Is this how the CDC justified – to themselves – about their authority to create opiate dosing guidelines ?


Some of us has always wondered if the CDC really had any statutory authority to generate the opiate dosing guidelines since their primary statutory authority is to deal with contagious diseases.

Maybe they didn’t and that is why the then head of the CDC Thomas R. Frieden quickly made public statements that the guidelines did not bear the weight of law – they were just suggestions/guidelines.

A couple of nights ago, I going over a couple of pages from the CDC’s annual budget and there was a line item for dealing with HIV, HEP B & C.

One of the problems with substance abuse is the sharing of needles and likewise the sharing of any disease(s) that any of the previous people who had used the needle had.

A few years ago, the small southern Indiana Scott County had a “outbreak” of HIV, Hep B & C with about 200 people.  After all the dust settled, all of those pts .. 85% of the HIV, Hep B & C were DNA verified from the same source… strongly suggested a lot of “needle sharing” of the substance abusers in Scott County.

So who within or outside of the CDC got convinced the CDC that if they tried to address opiate use/abuse… a reduction in substance abuse would decrease and also would the prevalence of the CONTAGIOUS DISEASES of HIV, Hep  B & C.  Which they get money to address.

The war on drugs is a 81 billion/yr and primary function of all bureaucracies is to grow their budget and the number of people on the payroll, because in the political world those two things equate to POWER & INFLUENCE in that world.

There is nothing in our legislative system that guarantees that a bill that Congress passes and a President signs into law or a agency creates a new interpretation of an existing law/regulation.. that it is constitution. Until someone challenges the constitutionality of the law/interpretation in our court system… Those laws/interpretation can be applied/enforced until they are declared unconstitutional by our court system.  Of course, the only ones who win in challenging the constitutionality of a law/interpretation is the law firms.

3 Responses

  1. I still think there is more than a 50/50 chance that “opioid crisis” is the result of a few rich men losing children to party overdosing, or perhaps it was the merciless humiliation that was leveled on Cindy McCain, years ago, for her semi-illicit use.

  2. “Of course, the only ones who win in challenging the constitutionality of a law/interpretation is the law firms.”

    And of course, no law firm, org, group, or single attorney will touch any of us with a ten thousand foot pole. I still think there HAS to be something other than just $$$ behind their refusal to do anything…we’re talking about a supposedly “protected” class –many, many CPPs are legally disabled. Yet the response from the legal eagles has been ….*crickets*

    • I agree with canarensis above statement that something more is invoved ( other than $$$). And that protection is in place, at higher ‘legal or agencies involved in this harsh attack upon the CPP COMMUNITY.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: