don't cite the Bill's common title, nor the official H.R. #, so the author makes it kinda hard to look at exactly what they are referring to.

Well, I don't remember that slogan producing great results!

It is a fact that her ‘Just say no’ initiative which spread all over the nation was the key to the effort. Many scoffed, but after sustained efforts drug use started downward to levels that were half what they were when she started.”

You sure it was the slogan? Or the fact that her husband started putting everybody and their momma in prison?

Read it again please...


her ‘Just say no’ initiative

Yes, I'm looking at some articles right now.

The drop in drug usages from her initiative seems to magically correlate with the anti drug bill of 1986.

Wonder why.

See, proof.

She kicked it off with "Just say No!" Then they built on that initiative.

No Swish no correlation at all I'm sure just say no was the reason for lower drug use...the policies sent a ton of people to jail/prison.

Idk man I'll have to read into it further but they did indeed jail a crap load of people during Reagan's term. it had to affect the numbers.

But I guess we cant say anything that goes against the narrative.

Because when you make something illegal and/or begin enforcing the law and cracking down on it, the normal human reaction is to avoid that action or behavior to stay out of jail.

It's like the drunk driving laws.. drunk driving laws existed for a long time but were largely ignored and hardly ever enforced so nobody feared them or changed their behavior... then they started enforcing them and the amount of drunk driving went way down over time...

They started enforcing drug laws but evidently many people decided it's still worth the risk and they would rather do the drugs and risk going to jail... I fail to see how that is Nancy Reagan's fault.

I don't think anybody on here is trying to blame her for anything.

Nancy Reagan's "fault" was that she was a privileged blue-blood. More interested in becoming influential by setting U.S. social policy.

That "Just Say No" campaign set America back billions of dollars, did nothing to significantly change "The Drug Problem" and harmed countless Americans.

Nancy Reagan was very uncompassionate. She was a horrible example of a mother.

That would have been more positively influential to American long-term culture.

quote by DC above:

"It's like the drunk driving laws.. "

No it isn't.

Using illegal drugs and driving drunk are not alike. Using drugs and driving is.

Impaired drivers kill thousands every year.

Drug users don't.

Drug users kill themselves by the thousand every year.

Also, we need to take into account the cartels that sell drugs.

So while I get your point that the actual users do more harm to themselves, the complete lifecycle from production, shipment, trafficking, and sales do a number.

Prison isn't the answer for users, though. Probabaly not sellers, either.

Look at what Portugal did. That works.

It's not kickbacks. This is the part of the aca that people don't think about. Doctors are becoming more and more specialized, as insurance regulations are getting tighter and tighter. If your family doctor writes too many prescriptions for back pain, he might get investigated. Therefore, you have to see a specialist. That specialist would probably be for backs. The back guy will send you to get an MRI or other scan. He'll then either give you treatment or send you for therapy. If neither work you eventually get to a pain management doctor, who will insist you take whatever drug he gives you. He will test your urine to make sure you are taking those meds, and can and will refuse service if anything is wrong on your test. (there's a lot of rumor on the internet of ibuprofen causing failures in drug tests) I decided to come off my pain meds instead of dealing with the constant hassle. Now I just deal with it.

Compare former first lady Nancy Reagan to former first lady Hillary Clinton.

I am not a Hillary Clinton “for president” fan. (Although I’m confident she would be a fine US President)

I am a Hillary Clinton “the person” fan. The fact that she raised a wonderful daughter - Chelsea - while keeping a very ambitious agenda impresses me. I feel that is a much more important role for a First Lady.

Hillary Clinton was notoriously one of the nastiest people in Washington DC to the people around her while Nancy Reagan was one of the nicest.. your post is dripping with political agenda..

Vince Foster sure didn't like Hillary. RIP

JC..

Heroine and painkiller addiction has increased greatly in suburban and rural places it's pretty much a silent epidemic.

Isnt it a Opioid??