

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Matt Sutton 212-613-8026 msutton@drugpolicy.org
The Overdose Crisis Needs a Public Health Response. Yet, House Doubles Down on Failed Drug War Policies for Fentanyl
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl (HALT) Act (H.R. 467) in a 289-133 vote. This legislation would ramp up mandatory minimum sentencing for fentanyl analogues. It would also permanently schedule all fentanyl-related substances as Schedule I without first testing them for benefits or harm.
By putting fentanyl-related substances on Schedule I, they are criminalized the most harshly. Under this legislation, fentanyl-related substances are assumed harmful, and people will be criminalized regardless of the science. Of the few fentanyl-related substances tested on a limited basis by the FDA, at least one showed properties similar to the overdose-reversing medication naloxone. Others were found to be completely harmless and should never have been classified as Schedule I.
This bill also expands mandatory minimums for fentanyl analogue cases, hearkening back to failed drug war strategies of the past. Criminalization has led to a stronger, more potent illicit drug supply. Yet, members of Congress continue to double down on the disproven, failed approach of drug prohibition at the expense of people’s lives.
In response, the following non-partisan civil rights, public health, drug policy, faith, law enforcement, criminal legal reform, and public policy research organizations released the below statements:
Maritza Perez Medina, Director of the Office of Federal Affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance:
“Our communities deserve real health solutions to the overdose crisis, not political grandstanding that is going to cost us more lives. Yet, sadly, in passing the HALT Fentanyl Act, the House seems intent on doubling down on the same failed strategies that got us here to begin with. While it may seem politically expedient to crack down on fentanyl and its analogues, history has shown us time and again, this only creates further harm. Increasing criminal penalties and expanding the use of mandatory minimums, as this bill does, has never reduced the supply or demand of illicit drugs. Instead, it only exacerbates racial disparities in the criminal legal system and creates the conditions for an even more unknown, and more potent, drug supply to flourish. We call on the Senate to reject these dangerous efforts and act quickly to implement the health solutions we urgently need to save lives.”
Laura Pitter, Deputy Director of the US Program at Human Rights Watch:
“It’s sad to see lawmakers revert to over-criminalization once again when we have 50 years of evidence that the war on drugs has been an abject failure. A vote for this bill was a vote against evidence and science. We know that harsher criminal penalties have done nothing to address the overdose crisis, which has only gotten exponentially worse since Congress put the temporary class-wide scheduling policy into place. This now makes that policy permanent and not only entrenches mandatory minimums but expands them. It will also undermine efforts by scientists to find solutions for problematic substance use and discourage people who drugs who want help from seeking it because they will face harsh penalties.”
Lt. Diane Goldstein (Ret.), Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership:
“I lost my brother to an overdose, so I understand the pain that so many families in our country are feeling during this crisis. As a retired police professional, I know that increasing penalties for fentanyl will cost us more lives because people will be even more afraid to call 911 if they see someone succumbing to overdose for fear of a long prison sentence. Mandatory minimums punish low-level drug offenders rather than providing the treatment they so often need. We should be focusing all of our efforts on making public health interventions accessible to save lives, not doubling down on the strategy that brought us to where we are today."
Marta Nelson, Director of Government Strategy, Advocacy and Partnerships, at the Vera Institute of Justice:
"Fentanyl and other deadly drugs pose a real threat to the health and safety of our communities, but Congress must invest in public health solutions rather than the ineffective harsh sentences and mandatory minimums we have relied on in the past. By permanently scheduling fentanyl-related substances as Schedule 1, the HALT Fentanyl Act relies on that old mandatory minimum playbook, which contributes to mass incarceration and does not prevent substance use. We must reject so-called tough sentencing policies and instead lift up solutions-based policymaking that addresses the root causes of substance use and saves lives.”
Jesselyn McCurdy, Executive Vice President for Government Affairs at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights:
“We know what keeps us safe: living in communities where all of us can provide for our families and build the future we want. The classwide scheduling that this bill imposes will exacerbate pretrial detention, mass incarceration, and racial disparities in the prison system, doubling down on a fear-based, enforcement-first response to a public health challenge. Classwide scheduling and mandatory minimums merely repeat the mistakes of the past by magnifying our incarceration problem.”
Liz Komar, Sentencing Reform Counsel, The Sentencing Project:
“Fifty years after the beginning of mass incarceration, the evidence is clear: the War on Drugs has harmed communities. Harsh punishments don’t save lives or make us safer. We urge Congress to remember the lessons of the 1980’s and 1990’s – mandatory minimums are not the answer to the overdose crisis.”
Drew Gibson, Director of Advocacy, AIDS United:
“Any hope that we have of ending the overdose, HIV, and viral hepatitis epidemics in the United States lies in an embrace of evidence-based best practices and a rejection of the punitive and racially inequitable policies that have destroyed millions of lives over the last half century. Passage of the HALT Fentanyl Act and the draconian expansion of mandatory minimum sentencing for fentanyl related substances contained in it would be a reckless repetition of the costly mistakes of the war on drugs that disproportionately impacts Black and Brown communities and creates the conditions for even more harmful illicit substances to enter the drug supply.”
Miriam Aroni Krinsky, Executive Director of Fair and Just Prosecution and a former federal prosecutor:
“Our country has spent half a century trying to treat drug-related harms with fear and punishment. The dismal results are clear: these draconian policies ballooned our prison population even as the number of annual drug-related deaths grew exponentially. Recent, tragic increases in fentanyl-related deaths have underscored the urgent need to adopt evidence-based, effective drug policies. Yet the enactment of the HALT Fentanyl Act would signal to the world that our government has learned nothing from the catastrophic failures of the War on Drugs, stymie harm reduction efforts that save lives, and funnel more people into what is among the largest prison systems in the world.”
Last week, a coalition (which includes the aforementioned organizations) of advocacy groups sent a letter to House leadership urging them to reject this proposal and instead support public health approaches like the Support, Treatment, and Overdose Prevention of Fentanyl (STOP Fentanyl) Act of 2021 (H.R. 2366) and the Test Act. The STOP Fentanyl Act proposes increased access to harm reduction services and substance use disorder treatment, improved data collection, and other evidence-based methods to reduce overdose. The TEST Act would require the federal government to test all fentanyl-related substances that are currently classified as Schedule I substances and remove those that are proven medically beneficial or otherwise unharmful. It would also require the attorney general to notify any person who has been wrongly convicted, or sentenced, of the change.
For more information on fentanyl and why we need a public health approach to address the overdose crisis, visit drugpolicy.org/fentanylfentanyl.
The Drug Policy Alliance is the nation's leading organization promoting drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.
(212) 613-8020"Right now the US and Israel are realizing 'Greater Israel' by attacking-invading Lebanon and Iran," said one professor. "Hegseth is saying it's Greenland, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico next."
Alarm mounted Monday over the Trump administration's "Greater North America" plan, a geopolitical blueprint for US imperial hegemony from Greenland to Guyana that's drawing comparisons with a messianic project being pushed by President Donald Trump's far-right allies and war partners in Israel.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth first unveiled the plan earlier this month, telling reporters: "Trump has drawn a new strategic map, from Greenland to the Gulf of America to the Panama Canal and its surrounding countries. At the Department of War we call this strategic map the Greater North America."
"Why? Because every sovereign nation and territory north of the Equator, from Greenland to Ecuador and from Alaska to Guyana, is not part of the 'Global South,'" Hegseth added. "It is our immediate security perimeter in this great neighborhood that we all live in."
Graeme Garrard, a Canadian professor at Cardiff University in Wales, said Monday on social media in response to Hegseth's comments: "By 'Greater North America' he means 'Greater United States. The US is now and has long been a menace and threat to the sovereignty and independence of its hemispheric neighbors."
Numerous observers have compared Trump's "Greater America" with the "Greater Israel" movement, whose most zealous proponents want to conquer everything between the Nile and Euphrates rivers—that is, all of Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan; most of Syria and Kuwait; large parts of Egypt and Iraq; and some of Turkey—for Israel.
"Hesgeth's 'Greater North America' should be taken VERY seriously as a real threat," University of Lausanne professor Julia Steinberger, who is Swiss-American, said on social media. "Right now the US and Israel are realizing 'Greater Israel' by attacking-invading Lebanon and Iran. Hegseth is saying it's Greenland, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico next."
Based on the biblical boundaries of ancient Jewish kingdoms, Greater Israel is rooted in the supremacist supposition that the Abrahamic deity figure God promised the Jews all of the lands between the Nile and Euphrates.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—and other prominent right-wing Israelis support the Greater Israel vision and are working to make it a reality by accelerating the illegal settler colonization and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, preparing to annex the dwindling Palestinian territories, and planning to occupy—perhaps permanently—parts of Syria and Lebanon.
For nearly two centuries, claims of divine favor have also underpinned US expansionism, most famously expressed in Manifest Destiny and mid-19th century plans to annex lands "from the Arctic to the Tropic." This notion drove the US conquest of half of Mexico, as well as later takeovers of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. The US also took control over the Panama Canal, which it built at the cost of thousands of laborers' lives, most of them from Barbados and other West Indies isles.
"It is part of the great law of progress that the weak should give way to the strong, and that the superior should displace the inferior races," one New Orleans newspaper opined in 1848.
Nearly 178 years later, Hegseth echoed this supremacist ideology, telling Latin American leaders that the region must remain "Christian nations under God" and stand united in the face of "radical narco-communism."
Like the 19th century US imperialists, Trump has also repeatedly expressed his goal of "taking Cuba"—an objective that goes back over 200 years, when Thomas Jefferson, then a former president, called the island “the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of states."
The head of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy praised state policymakers for "listening to the demands of the people to create a less regressive state tax system."
While nearby California prepares for a November vote to tax the ultrarich, Democratic Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson on Monday signed state legislation that creates a tax on income over $1 million in a single year.
"Adoption of the historic Millionaires' Tax makes our tax system more fair, and means free meals for K-12 students, the largest tax break in state history for small businesses, eliminating the sales tax for baby diapers, and sending a check to nearly 500,000 working families to make life more affordable," Ferguson highlighted in a statement.
Senate Bill 6346, sponsored by state Sen. Jamie Pedersen (D-43), was delivered to the governor earlier this month after passing the upper chamber 27-21. In the Washington House of Representatives, where the companion bill was led by Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34), it was approved 51-46.
"With this bill, we're going to begin to right a historic wrong that has plagued our state for nearly 100 years, and made our tax system one of the worst and most regressive in the entire country," said Pedersen. "We've asked Washington's working families for far too long to shoulder far too much of the tax burden for the things we care about, and we have not asked enough of our wealthiest neighbors. The Millionaires' Tax represents hope and change for people in communities like mine, and across the state."
Bloomberg reported Monday that before adopting the law, which "applies a 9.9% levy on the roughly 30,000 taxpayers in the state who make more than $1 million a year," Washington was one of just nine states without an income tax
Washington lawmakers previously "made progress in recent years by creating and later enhancing their capital gains excise tax," but its "tax structure has been woefully unequal, ranking as the second-most regressive state and local tax system in the country," according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).
"Inequality is at a historic high and billionaires are walking away with ever-larger shares of our country’s collective wealth," ITEP executive director Amy Hanauer said in a Monday statement. "With those in charge at the federal level passing policies that only make this worse, it is incumbent upon states to come up with solutions. It is inspiring to see Washington listening to the demands of the people to create a less regressive state tax system."
Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson has officially signed into law a new tax on millionaires.The 9.9% tax on income above $1 million is projected to raise up to $3 billion in 2029 after it takes effect in 2028.That money will go towards public education, child care, and expanding the state's EITC.
— ITEP (@itep.org) March 30, 2026 at 1:25 PM
Last year, congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump used the GOP's narrow majorities to pass a budget package, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that provided the rich with more tax breaks while slashing programs for working families, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Ferguson signed Washington's bill as Republicans in Congress prepare for this year's budget package, which they aim to pass ahead of the November midterm elections, and other states and localities consider measures to tax the rich and use the revenue to better serve the working class.
As historian Lawrence Wittner detailed in an opinion piece for Common Dreams last week, "Campaigns for state tax-the-rich legislation are flourishing in California, Colorado, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia, and have already succeeded in getting such legislation adopted in Massachusetts and Washington."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) headed to New York City on Sunday to boost an effort by NYC's newly elected mayor, Zohran Mamdani, to pressure Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul to raise taxes on the rich. He addressed a rally at Lehman College in the Bronx.
"The people of the city, the people of this state, the people of this country, they do not want to see our kids go hungry," Sanders said. "They do not want people to sleep out on the street or lack healthcare. They want the very rich to start paying their fair share of taxes."
At the federal level, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) earlier this month introduced the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act. They were followed last week by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), lead sponsors of the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act. However, neither bill is expected to get through the current Congress.
Washington makes history today! Gov. Bob Ferguson just signed the Millionaires Tax into law!For too long, the wealthiest few have paid a smaller share while working families carried the load.
[image or embed]
— Washington State Democrats (@wadems.org) March 30, 2026 at 1:28 PM
Like in Washington, DC, efforts to tax the rich are still facing pushback in Washington state. After Ferguson's signature, Citizen Action Defense Fund announced its intention to sue, with executive director Jackson Maynard declaring that "since lawmakers and the governor have chosen to ignore both the constitution and decades of settled case law, we will act."
According to KUOW, during the bill signing event in Olympia that featured remarks from not only the governor but also the bill sponsors, a small business owner, and a tech executive, Ferguson acknowledged that "there's going to be a public conversation around this in the days and weeks and months ahead, as there should be of something of this historic nature."
"Putting front and center those perspectives you just heard, I think, will be critical," he asserted, "because when Washingtonians hear the benefits that flow to working families, to businesses large and small, to kids in schools with those free meals, for childcare services for thousands of Washington families, it's going to make a huge, huge difference."
"There is nothing legal about an occupying power using the death penalty exclusively for the people it occupies," said one historian.
Leading international human rights groups as well as organizations in Israel swiftly demanded the repeal of a law passed by the Israeli Knesset on Monday that makes death by hanging the default punishment for Palestinians convicted of deadly attacks on Israelis—a law that one group called "discriminatory by design."
Those were the words of the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, which petitioned the country's Supreme Court minutes after lawmakers passed an amendment to the federal penal law, "Death Penalty for Terrorists," in a vote of 62-48.
The group called on the high court to challenge the new law and said the far-right government had passed it "without legal authority" over Palestinians in the West Bank, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government aimed to illegally annex to Israel.
The Association of Civil Rights was joined by groups including Amnesty International, which has spoken out forcefully against the legislation in recent months, in demanding the death penalty law be repealed.
Amnesty said that under the new policy, Israel—which has vehemently rejected accusations of imposing apartheid policies on Palestinians—"explicitly creates two legal frameworks for the use of the death penalty in the occupied West Bank... and in Israel."
The law also does not allow for any pardons for those sentenced to death, making it "one of the world’s most extreme death penalty laws," said Amnesty.
The new law demands that Palestinians be put to death by hanging if convicted of nationalistic killings in a military court, and gives Israeli courts the option of sentencing Israeli citizens to capital punishment if they're convicted of similar crimes.
But Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute’s Center for Democratic Values and Institutions, told The Associated Press that only Palestinians will ultimately be killed under the law.
“It will apply in Israeli courts, but only to terrorist activities that are motivated by the wish to undermine the existence of Israel," Cohen told the AP. "That means Jews will not be indicted under this law."
Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, noted that Israeli military courts "have a conviction rate of over 99% for Palestinian defendants and... are notorious for disregarding due process and fair trial safeguards."
"Israel is brazenly granting itself carte blanche to execute Palestinians while stripping away the most basic fair-trial safeguards,” said Guevara-Rosas.
She added that the law was passed weeks after the Israeli military attorney general dropped all charges against five Israel Defense Forces soldiers accused of raping a Palestinian prisoner—"a decision celebrated by the prime minister and several ministers."
“It speaks volumes to the extent of Israel’s dehumanization of Palestinians that this law has passed" after those charges were dropped, said Guevara-Rosas. "For years, we have seen an alarming pattern of apparent extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings of Palestinians—with the perpetrators also enjoying near-total impunity. This new law which allows for state-sanctioned executions is a culmination of such policies.”
Celebrations were seen among Netanyahu's top ministers once again on Monday, with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir—whose Otzma Yehudit Party initially introduced the amendment—seen clutching a bottle of champagne after the passage was announced.
Historian Assal Rad noted that much of the international coverage of the bill's passage has used "procedural language to sanitize the story and make it sound legitimate."
The law, however, "is just another way for Israel to kill Palestinians," she said.
The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor warned that "the most dangerous aspect of the new law lies in its application within a judicial system that lacks any guarantees of a fair trial for Palestinians."
"Confessions are often obtained under duress, access to effective legal representation is severely limited, the presumption of innocence is routinely ignored, and there are major restrictions on appeals or access to documents essential for the defense," said the group.
"Combined with a lack of judicial independence and integrity in proceedings, applying the death penalty in this context cannot be considered a legitimate judicial measure," the organization added. "Instead, it constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life, in direct violation of fundamental principles of international human rights law."