A new law in Kentucky made headlines on March 25th, with some newspapers calling it “a cultural shift.” Comments on message boards suggested the new law was misguided, and that it actually created crime, rather than effectively addressing it. What was this new law?
It was Kentucky’s SB 192, also colloquially known as, Kentucky’s “New Heroin Laws.”
I reviewed 40+ pages of an “unofficial copy” of 15 Regular Session Senate Bill 192, titled “An Act relating to controlled substances and declaring an emergency,” and have to say that it appears to be one of the most comprehensive, most intelligently thought-out and well-written drug policies that I have seen yet.
The short version of the story is this: Kentucky, particularly northern Kentucky, has had an upsurge in heroin and opiate use over the past few years. Kentucky tried “tough on crime” policies, and abstinence only drug rehabilitation programs (i.e. programs that do not medicate patients for withdrawal symptoms, and do not dispense medicines to curb or blunt the cravings for, or effect of, drugs); neither worked. (Abstinence only drug rehab programs are about as successful as abstinence only sex education in high schools is.)
And then, Kentucky got smart about substance abuse.
SB192 contains various provisions which, when closely studied, actually address treating drug addicts and the problems associated with intravenous drug use.
Statistical Information On Drug Use
One provision of SB 192 amends Kentucky Revised Statute 72.026 to provide for biological samples to be taken from people who have died of an apparent drug overdose. The samples are collected for purposes of keeping statistics on opiate drug use in Kentucky, and submitted to the state registrar for vital statistics. The registrar will NOT enter the information on the deceased person’s death certificate, unless the information is already contained on the death certificate. While this might not seem like much, it suggests that Kentucky is serious about monitoring the effect of its treatment programs, as well as opiate use in the state.
Funding to Address Opiate Addiction
Another section of SB 192 provides that significant funding will be provided to county jails, regional jails, and other detention centers that employ evidence-based practices in behavioral health treatment or medically assisted treatment for inmates with opiate addition or other substance abuse disorders. It’s a crazy idea—provide treatment for persons with substance disorders to prevent them from returning to jail, while they are in jail the first time. Another provision gives funding to community mental health centers that employ evidence-based practices (i.e. not merely abstinence only centers.) Still another grants funding to substance abuse treatment centers that provide residential treatment programs for pregnant women to address neonatal abstinence syndrome. Funding also goes to the Social Worker Program to develop “individualized alternative sentencing plans.” Point being, the funding is comprehensive, and doesn’t merely focus on those who already have significant drug problems (i.e. are in prison or county jail.)
Immunity for Overdoses
Sometimes, police arrest persons who have overdosed for possession of a controlled substance or of drug paraphernalia. Seriously. Even worse, sometimes cops arrest people who call in overdoses for possession. As a 2 year-old could tell you, this discourages people from reporting overdoses, or from seeking medical treatment for overdoses.
SB 192 changes that. Where medical assistance is sought by a person in good faith for a drug overdose (whether himself or of another), a person will no longer be charged for possession of a controlled substance or possession of drug paraphernalia. This is also true for a person who remains with a person who is experiencing a drug overdose until assistance arrives. And, under no circumstance, can a person be prosecuted for possession if the evidence for the charge is obtained as a result of the drug overdose and need for medical assistance. (Texas ought to take a look at this as far as blood drawn by a hospital in DWI cases goes…)
This encourages people to seek medical attention for drug overdoses, without fear of being arrested. This saves lives. And, treatment options can be provided to the person. How this has not occurred to the legislature of every state is a mystery.
What’s more, SB 192 permits hospitals to make information related to drug treatment centers readily available to patients who have overdosed—including on-call services in the hospital emergency department or emergency room.
Preventing Overdose
SB 192 also expands the group of people who may legally possess naloxone (a drug used to treat overdoses), and insulates a person who administers naloxone to a person who is overdosing from civil liability (absent gross negligence or wanton misconduct.)
Needle Exchange Programs
A provision of SB 192 also provides that a local health departments can run needle exchange programs. Needle exchange programs work by trading clean needles for used hypodermic needles. Such programs are a “damage control” type of system that works to reduce the transmission of HIV, Hepatitis C, and other communicable diseases that are transmitted by shared use of dirty needles.
Here is where some folks say SB 192 actually creates crime. One genius (whose name I will spare) commented on a message board that this is akin to “providing suicidal people with guns.” Not so, for two reasons. First, per a 2004 World Health Organization report, there is NO evidence that such programs lead to an increase in frequency of use for existing drug users. Simply providing existing drug users with clean needles does NOT mean such drug users up the quantity of the controlled substance use, or the frequency of use. Secondly, per the same 2004 WHO report, such programs IN NO WAY spawn new drug users. To suggest otherwise is absurd: that people who do not use intravenous drugs would somehow begin using them because now they can get clean needles—yes, the lack of clean needles is what holds people back from shooting heroin. Come on.
As of 2015, Texas, to my knowledge, makes it unlawful to run a needle exchange program. A bill was introduced in 2013, but Republicans voted it down. Presumably because Republicans believe that needle exchange programs create new intravenous drug users or increase the dosage and frequency of use by existing intravenous drug users.
Protecting Cops
Pat-down searches of drug users remain risky business for cops. Needles hidden in pockets or under clothing can accidentally prick a cop. SB 192 address this and proposes a creative solution: voluntarily tell a cop who is about to pat you down that you have a needle on you, and the cop cannot charge you with possession of drug paraphernalia, OR for possession of a trace amount of a controlled substance found in needle. Folks who think this is soft on crime might tell me how this is NOT substantially better than having police pat down drug users with dirty needles in their pockets. Class C arrests for paraphernalia aren’t exactly bringing drug use to a screeching halt, so why not offer immunity?
Parental Rights Cannot be Terminated Solely Because of Controlled Substance Use During Pregnancy
“No petition may be filed to terminate the parental rights of a woman solely because of her use of a nonprescribed controlled substance during pregnancy IF she enrolls in and maintains substantial compliance with both a substance abuse treatment or recovery program, and a regimen of prenatal care as recommended [by a physician.]” KRS 625.050. Again, there are some people who would suggest that ANY drug use by a pregnant woman should be grounds for snatching her kid away from her. I would encourage those people to come back to reality and join us—do you have any idea how many children would be in foster homes if every pregnant woman arrested for possession of a controlled substance during her pregnancy had her parental rights terminated? I promise you, the State of Texas has more kids than it can possibly take care of already. Besides, don’t we, as a society, want to encourage such women to get clean and to be active and engaged in their child’s life? Don’t we want to help the unborn child by encouraging the mother to seek a regimen of prenatal care as early as possible?
Props to Kentucky for SB 192, and for being smart about treating drug abuse.