Editorials from around Pennsylvania

Editorials from around Pennsylvania

___

THE VA’S DRUG PROBLEM: DISAPPEARING OPIOIDS, Feb. 25

Amid America’s opioid-abuse epidemic, it’s unsurprising- but nevertheless appalling -that such drugs and others are going missing from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Based on information from the VA inspector general’s office, the Government Accountability Office and the Drug Enforcement Administration, The Associated Press reports that “doctors, nurses or pharmacy staff . siphoned away controlled substances for their own use or street sales, or drugs intended for patients simply disappeared.” As a result, “there are nearly 100 open criminal probes” of such misconduct- which hopefully will lead to convictions. And lax monitoring of VA drug supplies isn’t helping: A GAO spot check of four VA hospitals found such monthly inspections were skipped or other requirements were missed.

All this doesn’t just cost taxpayers plenty. Disappearing VA drugs “also raise the possibility that patients will be denied medication they need or that they will be treated by drug-impaired staff,” the AP notes. Never mind that illicitly diverted VA drugs sold on the street help perpetuate addiction’s deadly scourge.

The VA says it’s upgrading training, enforcing compliance with drug-supply inspection procedures and developing improvement plans. If it’s to cross disappearing opioids and other drugs off its long list of problems, the VA also must rid itself of any employee responsible for such misconduct- which dishonors the VA’s mission and jeopardizes lives both within and beyond its facilities’ walls.

- The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

___

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM NEEDS TO BECOME A REALITY IN PENNSYLVANIA, Feb. 26

According to a report that first appeared in The Caucus, LNP Media Group’s weekly government watchdog publication, special interest groups spent about $147 million in Pennsylvania on the 2016 elections. Campaign finance records indicate some 84,000 separate expenditures during the last election cycle, with single donations well into six figures. As The Caucus reported, interest groups represent, among other matters, public education, medical malpractice claims and automobile insurance.

Yes, $850,000 buys a lot of gavels. That’s how much an organization called the Committee for a Better Tomorrow gave to Democrat Kevin Dougherty’s campaign for state Supreme Court. He won.

The question is, what else does $850,000 buy?

In this case, the committee represents the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, which opposes rules that tighten restrictions on malpractice cases, including a cap on damage awards. You see the connection, and a myriad of potential conflicts.

As The Caucus reported, state law prohibits judges from soliciting donations. So other people do it for them. A donor doesn’t leave a wheelbarrow full of cash in front of a judge’s door. The money goes to a political action committee and then to the campaign.

And we’re not picking on Dougherty or judges in general. Right or wrong- and we believe wrong -this is how politics and elections work in Pennsylvania. And it needs to change.

Dougherty might have been the top recipient of PAC money in the last election cycle, with a total of more than $2.7 million, but he had bipartisan company on the top 10 list: Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro at $1.8 million; Republican Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati at $1.49 million; and Republican House Speaker Mike Turzai at $1.34 million, to name a few.

One of the problems is that Pennsylvania is one of 12 states that have no limits on donations to PACs or individual candidates. If you represent a cause and have access to a lot of cash, whether you’re a PAC or a private citizen, you can fund a candidate who you believe is “sympathetic” to your situation. It’s buying influence, and there’s nothing illegal about it.

“Anyone has the ability to come to fundraisers and support candidates of their choosing. I have always and will always make it a top priority to do due diligence to ensure compliance with all campaign laws,” Scarnati said in a statement released to The Caucus. “Campaign contributions do not drive my policy decisions.”

We certainly have no reason to doubt Scarnati’s sincerity. But a system in which unlimited amounts of money are able to flow into campaigns in an attempt to purchase influence creates a petri dish for potential corruption.

Committees are required to publicly report who is donating and how much they’re giving if the donation is greater than $250. But the problem isn’t as much about who is giving as it is about how much they’re giving.

Lawmakers can talk all they want about making their decisions independent of PACs and lobbyists. But it’s hard to blame a taxpaying Pennsylvanian for losing faith in the political process when he hears his elected representative received a six-figure check from a mysterious PAC.

Campaign finance reform has historically been a nonstarter in the Legislature. No one wants to cut off the hand that’s holding out the cash.

At the very least- though we have no reason to believe this will happen -the Legislature should take a serious look at capping donations. Right now, campaign spending is out of control. A limit would restore some semblance of sanity to the process.

The biggest problem with the system, as it stands now, is that it leaves Pennsylvanians- those without unlimited funds to donate to candidates -with no voice. If you don’t support this PAC or that lobby, you wait it out on the sidelines while those with the biggest checkbooks pick the winners.

If you’re motivated enough to follow the money, you can go to the Pennsylvania Department of State’s website (dos.pa.gov/pages/default.aspx) and look up campaign finance reports. The system isn’t as user-friendly as it should be, so be prepared to do some work. (Note to State: Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf says his administration is committed to transparency. How about making that website more easily searchable?)

We would encourage you to get involved. Let your lawmakers know if you believe there’s a need for campaign finance reform.

Legislators determine how billions in taxpayer dollars are spent. Taxpayers deserve the assurance that policy is not being made on behalf of the highest bidder.

- Lancaster Online

___

LET SCHOOLS ADDRESS TRANSGENDER BATHROOM ISSUE, Feb. 27

The Trump administration did the right thing by revoking federal protections for transgender students who sought the right to use the public school restrooms that match their gender identity. Officials with the federal Education and Justice departments are ordering education officials to disregard memos the Obama administration issued that threatened to withhold federal aid from schools that prohibit transgender students from using facilities that align with their gender identity.

Under the Obama administration’s guidelines, public schools had to provide transgender students access to bathrooms, locker rooms and other facilities that match their chosen gender identity. It could even have extended to sports teams.

The Obama White House overstepped its bounds in issuing those orders, and the new administration is wise to reverse its predecessor’s decision on this matter.

In their new instructions to schools, White House officials correctly argued that the previous directive lacked extensive legal analysis, did not go through a public vetting process and sowed confusion and legal challenges.

Beyond that, there are issues of great sensitivity in locker rooms and restrooms, especially for children in their teens. It did not make any sense to develop a blanket rule to accommodate a very small minority without regard to the feelings of the many people it may affect.

The situations we are talking about here are relatively rare, and we believe it would be far better for school districts to try to make reasonable accommodations on their own when an issue arises.

We feel the same way about overly restrictive and unenforceable state laws regulating who may or may not use certain public restrooms. Businesses and institutions should be free to develop their own solutions to these problems when they come up rather than be told they must or they can’t follow a particular procedure. And having conflicting federal and state rules on the subject only makes matters worse.

Our view here is not motivated by any ill feelings toward transgender individuals or a desire to restrict their rights. But in this case the rights of others need to be respected as well. We firmly believe good administrators at the local level can solve these problems without federal guidelines forcing their hands.

Some districts here have been working to develop their own approaches to issues relating to transgender students. As such policies are developed, people with objections can take it up with those responsible rather than trying to raise a complaint with someone in Washington. That’s the way it should be.

The effect of the Trump administration’s decision is largely symbolic, as a federal judge had already blocked the Obama guidance in response to a lawsuit. And the Supreme Court could settle the matter soon, as it plans to consider a Virginia case involving a transgender teen who was barred from using the boys’ bathroom at his high school.

With this and similar cases working their way through the courts, it’s all the more reason for the White House to drop the Obama guidelines and let the legal system settle the issue.

It’s important to remember that the change in White House policy does not preclude anyone from acting with compassion and good sense in dealing with these difficult issues. We expect school administrators to be up to that task.

- The Reading Eagle

___

HOW TO PROTEST PRESIDENT’S POLICIES ON IMMIGRATION, Feb. 26

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security presented an outline for a major change in immigration enforcement and detention that has the potential to harm everyone, including U.S. citizens.

The new policies put most of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country at risk for arrest and deportation, no matter how law-abiding or hard-working, no matter if they are parents of young children who are citizens or elderly infirm people who have been in this country- and paid taxes here -for decades.

The plan will triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to 15,000. It will also increase the number of detention centers. (The private prison industry is salivating over the new business). The main weapon in the feds’ arsenal is heightened fear and suspicion and the potential for abuse of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which require “probable cause” for arrests and due process of law.

It’s already started. Detailed warnings on Facebook and Twitter of immigration checkpoints in various cities spread like wildfire after immigration raids across the country resulted in 680 arrests a couple of weeks ago. The rumors were false, but the panic was real, aggravated by reports of arbitrary and inhumane arrests. Officials have warned against scam artists posing as ICE agents seeking to extort money from people who are afraid for themselves or family members.

Children already are being kept out of school. Colleges are bracing for immigration raids, and trying to reassure students that the institutions won’t cooperate. Some immigrants are seeking sanctuary in churches.

This is not what most of us want. In a recent CBS poll, 73 percent of respondents said they did not want undocumented people to be deported, with 60 percent supporting a path to citizenship. At this point, though, what the American people want doesn’t matter. The president has wide powers over immigration and he continues to slander immigrants as “bad, bad people.” As he said last week, “Get them the hell out of here. Bring them back to where they came from.”

But Philadelphia remains a “Fourth Amendment City,” a more apt description of policy than “Sanctuary City.” In the absence of warrants, local law enforcement won’t cooperate with federal immigration officials to detain undocumented immigrants who are in custody for nonviolent crimes. In a conflict between ICE and the Constitution, we choose the Constitution.

Some Philadelphians are organizing to take action. Last Friday, 200 people, mostly lawyers, jammed into the Loews Hotel to learn how they can provide pro bono legal aid to immigrants and refugees, a gathering sponsored by the City and the Philadelphia Bar Association. (Lawyers who want to volunteer can find more information at #TakeActionPhilly.) In addition, about 1,300 people have signed up with nonprofit New Sanctuary Movement to be trained in how to respond nonviolently to ICE arrests, including peacefully disrupting them.

- The Philadelphia Daily News

___

SPICER’S HALF-BAKED THEORY ON POT ISN’T FOOD FOR THOUGHT, Feb. 27

So much for hoping that the federal government will abandon its failed and outdated marijuana policies anytime soon. If anything, it seems like the Trump administration is getting ready to retrench.

On Thursday White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer seemed to tie marijuana use to the country’s opioid crisis, in comments promising “greater enforcement” of federal laws against marijuana.

The fact is that correlations like the one drawn by Spicer on Thursday are incorrect and irresponsible. The scientific debate over marijuana’s risks and its status as a so-called “gateway drug” is largely settled.

Those like Spicer and Michele Leonhart, the former Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, who continue to peddle antiquated and discredited theories about marijuana are actually doing harm by obscuring the real issues behind the addiction crisis.

The real gateways to addiction are poverty, mental health issues, trauma, and America’s penchant for criminalizing and stigmatizing drug users through popular misconceptions and the country’s ill-conceived (and failed) “War on Drugs.”

That doesn’t mean marijuana is harmless. And there is particular concern surrounding how its use affects the brains of adolescents. Then again, no one that we know of is proposing to allow schoolchildren recreational access to this drug. And a growing body of evidence- starting with Colorado in 2010 -is suggesting that medical legalization of marijuana could actually lower rates of adolescent use.

Spicer did acknowledge a difference between the administration’s views of medical marijuana and recreational use. But promising a crackdown on either is misguided and counterproductive.

The federal government’s mission should be helping states to address the crises of opioid addiction and overdoses that have been sweeping this country for years. Instead it seems the administration is promising the roll back the clock, reinvigorate failed marijuana policies and entrench the government’s outdated classification of marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic.

Sadly, there’s almost no evidence showing recreational marijuana use could drive up opioid abuse. A 2016 review that collected more than a decade’s worth of academic studies on the drug found no- zero -credible reports tying marijuana to a person’s first time using opioids. In fact, a 2014 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that states with medical marijuana laws had significantly lower opioid overdose mortality rates.

Communities like Butler, which are struggling with this crisis, should welcome the responsible legalization of marijuana for specific medical uses. That’s what state lawmakers delivered in 2016, when they voted to legalize the non-smoking medical use of marijuana for 20 conditions.

If the federal government won’t actively aid states’ efforts to improve patients’ access to treatments which can improve their quality of life, they can at least stop selling half-baked theories about the cause of one of the worst public health crises this country has ever faced.

- The Butler Eagle

___