THE ISSUE: Drugmakers fought state opioid limits amid crisis

THE ISSUE:

Drugmakers fought state opioid limits amid crisis

The makers of prescription painkillers have adopted a 50-state strategy that includes hundreds of lobbyists and millions in campaign contributions to help kill or weaken measures aimed at stemming the tide of prescription opioids, the drugs at the heart of a crisis that has cost 165,000 Americans their lives and pushed countless more to crippling addiction.

The drugmakers vow they're combating the addiction epidemic, but The Associated Press and the Center for Public Integrity found that they often employ a statehouse playbook of delay and defend that includes funding advocacy groups that use the veneer of independence to fight limits on the drugs.

The pharmaceutical companies and allied groups have a number of legislative interests in addition to opioids that account for a portion of their political activity, but their steady presence in state capitals means they're poised to jump in quickly on any debate that affects them.

Collectively, the drugmakers and allied advocacy groups employed an annual average of 1,350 lobbyists in legislative hubs from 2006 through 2015, when opioids' addictive nature came under increasing scrutiny.

The drug companies say they are committed to solving the problems linked to their painkillers. Major opioid-makers have launched initiatives to encourage more cautious prescribing, allow states to share databases of prescriptions and help stop drug dealers from obtaining pills.

Student Reactions

Sophia Manco, freshman biology major

"I think that the law and industry should be kept separate," Manco said. "It’s very manipulative."


Myla Townsend, junior telecommunications and journalism major

"There needs to be a better blend of ideals and people and policies that are going to be good for everyday people, not to pat the big man’s pocket or to hurt the little ones," Townsend said.


Jonathan Fix, freshman undecided major

"I don’t think they should be able to [influence legislation]," Fix said. "I think it’s morally wrong if they’re just in it for the money."


Amber Diggs, sophomore biology major

"I feel like they should be more into monitoring what’s going on with these companies, because obviously they’re supposed to be here to help us," Diggs said.

Comments

More from The Daily






This Week's Digital Issue


Loading Recent Classifieds...