New Mothers Lose Custody of Babies After False Positive Drug Tests

By Crystal Lindell

A California mother wasn’t allowed to take her newborn baby home because she ate a Costco salad with poppy seeds and then tested positive for codeine.

A woman in Philadelphia had her baby taken away by child welfare workers after her prescription ADHD medication resulted in a positive drug test for meth. 

A Pennsylvania woman had her newborn taken away by the state for three months because she tested positive for opioids after eating pasta salad.

These are just some of the stories shared in an alarming investigation by The Marshall Project about hospitals giving urine drug tests to new moms — and then reporting them to child welfare agencies when the tests show false positives. 

The Marshall Project interviewed dozens of patients, medical providers, toxicologists and other experts to report the story. They also collected information on over 50 mothers who faced investigations over positive drug tests that were likely wrong. 

At least 27 states require hospitals to alert child welfare agencies if a mother tests positive for an illicit drug, but no state requires hospitals to confirm the test results before reporting them.

While it's unclear how many of the nation’s 3.6 million births every year involve drug testing, healthcare experts told The Marshall Project that urine screening is ubiquitous and “tens of  thousands of infants are reported annually to authorities for in utero drug exposure, with no guarantee that the underlying tests are accurate.”

Many common foods and medications — from antacids and antidepressants to blood pressure and cold medicines — can prompt false results because urine drug tests are often inaccurate.

“People should be concerned,” Dr. Stephen Patrick, a neonatal researcher told The Marshall Project. “This could happen to any one of us.”

A 2001 article in the BMJ makes it clear that, unfortunately, this is not a new problem. The article focused on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding hospitals drug testing new mothers. In a 6 to 3 decision, the court ruled that hospitals cannot drug test pregnant women without their informed consent or a valid warrant if the purpose is to alert the police to a potential crime.

“While the ultimate goal of the programme may well have been to get the women in question into substance abuse treatment and off drugs, the immediate objective of the searches was to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes in order to reach that goal,” the Court said. “It is especially difficult to argue that the program here was designed simply to save lives.”

Although that ruling came down two decades ago, The Marshall Project found that hospitals have gotten around it by using drug screenings to report patients to child welfare services, instead of the police. 

We should call these child welfare interventions what they are: kidnappings. And like any kidnapping, they can cause long-lasting harm to mothers, children and families. 

A 2022 report from Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union focused on children who were unjustly removed from a parent's home, often because of the perception by child welfare workers that poverty leads to neglect. 

"Removing a child from their parents, even for a short time, can be highly traumatizing, with long-term consequences," the report found. "In some cases, children in out-of-home placements experience maltreatment, including sexual or physical abuse, causing further trauma."

The Marshall Project found that false-positive drug tests were impacting mothers of all socioeconomic classes and occupations — from a lawyer to a school librarian to a nurse.

There’s a special type of outrage that comes from knowing that hospitals are taking away newborns based on faulty drug tests. But I would argue that the outrage shouldn’t stop there. 

New mothers who actually misuse drugs should not automatically have their babies stolen by the government either. Someone who takes a stray Norco tablet left over from a relative’s past surgery isn’t automatically a bad parent just because they used a prescription drug that wasn’t their own.

The United States has done such a great job spreading “War on Drugs” propaganda that most people just blindly accept the assertion that drug use unequivocally creates an unsafe environment for a baby. Just looking at our evolving cannabis laws shows that past assertions about “Reefer Madness” were not based on any real evidence. 

‘We’re Going to Be Held Liable for That’

One doctor interviewed by The Marshall Project tried to justify the heinous policy of automatically involving child welfare departments after a mother’s positive drug test. He shared a sentiment that many pain patients have heard from doctors and pharmacists about opioid medication.

“God forbid the baby goes home, withdraws and dies, we’re going to be held liable for that,” Dr. Adi Davidov, an obstetrician at Staten Island University Hospital, which drug tests every birthing mother, told The Marshall Project.

"Liable." The word is so telling. As usual, the hypothetical potential for the doctor to face even minor repercussions is the real worry.  

If treating a newborn for opioid withdrawal was really the concern, that could easily be addressed without any involvement from child welfare departments. 

Of course, these policies are also examples of “do as I say, not as I do.” The Marshall Project found that while mothers often lack legal protection from false positives, “most of the caseworkers who investigate them are entitled to confirmation testing and a review if they test positive for drugs on the job."

Allowing for confirmation testing is the type of policy that’s created when the policymakers are concerned about protecting child welfare workers. When it comes to new mothers though, that empathy dies. 

My hope is that the report from The Marshall Project prompts governments and hospitals to re-evaluate their drug testing policies and stop automatically reporting mothers to child welfare agencies. But after watching the War on Drugs up close for over a decade, I’m not optimistic. 

The most effective tactic the War on Drugs uses is convincing people that its harmful policies won’t hurt them. That only bad people use drugs and good people don’t, so you’ll be safe. We’re only after the bad guys.

But the War on Drugs has never been about helping people. Many pain patients have already learned that lesson the hard way, as doctors refuse to give them the opioid medications they need to function. 

But the war is relentless. It never stops. And it’s always seeking new ways to extend its long, dangerous claws into people's lives in unexpected ways. 

As the saying goes, none of us are safe until all of us are safe. Until we drastically reframe our views and policies regarding drug use, we all remain potential victims of the War on Drugs. 

Drug Prohibition Is Making the Overdose Crisis Worse

By Drs. Kora DeBeck and Perry Kendall

Should heroin and cocaine be legally available to people who need and want them? If we are serious about stopping the crisis of drug overdose deaths, that is exactly the kind of profound change we need. Yes, extensive regulations would be necessary. In fact, the whole point of regulating drug production and sales is that we can better control what is being sold and to whom.

After British Columbia’s Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry testified to the all-party health committee in Ottawa in May that regulating these controlled drugs would minimize harms, B.C. Premier David Eby said he disagreed. He is quoted saying “in a reality-based, real-world level, (it) doesn’t make any sense.” But does our current approach of drug prohibition “make sense?”

Since the overdose crisis was declared in 2016, illicit drug toxicity deaths have become the leading cause of unnatural death in B.C. and the leading cause of death from all causes for those aged 10 to 59. More than 44,000 people have died from drug poisoning in Canada since 2016, and more than one-third of those were in B.C. An average of 22 people are dying every day in Canada because the illicit supply of drugs is toxic.

Toxic Drug Supply

Why is the drug supply so toxic? Because we are letting organized crime manufacture drugs instead of regulated licensed industries that are required to follow health and safety standards.

In the context of drug prohibition, organized crime and drug cartels are incentivized to make highly potent products because it is cheaper and hence more profitable. This is what happened during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. Organized crime ran rampant, and people were poisoned because there were no health and safety standards for production.

The failure of alcohol prohibition in meeting its key objectives of eliminating the supply and demand of alcohol are the same failures of drug prohibition. Illegal drugs are easy to find regardless of their illegal status. Reliable estimates are that 225,000 people are using illegal substances in B.C.

What is the way out? Our knowledge of research evidence and decades of collective experience — including as a researcher (Kora DeBeck), a B.C. provincial health officer (Perry Kendall) and chief coroner (Lisa Lapointe) during the overdose crisis — brings us to drug regulation. When we regulate a substance, we have the most control over its production, distribution and consumption.

Lessons From Tobacco

Some may argue that regulating drugs sends the “wrong message” and will encourage drug use, most concerningly among young people. However, if we look to lessons from tobacco regulation, we can see that public health-based regulations can actually be strong and effective substance-use deterrents.

By strictly controlling tobacco marketing, packaging, purchase price, purchase age and consumption locations alongside educating people about the health risks, tobacco consumption and associated health harms have been significantly reduced without all the additional risks of banning tobacco products (for example, criminal black markets controlling production and sales).

The same kinds of regulatory tools would be available to control the use of currently illegal drugs if we moved from prohibition to regulation.

Addiction Treatment Not Enough

But what about addiction treatment? Isn’t that what we really need? While it’s true that eliminating wait times and increasing access to effective, evidence-based treatment are critically important and much needed, the reality is that many people who use drugs don’t have an addiction and many others are not currently seeking treatment. Yet all people who use drugs face the deadly consequences of an unregulated toxic drug supply.

It is also important to remember that addiction recovery is complex and relapse is common in the recovery journey. In today’s toxic drug environment, people who relapse after a period of abstinence face a significantly higher risk of death due to their reduced tolerance. We also know that substance treatment is not regulated or standardized, and treatment outcomes are not reported.

While supporting people to recovery is important and can be lifesaving, addiction treatment is not the straightforward solution many believe it should be. Thousands of lives remain at risk every day.

A Regulated Drug Supply

Taking the production and sale of currently illegal drugs away from organized crime and drug cartels is the most promising way to keep our kids and communities safe. With strict health and safety standards for the production of these drugs and stringent public health-based regulations on their distribution and sale, we have the best shot at reversing the carnage of overdose fatalities and managing drug-related harms.

Regulating drugs may seem to some like a radical proposition but governments regulate the production and distribution of potentially dangerous goods all the time. The regulation of firearms in Canada includes licensing that requires passing a firearms safety course. Mandatory ingredient lists that disclose the amount of sugar, sodium and fat in the foods we eat is another example of a government regulation that is designed to protect the public and provide information that may shape consumption patterns and reduce health risks.

Implementing an effective regulatory framework for currently illegal drugs will be a complex undertaking requiring close monitoring and evaluation and inevitably corrections and revisions along the way. While the task may appear daunting, allowing overdose deaths to continue at the current rate is unconscionable.

Transformational and life-saving drug regulation is urgently required because, borrowing terminology from Premier Eby, at the “reality-based, real-world level,” our current approach is a catastrophic failure.

Kora DeBeck, PhD, is a Distinguished Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University and a Research Scientist at the BC Centre on Substance Use.

Perry Kendall is a Clinical Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia. He is also a former Provincial Health Officer for BC

This article was also co-authored by Lisa Lapointe, who was BC’s Chief Coroner from 2011 to 2024.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.

Drugmakers Are Abandoning Cheap Generics

By Arthur Allen, KFF Health News

On Nov. 22, three FDA inspectors arrived at the sprawling Intas Pharmaceuticals plant south of Ahmedabad, India, and found hundreds of trash bags full of shredded documents tossed into a garbage truck.

Over the next 10 days, the inspectors assessed what looked like a systematic effort to conceal quality problems at the plant, which provided more than half of the U.S. supply of generic cisplatin and carboplatin, two cheap drugs used to treat as many as 500,000 new cancer cases every year.

Seven months later, doctors and their patients are facing the unimaginable: In California, Virginia, and everywhere in between, they are being forced into grim contemplation of untested rationing plans for breast, cervical, bladder, ovarian, lung, testicular, and other cancers. Their decisions are likely to result in preventable deaths.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are among scores of drugs in shortage, including 12 other cancer drugs, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder pills, blood thinners, antibiotics and opioids. Covid-hangover supply chain issues and limited FDA oversight are part of the problem, but the main cause, experts agree, is the underlying weakness of the generic drug industry.

Made mostly overseas, these old but crucial drugs are often sold at a loss or for little profit. Domestic manufacturers have little interest in making them, setting their sights instead on high-priced drugs with plump profit margins.

The problem isn’t new, and that’s particularly infuriating to many clinicians. President Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer, has focused his Cancer Moonshot on discovering cures — undoubtedly expensive ones. Indeed, existing brand-name cancer drugs often cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

But what about the thousands of patients today who can’t get a drug like cisplatin, approved by the FDA in 1978 and costing as little as $6 a dose?

“It’s just insane,” said Mark Ratain, a cancer doctor and pharmacologist at the University of Chicago. “Your roof is caving in, but you want to build a basketball court in the backyard because your wife is pregnant with twin boys and you want them to be NBA stars when they grow up?”

“It’s just a travesty that this is the level of health care in the United States of America right now,” said Stephen Divers, an oncologist in Hot Springs, Arkansas, who in recent weeks has had to delay or change treatment for numerous bladder, breast, and ovarian cancer patients because his clinic cannot find enough cisplatin and carboplatin.

Results from a survey of academic cancer centers released June 7 found 93% couldn’t find enough carboplatin and 70% had cisplatin shortages.

“All day, in between patients, we hold staff meetings trying to figure this out,” said Bonny Moore, an oncologist in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It’s the most nauseous I’ve ever felt. Our office stayed open during covid; we never had to stop treating patients. We got them vaccinated, kept them safe, and now I can’t get them a $10 drug.”

The 10 cancer clinicians KFF Health News interviewed for this story said that, given current shortages, they prioritize patients who can be cured over later-stage patients, in whom the drugs generally can only slow the disease, and for whom alternatives — though sometimes less effective and often with more side effects — are available. But some doctors are even rationing doses intended to cure.

Isabella McDonald, then a junior at Utah Valley University, was diagnosed in April with a rare, often fatal bone cancer, whose sole treatment for young adults includes the drug methotrexate. When Isabella’s second cycle of treatment began June 5, clinicians advised that she would be getting less than the full dose because of a methotrexate shortage, said her father, Brent.

“They don’t think it will have a negative impact on her treatment, but as far as I am aware, there isn’t any scientific basis to make that conclusion,” he said. “As you can imagine, when they gave us such low odds of her beating this cancer, it feels like we want to give it everything we can and not something short of the standard.”

Brent McDonald stressed that he didn’t blame the staffers at Intermountain Health who take care of Isabella. The family — his other daughter, Cate, made a TikTok video about her sister’s plight — were simply stunned at such a basic flaw in the health care system.

At Moore’s practice, in Virginia, clinicians gave 60% of the optimal dose of carboplatin to some uterine cancer patients during the week of May 16, then shifted to 80% after a small shipment came in the following week. The doctors had to omit carboplatin from normal combination treatments for patients with recurrent disease, she said.

ISABELLA MCDONALD AND HER FATHER, BRENT

On June 2, Moore and her colleagues were glued to their drug distributor’s website, anxious as teenagers waiting for Taylor Swift tickets to go on sale — only with mortal consequences at stake.

She later emailed KFF Health News: “Carboplatin did NOT come back in stock today. Neither did cisplatin.”

Doses remained at 80%, she said. Things hadn’t changed 10 days later.

Generics Manufacturers Are Pulling Out

The causes of shortages are well established. Everyone wants to pay less, and the middlemen who procure and distribute generics keep driving down wholesale prices. The average net price of generic drugs fell by more than half between 2016 and 2022, according to research by Anthony Sardella, a business professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

As generics manufacturers compete to win sales contracts with the big buyers, including wholesale purchasers Vizient and Premier, their profits sink. Some are going out of business. Akorn, which made 75 common generics, went bankrupt and closed in February.

Israeli generics giant Teva, which has a portfolio of 3,600 medicines, announced May 18 it was shifting to brand-name drugs and “high-value generics.” Teva notified the FDA earlier that month that it was discontinuing production of oxycodone tablets, a move that could exacerbate shortages of opioid pain medication.   

Lannett Co., with about 120 generics, announced a Chapter 11 reorganization amid declining revenue. Other companies are in trouble too, said David Gaugh, interim CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the leading generics trade group.

The generics industry used to lose money on about a third of the drugs it produced, but now it’s more like half, Gaugh said. So when a company stops making a drug, others do not necessarily step up, he said.

Officials at Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said they have increased their carboplatin production since March, but not enough to end the shortage. On June 2, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf announced the agency had given emergency authorization for Chinese-made cisplatin to enter the U.S. market, but the impact of the move wasn’t immediately clear.

Cisplatin and carboplatin are made in special production lines under sterile conditions, and expanding or changing the lines requires FDA approval. Bargain-basement prices have pushed production overseas, where it’s harder for the FDA to track quality standards. The Intas plant inspection was a relative rarity in India, where the FDA in 2022 reportedly inspected only 3% of sites that make drugs for the U.S. market.

Sardella, the Washington University professor, testified last month that a quarter of all U.S. drug prescriptions are filled by companies that received FDA warning letters in the past 26 months. And pharmaceutical industry product recalls are at their highest level in 18 years, reflecting fragile supply conditions. The FDA listed 137 drugs in shortage as of June 13, including many essential medicines made by few companies.

Intas voluntarily shut down its Ahmedabad plant after the FDA inspection, and the agency posted its shocking inspection report in January. Accord Healthcare, the U.S. subsidiary of Intas, said in mid-June it had no date for restarting production.

Asked why it waited two months after its inspection to announce the cisplatin shortage, given that Intas supplied more than half the U.S. market for the drug, the FDA said via email that it doesn’t list a drug in shortage until it has “confirmed that overall market demand is not being met.”

Prices for carboplatin, cisplatin, and other drugs have skyrocketed on the so-called gray market, where speculators sell medicines they snapped up in anticipation of shortages. A 600-milligram bottle of carboplatin, normally available for $30, was going for $185 in early May and $345 a week later, said Richard Scanlon, the pharmacist at Moore’s clinic.

“It’s hard to have these conversations with patients — ‘I have your dose for this cycle, but not sure about next cycle,’” said Mark Einstein, chair of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Health at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School.

Should Government Step In?

Despite a drug shortage task force and numerous congressional hearings, progress has been slow at best. The 2020 CARES Act gave the FDA the power to require companies to have contingency plans enabling them to respond to shortages, but the agency has not yet implemented guidance to enforce the provisions.

As a result, neither Accord nor other cisplatin makers had a response plan in place when Intas’ plant was shut down, said Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs for Premier, which arranges wholesale drug purchases for more than 4,400 hospitals and health systems.

Premier understood in December that the shutdown endangered the U.S. supply of cisplatin and carboplatin, but it also didn’t issue an immediate alarm, she said. “It’s a fine balance,” she said. “You don’t want to create panic-buying or hoarding.”

More lasting solutions are under discussion. Sardella and others have proposed government subsidies to get U.S. generics plants running full time. Their capacity is now half-idle. If federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid more for more safely and efficiently produced drugs, it would promote a more stable supply chain, he said.

“At a certain point the system needs to recognize there’s a high cost to low-cost drugs,” said Allan Coukell, senior vice president for public policy at Civica Rx, a nonprofit funded by health systems, foundations, and the federal government that provides about 80 drugs to hospitals in its network. Civica is building a $140 million factory near Petersburg, Virginia, that will produce dozens more, Coukell said.

Ratain and his University of Chicago colleague Satyajit Kosuri recently called for the creation of a strategic inventory buffer for generic medications, something like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, set up in 1975 in response to the OPEC oil crisis.

In fact, Ratain reckons, selling a quarter-million barrels of oil would probably generate enough cash to make and store two years’ worth of carboplatin and cisplatin.

“It would almost literally be a drop in the bucket.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Despite Pharma Claims, FDA Finds Few Rx Opioids Entering U.S. Illegally

By Phil Galewitz, Kaiser Health News

For years, the FDA has defended its efforts to intercept prescription drugs coming from abroad by mail as necessary to keep out dangerous opioids, including fentanyl.

The pharmaceutical industry frequently cites such concerns in its battle to stymie numerous proposals in Washington to allow Americans to buy drugs from Canada and other countries where prices are almost always much lower.

But the agency’s own data from recent years on its confiscation of packages containing drugs coming through international mail provides scant evidence that a significant number of opioids enters this way. In the two years for which KHN obtained data from the agency, only a tiny fraction of the drugs inspected contained opioids.

The overwhelming majority were uncontrolled prescription drugs that people had ordered, presumably because they can’t afford the prices at home.

The FDA still stops those drugs, because they lack U.S. labeling and packaging, which federal authorities say ensure they were made under U.S. supervision and tracking.

The FDA said it found 33 packages of opioids and no fentanyl sent by mail in 2022 out of nearly 53,000 drug shipments its inspectors examined at international mail facilities. That’s about 0.06% of examined packages.

According to a detailed breakdown of drugs intercepted in 2020, the lion’s share of what was intercepted — and most often destroyed — was pharmaceuticals. The No. 1 item was cheap erectile dysfunction pills, like generic Viagra. But there were also prescribed medicines to treat asthma, diabetes, cancer, and HIV.

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION IMAGE

FDA spokesperson Devin Koontz said the figures don’t reflect the full picture because U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the primary screener at the mail facilities.

But data obtained from the customs agency shows it likewise found few opioids: Of more than 30,000 drugs it intercepted in 2022 at the international mail facilities, only 111 were fentanyl and 116 were other opioids.

Americans Pay Twice the Price

On average, Americans pay more than twice the price for exactly the same drugs as people in other countries. In polling, 7% of U.S. adults say they do not take their medicines because they can’t afford them. About 8% admit they or someone else in their household has ordered medicines from overseas to save money, though it is technically illegal in most cases. At least four states — Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico — have proposed programs that would allow residents to import drugs from Canada.

While the FDA has found only a relatively small number of opioids, including fentanyl, in international mail, Congress gave the agency a total of $10 million in 2022 and 2023 to expand efforts to interdict shipments of opioids and other unapproved drugs.

“Additional staffing coupled with improved analytical technology and data analytics techniques will allow us to not only examine more packages but will also increase our targeting abilities to ensure we are examining packages with a high probability of containing violative products,” said Dan Solis, assistant commissioner for import operations at the FDA.

But drug importation proponents worry the increased inspections targeting opioids will result in more uncontrolled substances being blocked in the mail.

“The FDA continues to ask for more and more taxpayer money to stop fentanyl and opioids at international mail facilities, but it appears to be using that money to refuse and destroy an increasing number of regular international prescription drug orders,” said Gabe Levitt, president of PharmacyChecker.com, which accredits foreign online pharmacies that sell medicines to customers in the U.S. and worldwide. “The argument that importing drugs is going to inflame the opioid crisis doesn’t make any sense.”

“The nation’s fentanyl import crisis should not be conflated with safe personal drug importation,” Levitt said.

He was not surprised at the low number of opioids being sent through the mail: In 2022, an organization he heads called Prescription Justice received 2020 FDA data through a Freedom of Information Act request. It showed that FDA inspectors intercepted 214 packages with opioids and no fentanyl out of roughly 50,000 drug shipments.

In contrast, they found nearly 12,000 packages containing erectile dysfunction pills. They also blocked thousands of packages containing prescription medicines to treat a host of other conditions.

Over 90% of the drugs found at international mail facilities are destroyed or denied entry into the United States, FDA officials said.

In 2019, an FDA document touted the agency’s efforts to stop fentanyl coming into the United States by mail amid efforts to stop other illegal drugs.

“Importing drugs from abroad simply for cost savings is not a good enough reason to expose yourself to the additional risks. The drug may be fine, but we don’t know, so we assume it is not.”

— Devin Koontz, FDA

Levitt was pleased that Congress in December added language to a federal spending bill that he said would refocus the FDA mail inspections. It said the “FDA’s efforts at International Mail Facilities must focus on preventing controlled, counterfeit, or otherwise dangerous pharmaceuticals from entering the United States. Further, funds made available in this Act should prioritize cases in which importation poses a significant threat to public health.”

Levitt said the language should shift the FDA from stopping shipments containing drugs for cancer, heart conditions, and erectile dysfunction to blocking controlled substances, including opioids.

But the FDA’s Koontz said the language won’t change the type of drugs FDA inspectors examine, because every drug is potentially dangerous. “Importing drugs from abroad simply for cost savings is not a good enough reason to expose yourself to the additional risks,” he said. “The drug may be fine, but we don’t know, so we assume it is not.”

He said even drugs that are made in the same manufacturing facilities as drugs intended for sale in the United States can be dangerous because they lack U.S. labeling and packaging that ensure they were made properly and handled within the U.S. supply chain.

FDA officials say drugs bought from foreign pharmacies are 10 times as likely to be counterfeit as drugs sold in the United States.

To back up that claim, the FDA cites congressional testimony from a former agency official in 2005 who — while working for a drug industry-funded think tank — said between 8% and 10% of the global medicine supply chain is counterfeit.

The FDA said it doesn’t have data showing which drugs it finds are unsafe counterfeits and which drugs lack proper labeling or packaging. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows that, among the more than 30,000 drugs it inspected in 2022, it found 365 counterfeits.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the trade group for the industry, funds a nonprofit advocacy organization called Partnership for Safe Medicines, which has run media campaigns to oppose drug importation efforts with the argument that it would worsen the fentanyl epidemic.

Shabbir Safdar, executive director of the Partnership for Safe Medicines, a group funded by U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers, said he was surprised the amount of fentanyl and opioids found by customs and FDA inspectors in the mail was so low. He said that historically it has been a problem, but he could not provide proof of that claim.

He said federal agencies are not inspecting enough packages to get the full picture. “With limited resources we may be getting fooled by the smugglers,” he said. “We need to be inspecting the right 50,000 packages each year.”

Big Pharma’s Drug Monopoly

For decades, millions of Americans seeking to save money have bought drugs from foreign pharmacies, with most sales done online. Although the FDA says people are not allowed to bring prescription drugs into the United States except in rare cases, dozens of cities, county governments, and school districts help their employees buy drugs from abroad.

The Trump administration said in 2020 that drugs could be safely imported and opened the door for states to apply to the FDA to start importation programs. But the Biden administration has yet to approve any.

A federal judge in February threw out a lawsuit filed by PhRMA and the Partnership for Safe Medicines to block the federal drug importation program, saying it’s unclear when, if ever, the federal government would approve any state programs.

“The pharmaceutical industry is using the FDA to protect their price monopoly to keep their prices high.”

— Alex Lawson, Social Security Works

Levitt and other importation advocates say the process is often safe largely because the drugs being sold to people with valid prescriptions via international mail are FDA-approved drugs with labeling different from that found at U.S. pharmacies, or foreign versions of FDA-approved drugs made at the same facilities as drugs sold in the U.S. or similarly regulated facilities. Most drugs sold at U.S. pharmacies are already produced abroad.

Because of the sheer volume of mail, even as the FDA has stepped up staffing at the mail facilities in recent years, the agency can physically inspect fewer than 1% of packages presumed to contain drugs, FDA officials said.

Solis said the agency targets its interdiction efforts to packages from countries from which it believes counterfeit or illegal drugs are more likely to come.

Advocates for importation say efforts to block it protect the pharmaceutical industry’s profits and hurt U.S. residents trying to afford their medicines.

“We have never seen a rash of deaths or harm from prescription drugs that people bring across the border from verified pharmacies, because these are the same drugs that people buy in American pharmacies,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, which advocates for lower drug prices. “The pharmaceutical industry is using the FDA to protect their price monopoly to keep their prices high.”

Kaiser Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Is Recreational Drug Use a Human Right?

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The book “Drug Use for Grown-Ups” by Carl Hart, PhD, is garnering a lot of attention. Hart argues that recreational drug use is a fundamental human right, while also describing the harms of drug laws and policy on people of color. His book is a mixture of anecdote and analysis that raises a lot of important issues about drugs and society.

Hart is unapologetic about his own drug use and that of others, saying that "Adults should be permitted the legal right to sell, purchase, and use recreational drugs of their choice." He sees drug use as “beneficial for human health and functioning” and causing ‘little or no harm” in most instances.

Specifically, Hart states that drug use is an "act that the government is obliged to safeguard” because it is a part of the “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. He claims that Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the Declaration, was “a long-term avid drug user.”

Hart, who is a psychology professor at Columbia University, raises numerous questions in a blunt and sometimes brusque fashion, asking “Why is it that guns can be legally purchased but heroin cannot?”

He challenges his readers with remarks like: “Few would balk at using Viagra or Cialis to enhance sexual performance, but many more find it objectionable to use drugs such as amphetamines to improve the sexual experience.”

Hart doesn't mythologize or romanticize drugs or their users, and questions why advocates of the psychedelic movement call themselves “psychonauts.”

“The term psychonaut in itself is another attempt to dissociate middle-class psychedelic users from users of drugs such as crack and heroin, who are disapprovingly called ‘crackheads’ or ‘dope fiends’.”

Hart defends this position by pointing out that nearly 80 percent of illicit drug users don’t have problems such as addiction. He explains that his own heroin use is rational: “Like vacation, sex, and the arts, heroin is one of the tools that I use to maintain my work-life balance.”

As for overdose deaths, Hart contends that contaminated drugs are the issue. “A regulated market, with uniform quality standards, would virtually put an end to contaminated drug consumption and greatly reduce fatal, accidental overdoses,” he writes.

Further, Hart states that drug addiction is not a brain disease, writing that there is no evidence indicating that “responsible recreational drug use” causes brain abnormalities. He says obsessing over addiction has caused harm by stigmatizing drug users as unworthy of social support or rehabilitative care. Hart sees the opioid crisis as overblown and rooted in racism.

“All the evidence from research clearly shows that most heroin users are people who use the drug without problems, such as addiction; they are conscientious and upstanding citizens,” he writes. “The new ‘get tough on opioids’ policies have been fueled by the mistaken perception that most illegal opioid dealers are black or Latino.”

Legalization, Hart claims, is the key to changing all this. Prohibition of alcohol gave birth to criminal gangs and a thriving underground market in booze, some of it so contaminated with impurities it made people sick or even killed them. “This problem went away when Prohibition was repealed,” he points out.

But not all of this holds up so well. Hart argues that a legalized market with regulated substances would keep people safe, but he himself chooses to use an illicit substance called “hex” of unknown provenance and effect while at a drug festival.

“I now include hex among the drugs I might want to take immediately before attending some awful required social event, such as an academic reception or an annual departmental holiday party,” he wrote.

Hart’s book is also notable for what it lacks. He doesn’t look at public health data or long-term studies on drug risks and user outcomes in the U.S. or other countries, and ignores animal research on drug risks and harms.

Hart also omits recent discouraging research on drug legalization and social justice. According to the University of Washington’s Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute, legalization of cannabis has had no impact on reducing racial bias in policing and other disparities in the criminal justice system.   

He also doesn’t discuss the under-treatment of pain in people of color due to myths about higher pain tolerance, lack of nerve endings, or greater abuse and addiction risk.

Hart clearly shows the harms of current drug policy, but arguably overstates the potential benefits of legalization. And his blunt style sometimes diminishes his own credibility.  Overall, the book “Drug Use for Grown-Ups” adds to the discussion of drug policy in the U.S. by asking some challenging questions, but doesn’t resolve many important issues.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.

“Drug Use for Grown-Ups” is featured in PNN’s Suggested Reading section, along with other books on pain treatment and drug policy.

Drug Legalization Needs to Consider Drugs That Haven’t Been Invented Yet

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

Drug decriminalization and legalization have become hot topics in the U.S. and around the world. Some states have legalized recreational cannabis and a handful of cities have decriminalized psilocybin, a hallucinogen found in some mushrooms. Countries like Portugal have decriminalized all drugs.

The arguments in favor of legalization seem reasonable, from harm reduction and de-stigmatization to access to a well-regulated supply of substances that people are going to use regardless of whether they are legal or not.

But rarely are questions asked about the drugs that haven’t been invented yet. Debate about legalization usually centers on popular but controversial substances like cannabis, with no mention of novel fentanyl analogs or other new psychoactive substances.

Novel opioids appear on the dark web regularly. For instance, the potent synthetic opiod isotonitazene is now being sold online, even though a team of international researchers said it “represents an imminent danger.”

Public health officials in the U.S. also recently warned about isotonitazene in the journal NPS Discovery, after the drug was identified in blood samples from eight overdoses deaths in Illinois and Indiana.

“Pharmacological data suggest that this group of synthetic opioids have potency similar to or greater than fentanyl based on their structural modifications,” they warned. “The toxicity of isotonitazene has not been extensively studied but recent association with drug user death leads professionals to believe this new synthetic opioid retains the potential to cause widespread harm and is of public health concern.”

Similarly, there are reports on overdoses with cyclopropylfentanyl, a chemical cousin of fentanyl that first appeared in Europe in 2017.

“The constantly growing diversity of NSO (new synthetic opioids) still poses a high risk for drug users and can be a challenging task for clinicians and forensic toxicologists. Clinicians treating opioid overdoses should be aware of the potentially long lasting respiratory depression induced by fentanyl analogs,” German researchers said.

Novel Substances

This problem is not limited to illicitly manufactured fentanyls and other opioids. Novel synthetic cannabinoids also pose risks. Such compounds include JWH-018 and AKB48, both known to be dangerous.

And the world of hallucinogens, amphetamines and other psychoactive substances is evolving, too. Psilocybin can now be harvested from bacteria and over 150 synthetic cathiones-- amphetamine-like psychostimulants -- have been identified in clandestine drug markets.

“Over the past hundred years or so, humankind has learned to synthesize the active chemicals in laboratories and to manipulate chemical structures to invent new drugs—the numbers of which began growing exponentially in the 2010s,” Ben Westoff notes in Fentanyl, Inc.

Further, drug consumption technology is changing rapidly. Just as the hypodermic syringe forever changed the risks of heroin, vaping devices are having similar effects. They allow for high-intensity consumption of nicotine, THC, and other drugs that contain unknown contaminants, as seems to have happened with vitamin E acetate in the recent outbreak of lung illnesses associated with vaping.

Lastly, there are risky interactions that can occur with the use of novel substances. The American Council of Science and Health points to the particularly important issue of drug-drug interactions. The world of street drugs now involves so many adulterants and contaminants that, when combined with novel substances, drug-drug interactions are potentially more dangerous than ever.

Historically, legalization of drugs has not led to a net public health benefit. And that was when “drugs” consisted of plant matter or distilled liquids. Modern technology means we can do much better, which in turn means we may be facing far worse.

The greatest risks arguably come from the drugs that have yet to be invented and the interactions that have not been discovered. Any discussion of full drug legalization needs to consider such possibilities.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.