June, 08 2023, 02:40pm EDT
![Win Without War](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012645/origin.jpg)
Civil Society Groups Condemn Fentanyl War Bill
22 Groups Urge Congress: Advance Real Solutions, Not Extremist Nonsense, to Address Fentanyl Crisis
Win Without War joined a diverse coalition of peace, drug policy, and human rights organizations in signing a statement (copied below) opposing H.R. 3205, the ‘Project Precursor Act.’ The bill seeks to label fentanyl a “chemical weapon” by directing the Biden administration to push for its insertion into the international Chemical Weapons Convention.
“The illicit trafficking and use of fentanyl is devastating U.S. communities, and Congress should take measures to address this public health crisis in ways that reduce demand and support people wrestling with drug dependence,” said Stephen Miles, Win Without War’s president. “But normalizing the misguided notion that fentanyl is a ‘chemical weapon’ will only bolster extremist demands to conduct military strikes in Mexico, deepen our failed war on drugs, and weaken a vital international arms control treaty.”
“We’re proud to join a strong coalition in urging Congress to vote down a bad idea with terrible policy implications. Communities in the U.S. and around the world deserve humane and people-first solutions, not dangerous rhetoric in the service of an extremist, pro-war agenda.”
###
JOINT STATEMENT OPPOSING H.R. 3205, THE “PROJECT PRECURSOR ACT”
The undersigned organizations urge the House of Representatives to vote down H.R. 3205, the “Project Precursor Act.” We represent a diverse set of civil society groups with different mandates, missions, and areas of expertise, and not all of us can comment on every facet of H.R. 3205. We are firmly aligned, however, in rejecting the bill’s central aim of labeling fentanyl a “chemical weapon” – a dangerous rhetorical stunt that feeds calls for military action in Mexico, weakens the international Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and further entrenches a failed, militarized approach to addressing the harms caused by illicit fentanyl trafficking.
Title II of H.R. 3205 states that “The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General, shall use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States…to seek to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention to include each covered fentanyl substance on schedule 2 or 3 of the Annex on Chemicals to the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Pushing to add fentanyl to any of the CWC schedules fundamentally misrepresents the crisis caused by illicit fentanyl use. Fentanyl is not a weapon of war. It is a drug, and while it has some therapeutic uses, it is dealing real and lasting damage to U.S. communities.
Congress adopting this “chemical weapon” rhetoric will only give further oxygen to growing calls for, and even congressional authorization of, U.S. military strikes in Mexico. The executive branch Office of Legal Counsel has previously taken the position that the president can invoke his Article II authorities to target chemical weapons facilities in another country, without first seeking approval from Congress. Acclimating both Congress and executive agencies to the claim that fentanyl is a “chemical weapon” would embolden an executive branch that already views its war powers as virtually unchecked. If H.R. 3205 is passed, a future president could instrumentalize both the view of Congress and prior OLC positions to justify unilateral strikes on cartels in Mexico, embroiling the United States in a destabilizing cross-border conflict that would endanger people in both countries.
The push for strikes into Mexico would be closely paired with increased border militarization and even greater restrictions on people who are migrating to and seeking protection in the United States. Powerful politicians are already, wrongly, scapegoating these populations for fentanyl-related deaths. If H.R. 3205 is adopted and migrants become viewed as perpetuating “chemical weapon attacks,” congressional rhetoric will open the door to an even greater military buildup at the U.S.-Mexico border, and our hobbled asylum and refugee resettlement systems will further atrophy as people already fleeing conflict and crisis are baselessly treated as threats.
H.R. 3205 not only plays into the hands of those seeking conflict in Mexico, but also risks undermining international efforts to verify and destroy chemical weapons. The CWC is a successful and durable international arms control agreement that has facilitated the destruction of 99% of the world’s declared chemical weapons stockpiles. In pushing an international arms control treaty body to address a drug policy matter entirely divorced from its mission, the United States would open the door to other governments revisiting and even contesting the CWC in a manner that both distracts from efforts to verify and destroy chemical weapons and degrades the international taboo on chemical weapons’ storage and use.
Finally, in seeking to present fentanyl as a weapon of war, H.R. 3205 entrenches the cardinal failure of the war on drugs – militarizing a public health challenge. The U.S. government viewing people who use fentanyl as wielding a “chemical weapon” would imperil desperately needed access to treatment and health services that can prevent overdoses and address drug dependence. In particular, the bill’s authors have not clarified how amending the CWC to include fentanyl as a chemical substance would impact enforcement of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 11B, which mandates severe penalties, including fines and possible imprisonment for possessing a chemical weapon, in addition to life imprisonment or capital punishment for any person in violation of the law “and by whose action the death of another person is the result” (18 U.S.C. § 229 and 229A). As a result, medical professionals may avoid fentanyl’s licit and beneficial applications for fear of prescribing a “chemical weapon.” And any further police, prosecutorial, or even military action or expanded authority to disrupt this “chemical weapon” would disproportionately fall, as has the rest of the war on drugs, on communities of color, people who use drugs, and the working class.
All too often, we see overheated and politically expedient statements set the stage for spiraling international crises and attacks on the most vulnerable. We urge Congress to reject H.R. 3205, and stop today’s rhetoric from encouraging tomorrow’s conflict.
Afghans For A Better Tomorrow
AIDS United
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)
Center for International Policy
Demand Progress Action
Drug Policy Alliance
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Justice is Global
Kino Border Initiative
Law Enforcement Action Partnership
National Immigration Project
National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies
NEXT Distro
Oxfam America
Peace Action
Physicians for Human Rights
Project On Government Oversight
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
Washington Office on Latin America
Win Without War
Working Families Party
Win Without War is a diverse network of activists and organizations working for a more peaceful, progressive U.S. foreign policy. We believe that by democratizing U.S. foreign policy and providing progressive alternatives, we can achieve more peaceful, just, and common sense policies that ensure that all people--regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, or economic status--can find and take advantage of opportunity equally and feel secure.
LATEST NEWS
'Corporate Greed': Biden, Sanders Tell Big Pharma to Stop 'Ripping Off' Americans
Past administrations "have been intimidated and deterred from challenging Big Pharma's monopoly power," an expert said. "Today, however, President Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders call Big Pharma's bullying bluff."
Jul 02, 2024
President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday called for prescription drug companies to lower prices and stop "ripping off" Americans.
The message from Biden and Sanders (I-Vt.) came in a joint op-ed in USA Today in which they laid out the reforms they've already pushed through, called out two pharmaceutical companies in particular for the "unconscionably" high prices they charge to Americans, and vowed to take governmental action to end the "corporate greed."
"There is no rational reason why Americans, for decades, have been forced to pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for the prescription drugs they need," Biden and Sanders wrote. "There is no rational reason why, for decades, 1 out of 4 Americans have been unable to afford the medicine their doctors prescribe.
"And it is most certainly not Americans' patriotic duty to pay high drug prices at home so others abroad can enjoy the fair prices that every American is entitled to," they added.
Consumer rights groups celebrated the strong position that the president and the senator took.
"For decades, presidential administrations on a bipartisan basis have been intimidated and deterred from challenging Big Pharma's monopoly power," Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, an advocacy group, said in a statement. "Today, however, President Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders call Big Pharma's bullying bluff."
Pharmaceutical companies can make whatever excuses they want for their sky-high drug prices — we know it’s bullshit. And Biden and Bernie just called them on it.
If Big Pharma won’t quell its own greed, it’s up to the government to do it for them.https://t.co/YiodsDIoQI
— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) July 2, 2024
Some progress has been made on prescription drug prices in the last four years, Biden and Sanders noted in their op-ed.
The Inflation Reduction Act, which they helped enact, established a price ceiling of $35 per month for insulin for senior citizens. And, starting in 2025, no senior citizen will have to pay more than $2,000 in prescription drug prices in a given year—a reform Biden and Sanders said they'd like to see apply to all Americans. Medicare can now also negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to lower prices, as other countries do.
Yet the problem of high drug prices remains, and Sanders has made solving it a priority, focusing on it as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Last year, he wrote an op-ed in Fox News, calling the opposition to pharmaceutical company profiteering an issue on which Americans of all political stripes "could not be more united." He also released a report showing that medications made using publicly funded research were then being priced exorbitantly by private firms.
The Vermont Independent has also repeatedly grilled pharmaceutical executives in hearings over the last two years, but they have generally not committed to lowering prices, though some companies did institute caps on out-of-pocket expenses on inhalers.
In April, Sanders and Biden teamed up for an event at the White House to discuss the need to lower prescription drug prices.
"I'm proud that my administration is taking on Big Pharma in the most significant ways ever," Biden said at the event. "And I wouldn't have done it without Bernie... Bernie was the one who was leading the way for decades."
Tuesday's op-ed marks the continuation of their partnership on the issue, with Biden effectively endorsing Sanders' drug pricing agenda, particularly for obesity and diabetes medications. HELP launched an investigation into Novo Nordisk's pricing of Ozempic and Wegovy in April, and the Danish multinational was the primary example of wrongdoing chosen by Biden and Sanders in their op-ed.
Ozempic and Wegovy are up to six times more expensive in the U.S. than in peer countries, Biden and Sanders wrote.
"In 2023, for example, Novo Nordisk made over $12 billion in profits, in part by charging Americans over $1,000 a month for a prescription drug that can be profitably manufactured for less than $5. That is not making a reasonable return on investment. That is price gouging. That is corporate greed."
Sanders recently succeeded in pressuring Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen to agree to testify in front of HELP in September.
Biden and Sanders noted that even just within obesity and diabetes care, the problem goes beyond Novo Nordisk: Eli Lilly's Mounjaro, a comparable weight-loss drug, is also overpriced. They argued that if the prices of such drugs are not lowered, they could bankrupt the U.S. healthcare system.
Biden then repeated the message through his own channels.
"If Big Pharma refuses to lower prescription drug prices and end their greed, we will do everything within our power to end it for them," Biden wrote on social media following the publication of the op-ed. "Bernie Sanders and I will not rest until every American can afford the prescriptions they need to lead healthy, happy, and productive lives."
Though the timing may be incidental, Biden's cooperation with Sanders, a leading progressive, comes during a week in which he needs to rally his base—a task Sanders is known to excel at. Biden faces widespread pressure to step aside from the presidential race following a subpar debate performance on Thursday night.
While progressives have been sharply critical of Biden on a range of issues, it's not clear whether his potential replacements at the top of the Democratic ticket would be so willing to team up with Sanders and call out corporate greed.
"Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden just co-authored a piece laying into big pharmaceutical companies for overcharging Americans on obesity drugs," Matt Stoller, a progressive commentator and research director of the American Economic Liberties Project, wrote on social media. "I realize Biden is senile, but would his replacements do anything like this? Most wouldn't."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Risk of Trump Win 'Too Great': First House Democrat Calls on Biden to Step Aside
"President Biden saved our democracy by delivering us from Trump in 2021," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett. "He must not deliver us to Trump in 2024."
Jul 02, 2024
Crediting U.S. President Joe Biden with spearheading "transformational" changes since taking office three-and-a-half years ago, Rep. Lloyd Doggett on Tuesday became the first Democratic member of Congress to call on the president to withdraw from the 2024 electoral race, warning that a potential victory by former President Donald Trump would "usher America into a long, dark, authoritarian era."
With just four months until Election Day, and weeks until the Democratic Party formally nominates its presidential candidate, Doggett (D-Texas) said in a statement that the party's "overriding consideration must be who has the best hope of saving our democracy from an authoritarian takeover by a criminal and his gang."
Doggett spoke out five days after Biden faced Trump in the first debate of the presidential campaign and alarmed viewers, Democratic strategists, and aides with his performance. The president, speaking in a raspy voice and appearing to lose his train of thought several times, struggled to make the case for his achievements and to call out Trump's repeated lies.
The debate reportedly sent a wave of panic through the Democratic Caucus, with one party insider telling Politico that names of potential replacements for Biden were being floated.
In his statement, Doggett noted that Biden's poll numbers compared to Trump's were cause for concern for several months before the debate.
"Too much is at stake to risk a Trump victory—too great a risk to assume that what could not be turned around in a year, what could not be turned around in the debate, can be turned around now," said Doggett. "President Biden saved our democracy by delivering us from Trump in 2021. He must not deliver us to Trump in 2024."
Doggett's comments came as CNN released a poll showing that Trump is leading Biden by 49% v. 43%, while his lead over Vice President Kamala Harris in a potential matchup is smaller. Trump leads the vice president by two points.
Among Independent voters, Harris has a three-point edge over the former president, while Trump leads Biden by 10 points.
A separate poll released Tuesday by the progressive grassroots group Our Revolution showed that 67% of respondents supported Biden suspending his reelection campaign.
Doggett noted that the days following the debate have made increasingly clear the danger of a potential second Trump term, as the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Trump has "absolute immunity" regarding "official acts" he committed while he was in office—casting doubt on whether he can be held accountable for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and rendering any U.S. president, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "a king above the law."
"Newly empowered with immunity," said Doggett, Trump would be "unchecked by either the courts or a submissive Republican Congress."
The congressman noted that while Biden has spearheaded some far-reaching legislative reforms, the president signaled earlier in his term that he planned to serve only one term.
"He has the opportunity to encourage a new generation of leaders from whom a nominee can be chosen to unite our country through an open, democratic process," said Doggett. "Recognizing that, unlike Trump, his first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so."
Doggett told Matthew Choi of The Texas Tribune that he had notified the White House of his decision to speak out in favor of Biden stepping aside last Friday, the day after the debate.
"After the debate, the risk of a Trump presidency has grown so much that I felt forced to take this action," Doggett said.
Another survey released Tuesday by Puck News showed alternative candidates including Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer polling ahead of Biden in a potential matchup with Trump.
In light of the the new polling numbers, said former Rhode Island lawmaker and lawyer Aaron Regunberg, Democratic leaders who are "trying to shut down this debate are actively helping Trump."
Regunberg called Doggett's statement "courageous."
"Biden cannot beat Trump," he said. "But another Democrat absolutely can! Whether it's a handoff to VP Harris or an open convention, we don't have to resign ourselves to fascism. It's time for Biden to do the honorable thing and pass the torch."
Also on Tuesday, longtime Democratic National Committee (DNC) member James Zogby wrote to Chairman Jamie Harrison outlining a process through which the party could select its presidential nominee over the next month, ahead of the Democratic National Convention.
Potential candidates could work to secure the endorsements of at least 40 current DNC members and the party could then host two televised events in which the candidates would "make their cases before Democratic voters across the country" before the formal nomination process at the convention starting August 19.
"The excitement generated by this process and the attention it will be given will be a plus for our eventual nominee," said Zogby.
In an interview with The Nation national affairs correspondent John Nichols, Zogby concurred with Doggett's suggestion that Biden's ability to continue serving as president is not what has caused growing concern.
"The focus of this election shouldn't be on the president's age, on his capacity to campaign, on his capacity to govern," said Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute. "It should be on the danger that Donald Trump presents to the country, on the threat that Donald Trump poses."
"We have to face reality here," he said. "Do I think that Joe Biden is capable of governing? I would say 'yes.' Is he capable of forming a team that can govern? Yes. But can he win an election under these circumstances, when these questions about his abilities will be the constant focus? When the Republicans and the media are looking for the next gaffe, waiting for the next time he forgets something, watching his every step to see if he will stumble? This is not what the election should focus on. And, yet, that's where it's headed."
"I would trust Joe Biden on his worst day more than Donald Trump on his best day. But I don't want his last campaign to be one where all people talk about are his weaknesses," Zogby added. "To go out as the gracious warrior, who fought the great battle to defeat Donald Trump in 2020, served four years and then decided to pass the torch, would absolutely solidify his place in history as somebody who thought more about the good of the country than himself."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Screaming the Quiet Part': Trump Advisers Say He's Ready to Embrace King-Like Powers
The U.S. Supreme Court's immunity decision has reportedly emboldened the presumptive GOP nominee to pursue his far-right agenda and authoritarian aims "without fear of punishment or restraint."
Jul 02, 2024
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump—who has pledged to be a dictator on "day one" if elected to another four years in the White House—is reportedly preparing to exploit the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Monday that current and former presidents are entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution.
Citing unnamed advisers to the former president, Axiosreported Tuesday that if Trump is reelected in November, he "plans to immediately test the boundaries of presidential and governing power, knowing the restraints of Congress and the courts are dramatically looser than during his first term."
"They're screaming the quiet part, and yet Democrats are mostly focused on renominating a sundowning 81-year-old losing to him in key swing state polls," The Lever's David Sirota wrote in response to Axios' reporting, referring to President Joe Biden.
Facing mounting calls to drop his reelection campaign following his disastrous debate performance against Trump last week, Biden said in an address following the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States that the ruling means "there are virtually no limits on what a president can do."
"I know I will respect the limits of the presidential power, as I have for three and a half years," said Biden. "But any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law."
Among the steps Trump—who celebrated the ruling—intends to take swiftly upon assuming office following a possible November victory, according to Axios, are setting up "vast camps" to "deport millions of people," moving to "fire potentially tens of thousands of civil servants" and replace them with "pre-vetted loyalists," and centralizing "power over the Justice Department," which the former president has repeatedly threatened to wield against his political opponents.
Trump has also pledged to gut environmental rules—which the Supreme Court also targeted in recent rulings—and ram through climate-wrecking drilling projects, moves backed by the powerful oil and gas industry that's helping finance his campaign.
"Thanks to Monday's Supreme Court ruling, Trump could pursue his plans without fear of punishment or restraint," Axios reported.
“It's coming, fast and furious, if he's elected.”
Being a dictator on Day One. Swapping civil servants for “pre-vetted loyalists.” Threatening to “target and even imprison critics.” Pardoning insurrectionists. Jacking up prices with new tariffs. And more: https://t.co/sEiORyvMOt
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) July 2, 2024
While Trump made his support for such actions clear well before the U.S. Supreme Court's Monday ruling, the decision is likely to embolden the twice-impeached former president who, since leaving office, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on election-subversion charges and convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
The high court's ideologically divided 6-3 decision in the immunity case has already impacted both legal proceedings, with Manhattan prosecutors agreeing Tuesday with the former president's request to delay his criminal sentencing on the 34 felony charges as the judge on the case examines whether the Supreme Court's ruling has any bearing on the conviction.
In the separate election-subversion case, the Supreme Court's ruling further pushes back a trial as the judge now has to determine which of the actions described in the indictment qualify as "official" duties that—according to the high court's right-wing supermajority—are entitled to "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution.
"So, yes, all this will delay Trump's trial. In that sense, he gets what he craved," Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote Monday. "But the implications are far worse for the structure of American self-government."
"We read sonorous language in the majority opinion that 'the president is not above the law,'" Waldman added. "But just in time for Independence Day, the Supreme Court brings us closer to having a king again."
"The Framers of the Constitution, wary of reestablishing the monarchy they overthrew, carefully limited the chief executive's powers. And six justices just crowned him king."
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent against Monday's decision that the Supreme Court's majority has effectively endorsed assassinations of political rivals, orchestration of a military coup to remain in power, and the acceptance of bribes in exchange for pardons as legitimate and unprosecutable uses of presidential authority.
"The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably," Sotomayor wrote. "In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law."
Slate legal journalist Mark Joseph Stern echoed Sotomayor, writing that "it is unclear, after Monday's decision, what constitutional checks remain to stop any president from assuming dangerous and monarchical powers that are anathema to representative government."
"The immediate impact of the court's sweeping decision will be devastating enough, allowing Donald Trump to evade accountability for the most destructive and criminal efforts he took to overturn the 2020 election. But the long-term impact is even more harrowing," Stern wrote. "All future presidents will enter office with the knowledge that they are protected from prosecution for even the most appalling and dangerous abuses of power so long as they insist they were seeking to carry out their duties, as they understood them."
"The Framers of the Constitution, wary of reestablishing the monarchy they overthrew, carefully limited the chief executive's powers," he added. "And six justices just crowned him king."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular