How Government Shutdowns Worsen the Opioid Crisis

By Lynn Webster, MD, Guest Columnist

On October 26, 2017— a little bit more than a year ago — President Donald Trump declared that the opioid crisis was a national Public Health Emergency. Most Americans seemed to back his initiative to stop opioid abuse, and to reduce drug supply and demand.

However, it seems the recent 35-day government shutdown and Trump's desire to build a border wall have been at cross-purposes with his concern about addressing the opioid crisis.

Two key aspects of Trump’s opioid plan were prevention and treatment of opioid use disorder. Prevention, in part, means reducing the supply. However, everything in the supply is not equally problematic.

Opioids fall into two major categories: those that are prescribed and those that are smuggled into the United States. The number of overdoses associated with prescription opioids has remained essentially unchanged since 2011, while the number of opioid overdoses due to illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids surged from 3,000 in 2013 to more than 29,000 in 2017. Most of these drugs originate in China.

One of Trump's major arguments for building a wall is that most drugs that kill Americans are coming over the southern border from Mexico. However, that conflicts with the final report of his opioid commission, which found that "we are losing this fight predominately through China."

Mexican cartels do smuggle illicit opioids across the southern border in passenger vehicles and tractor trailers, often at legal points of entry. Heroin and fentanyl are also smuggled into the U.S. by sea and air or through the mail. A physical barrier doesn’t block any of these types of entry.


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is tasked with inspecting mail to prevent drug smuggling. Before the government shutdown, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb was calling for more postal inspectors to intercept shipments of opioids. He wanted the government to be able to inspect 100,000 suspicious packages per year, but that would have required double the number of personnel that he had.

Government shutdowns handicap those efforts because it is difficult to hire during shutdowns. It can be challenging just to retain the employees you already have.

The Department of Homeland Security works with the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to patrol the South Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea to stop drug smuggling. These efforts may have been impeded during the shutdown, because some of these "essential" employees had to decide whether to work without pay or call in sick. We can assume that some of them chose the latter course of action. Some government employees may be looking for other jobs because they want a reliable paycheck.

Ironically, due to increased scrutiny at the border, drug smugglers have gotten more creative, increasing their use of tunnels, boats, air and even catapults. These efforts may have been more successful due to the lack of personnel guarding trouble spots because of the shutdown.

Addiction Treatment Impacted

Government shutdowns increase the likelihood that opioids could find their way past our borders. And our ability to treat people with opioid addiction may also be compromised.

Providing treatment for addiction was the other important part of Trump's plan for addressing the opioid crisis. An estimated 2.1 million people had an opioid use disorder in 2016, yet only about 20% had access to treatment. One of the reasons so few people are treated is that not enough clinicians are trained and certified to treat opioid addiction. The president's initiative requires increasing the number of clinicians certified to treat addiction.

Buprenorphine (Subxone) is one of the tools physicians use to treat opioid use disorder. Doctors require special training and certification to prescribe the drug, as well as a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Agency. During the government shutdown, the DEA was still able to review doctors’ applications, but there were about 30% fewer certifications than there were before the shutdown. It is unclear if that was due to the shutdown or not.

Regardless of whether there will be a physical wall on our border with Mexico, we can see the potential damage that the recent government shutdown can have on curbing the opioid crisis. Congress will now discuss the merits of various options to secure the border, and President Trump is threatening another shutdown if a border wall isn’t funded.

But one thing we should take away from the recent experience is that there isn't much point in saving ourselves from illegal immigrants if we can't protect ourselves from the dangers posed by a government shutdown.

Lynn Webster.jpg

Lynn R. Webster, MD, is a vice president of scientific affairs for PRA Health Sciences and consults with the pharmaceutical industry. He is a former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. Webster is the author of “The Painful Truth: What Chronic Pain Is Really Like and Why It Matters to Each of Us.”

You can find him on Twitter: @LynnRWebsterMD. 

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

What Will Support Act Mean for Pain Patients?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

President Trump this week signed into law the Support for Patients and Communities Act, a comprehensive and mostly bipartisan legislation that combined over 70 bills passed by Congress aimed at fighting the opioid epidemic.

"Together we are going to end the scourge of drug addiction,” Trump said at a bill-signing ceremony at the White House. “Or at least make an extremely big dent in this terrible, terrible problem.”

While most of the Support Act is aimed at slowing the flow of illicit drugs and subsidizing the $35 billion dollar addiction treatment industry, there are some key elements that will affect millions of Americans who take opioids for chronic or acute pain.

Most are designed to limit access to opioid medication and further reduce the supply, which has nearly been cut in half since 2016.

trump support.png

The new law authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to require that some opioids be dispensed in so-called “blister packs” to limit the number of pills that can be prescribed and dispensed at one time. That type of packaging would primarily be for patients with short-term, acute pain who need only a few days’ supply. But it could also lead to a standardization of doses and make refills more difficult for patients who are slow to recover from surgery or trauma.

“The doses dispensed in the packs could be designed to align with evidence-based recommendations on what the proper dosing should be for common indications. These packs could then become the default option for more post procedure uses and could discourage physicians from prescribing long durations of use in situations where the evidence shows that short durations are clinically appropriate,” said FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, in a statement.

“Ultimately, this approach could reduce the overall number of drugs in circulation and potentially lower the rate of new opioid addiction. It could also address the problem of excess supply, leading to fewer pills left in medicine cabinets that could be inappropriately accessed by family members, including children.”

The Support Act also gives the FDA the authority to require that opioids be dispensed with a mail-back pouch or other safe disposal options. The goal again is to get unused medications out of medicine cabinets where they could be stolen or diverted.

The new law also supports an effort recently launched by Gottlieb to develop opioid guidelines for acute pain. The guidelines won’t replace or change the CDC’s controversial guideline for chronic pain, but they will be developed with more transparency. Gottlieb has instructed the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to hold a series of public meetings and to seek input from "a broad range of stakeholders" from different medical specialties. The CDC guideline was initially developed with no public hearings and with little input from pain management experts.

The Support Act also gives more authority to the FDA to require longer post-market studies on the safety and efficacy of drugs. Current evidence on the long-term use of all pain medication – not just opioids – is extremely limited. That has led to exaggerated claims from opioid critics that there is “no evidence” that opioids are safe or effective long term. Those same critics often call for greater use of non-opioid medications, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, when there is little long term evidence to support their use either.

The Support Act also calls on other federal agencies to enact measures to prevent the diversion and abuse of opioids and other controlled substances:

  • All prescriptions for controlled substances covered under Medicare Part D or Medicare Advantage must be transmitted electronically starting Jan. 1, 2021.

  • The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will develop guidelines for pharmacists to decline to fill prescriptions they think may be fraudulent or questionable.

  • Medicaid programs will be required to have “safety edits” in place for opioid refills and to monitor the concurrent use of opioids with potentially risky drugs such as benzodiazepines.

  • A web portal will be created to allow communication between HHS, CMS and Medicare Advantage insurers to share information about providers under investigation for inappropriate prescribing of opioids.

  • HHS will develop guidelines to allow the inclusion of opioid addiction history in patient electronic health records.

One pain management expert cautioned that some provisions of the Support Act put too much of an emphasis on opioid medication.

“Excessive focus on reducing opioid supply in the legislation can lead to more harm than good. We cannot continue to ignore the needs of people in pain at the expense of preventing illicit drug use,” Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine told Pain Medicine News.

“We have seen draconian steps by the VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) and other payors to force opioid reduction in patients who have been stable and functional for years. This is cruel and simply not right. My hope is that the act is implemented with compassion for people with addiction and pain, but that they allow science and not prejudices and politics to inform policy.”


Trump Administration Proposes More Rx Opioid Cuts

By Pat Anson, Editor

For the third year in a row, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is proposing another round of cuts in the supply of opioid pain medication – a 10% reduction in manufacturing quotas in 2019 for several widely used opioids.  The Trump Administration says the pain relievers are “frequently misused” and reducing their supply will help prevent addiction and abuse.

The DEA proposal involves six opioids classified as Schedule II controlled substances:  oxycodone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, hydromorphone, morphine, and fentanyl. Some of the medications are already in short supply, forcing some hospitals to use other pain relievers to treat surgery and trauma patients.

“President Trump has set the ambitious goal of reducing opioid prescription rates by one-third in three years. We embrace that goal and are resolutely committed to reaching it,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “We have already made significant progress in reducing prescription rates over the past year. Cutting opioid production quotas by an average of ten percent next year will help us continue that progress and make it harder to divert these drugs for abuse.”

The DEA has already made substantial cuts in opioid production quotas, reducing them by 25 percent in 2017, followed by another 20 percent cut in 2018.  

The production cuts have had no effect on reducing the nation’s soaring overdose rate. According to a preliminary report released this week by the CDC, over 72,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year, a 6 percent increase from 2016. The rising death toll is primarily attributed to illicit fentanyl, heroin and cocaine. Overdoses involving prescription opioids appear to have leveled off.


The DEA’s latest round of production cuts is in line with President Trump’s “Safe Prescribing Plan” which seeks to reduce "the over-prescription of opioids” by cutting nationwide opioid prescription fills by one-third within three years.

“We’ve lost too many lives to the opioid epidemic and families and communities suffer tragic consequences every day,” said DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon. “This significant drop in prescriptions by doctors and DEA’s production quota adjustment will continue to reduce the amount of drugs available for illicit diversion and abuse while ensuring that patients will continue to have access to proper medicine.”

‘Serious Consequences’ for Patients

But legitimate patients are losing access to opioids.  Many hospitals and hospices now face a chronic shortage of three intravenous or injectable opioids --  morphine, hydromorphone and fentanyl -- which are used to treat patients recovering from surgery or trauma. Shortages of these "parenteral" drugs have been primarily blamed on manufacturing problems, although some critics say it has been worsened by the DEA production cuts.

“The shortage has serious consequences for patients and physicians. Parenteral opioids provide fast and reliable analgesia for patients admitted to the hospital with poorly controlled pain, patients who have undergone painful procedures such as major surgery, and those who were previously on oral opioid regimens but are unable to continue treatment by mouth,” Edward Bruera, MD, an oncologist at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, wrote in an op/ed published this week in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Shortages of the three best-known parenteral opioids may increase the risk for medication errors when it becomes necessary to switch a patient to a less familiar drug or to use opioid-sparing drug combinations. Opioids are already among the drugs most frequently involved in medication errors in hospitals. There are also increased risks of delayed time to analgesia and of side effects resulting in unnecessary patient suffering and delayed hospital discharge.”

Although opioid prescribing guidelines are only intended for physicians treating patients with “chronic non-cancer pain,” Bruera says some cancer patients are being affected by opioid shortages and over-zealous enforcement of prescribing guidelines.

“Most hospitalized patients and almost all patients with cancer need opioids, either on a temporary basis after surgery or painful treatments such as stem-cell transplantation, or longer for cancer-related pain or dyspnea,” he wrote. “It is impossible to appropriately treat such a large number of patients unless most physicians are able and willing to prescribe opioids. There were not enough palliative care and pain specialists to meet patient needs before the shortages began, and universal referral of patients who need parenteral opioids will therefore only result in more undertreated pain.”

The rationale behind the DEA’s production cuts defy some of the agency’s own analysis. Less than one percent of legally prescribed opioids are diverted, according to a 2017 DEA report, which also found that admissions for painkiller abuse to publicly funded addiction treatment facilities have declined significantly since 2011, the same year that opioid prescriptions began dropping.

A Pained Life: An Open Letter to President Trump

By Carol Levy, Columnist

Dear Mr. President Trump,

I have had trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic facial pain disorder, since 1976. For the last 30 years, I’ve been able to get all of the pain medications my doctors prescribed for me, including codeine, Demerol, morphine, Percodan, hydrocodone, and even an 8-ounce bottle of tincture of opium.

For the latter, I only had to go to 2 pharmacies. The first one didn’t carry it. The second store gave me the bottle with no questions asked.   I was trusted. My doctor was trusted. My doctor trusted me.

Many of us are now losing our doctors, who are fearful of being raided or arrested by the DEA because they prescribe opioids. Pain sufferers who were once able to get out of bed in the morning to work, watch their kids, and be a part of the world are joining the ranks of the disabled because opioids are being reduced or withdrawn completely.

Often patients get little or no warning when their pain management doctors decide they can no longer treat them.  Many doctors have closed their doors or decided not to prescribe opioids, no matter what the patient's condition or if they benefited from them. Often there is no rhyme or reason for this abandonment, other than fear of the DEA.

The Justice Department, CDC, VA and other federal agencies continue blaming patients and physicians for the opioid crisis, when the true “epidemic” involves illicit fentanyl and heroin. It has little to do with prescriptions.


This blaming of patients and pain management physicians has caused untold additional suffering.  The worst part is the many anecdotal stories of patients committing suicide because the opioids that were helping them are no longer available in the same dosage, if at all.

The damage is not just physical from the increased pain, there is psychological pain as well.  Sources that once may have been a comfort become accusers.

Patients tell story after story: “My family now calls me an addict because I am on opioids.”

Or they fear letting their friends know they take opioids for pain: “Then they’ll think I am an abuser or an addict.”

Yes, some doctors overprescribe and some patients abuse their opioids.  But they’re a small number. We don't sell our prescriptions and we don't give them away like candy.  We take them because they help our pain.  Often, it is the only treatment or option left to us.  We would be fools to give away, sell or abuse that which is helping. 

It is time, past time, for the "compassionate conservatism" of the Republican party be put into use. And Democrats need to show that the compassion they talk about is real.

We have enough trouble dealing with our physical pain. Please stop making it worse by taking away our medications. Let our doctors doctor us, not the government.

Carol Levy250.jpg

Carol Jay Levy has lived with trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic facial pain disorder, for over 30 years. She is the author of “A Pained Life, A Chronic Pain Journey.” 

Carol is the moderator of the Facebook support group “Women in Pain Awareness.” Her blog “The Pained Life” can be found here.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Do Hungry Mice Have the Answer to the Opioid Crisis?

By Pat Anson, Editor

Yes, that a silly headline. There have been a lot of them lately on how to end the opioid crisis, most of them involving new ways of treating chronic pain without the use of addictive drugs.

Some of these ideas are sincere, some are strange and others are just plain silly. There were a quite a few this week that produced some interesting headlines.


“Staying hungry may suppress chronic pain” was the headline in a Chinese website that reported on a study conducted at the University of Pennsylvania. Researchers there found that laboratory mice that weren’t fed for 24 hours still felt acute short-term pain, but their chronic pain was suppressed by hunger.

“We didn't set out having this expectation that hunger would influence pain sensation so significantly," says J. Nicholas Betley, an assistant professor of biology in Penn's School of Arts and Sciences. "But when we saw these behaviors unfold before us, it made sense. If you're an animal, it doesn't matter if you have an injury, you need to be able to overcome that in order to go find the nutrients you need to survive."

Betley isn’t suggesting that chronic pain patients stop eating or starve themselves, but he believes the finding could pave the way to new pain medications that target brain receptors that control survival behavior.  

“Chronic pain relief: How marine snails may be able to help” was the headline used by WNDU-TV to report on a recent study at the University of Utah. 

Researchers there say a compound in the venom of cone snails could someday be used in pain medication. The venom paralyzes small fish so that hungry cone snails can slowly eat their prey alive.  

"We really hope that we will find a drug that could be as effective for severe pain as opioids but has far less side effects and is not addictive," says Russell Teichert, PhD, a research associate professor in the Department of Biology.


Interestingly, the cone snail study is funded with a $10 million grant from the U.S. Department of Defense. Human trials are expected to begin in a couple years.


“Why Tai Chi Works So Well for Pain Relief” was the headline in Time about a study by researchers at Tufts Medical Center. The headline is a bit misleading, because the study only included fibromyalgia patients and compared the effectiveness of tai chi to aerobic exercise in relieving pain.

The last thing many fibromylagia sufferers want to do is practice tai chi, but the Chinese martial arts exercise was found to be just as good or better than aerobics, which is sometimes recommended as a non-drug treatment for fibromyalgia.

“It is low risk and minimally invasive, unlike surgery, and it will not harm your organs, like long term drug use,” said Amy Price, a trauma survivor who lives with chronic pain.

“Kellyanne Conway Tells Students to Eat Ice Cream and Fries Rather than Take Deadly Drug Fentanyl”  is how Newsweek summed up a speech by a top presidential advisor to a group of college students.

“On our college campuses, you folks are reading the labels, they won’t put any sugar in their body, they won’t eat carbs anymore, and they’re very, very fastidious about what goes into their body. And then you buy a street drug for $5 or $10, it’s laced with fentanyl and that’s it,” said Conway, who oversees the Trump administration’s response to the opioid crisis.

“So my short advice is, eat the ice cream, have the French fry, don’t buy the street drug—believe me, it all works out.”

Conway probably said this tongue-in-cheek, but critics were quick to pounce.

“Was feeling bad about my McDonalds ice cream cone today until I realized it helped me avert opioid addiction. Thanks Kellyanne Conway!” Lola Lovecraft tweeted.

 “I was considering doing fentanyl but now thanks to Kellyanne I’m just gonna 'have the French fry” instead. Saved me from a life on the streets!” tweeted Mike Stephens.


Conway’s boss had zinger of his own after signing a $1.3 trillion spending bill on Friday.

“We’re also spending $6 billion on, as you know, various forms of drug control, helping people that are addicted,” said President Trump.  “The level of drugs that are being put out there and the power of this addiction is hard to believe. People go to the hospital for a period of a week and they come out and they’re drug addicts.”


No, Mr. President, that’s a myth. Studies have repeatedly shown that it is rare for hospital patients to become addicted to opioids.

One study found that only 0.6% of patients recovering from surgery were later diagnosed with opioid misuse. Another study found that only 1.1% of patients treated with opioids in a hospital emergency room progressed to long term use.

What is true is that there’s a growing shortage of opioid medication in hospitals and hospices, and that’s leading to medical errors and the unnecessary suffering of patients. The shortage is due in part to manufacturing problems and severe cuts in opioid production quotas ordered by the DEA.

President Trump is aware that opioid prescribing has declined significantly, but he’d like to see more.  This week he called for opioid prescriptions to be cut by a third over the next three years. “Doctors are way down now in their orders of the opioids, way down. It’s a great thing,” he said.

Let's hope the hungry mice and cone snails share their secrets soon.

How Trump and Congress Can Champion Stem Cells

By A. Rahman Ford, Columnist

For the second straight year, President Trump has endorsed making life-saving treatments like stem cell therapies more available to more Americans.

In his 2017 Joint Address to Congress, Trump highlighted the case of Megan Crowley, a young woman whose father had to launch his own drug company to help treat her Pompe Disease.  Also in attendance that evening was Sarah hughes, who was forced to travel to Mexico to use her own stem cells to treat her systemic idiopathic juvenile arthritis.

In reference to both cases, the president lamented the pain and death caused by the “slow and burdensome approval process at the Food and Drug Administration” that “keeps too many advances … from reaching those in need.”  He argued that regulatory restraints at the FDA should be “slashed” so that more Americans could benefit from life-saving therapies.

President Trump is keeping up the pressure.  During this week's State of the Union address, he continued his theme of a patient-centered, less restrictive approach to medical treatment. 


He did so by voicing his clear support for “Right to Try” legislation, which would increase the medical options of the critically ill by helping them avoid the unduly burdensome and bureaucratic spider’s web of the FDA. 

In a seeming reference to Sarah Hughes and other stem cell medical tourists, Trump stated unequivocally that “patients with terminally conditions … should have access to experimental treatments immediately” and they “should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure.”  He then urged Congress to pass the Right to Try Act, so that Americans can get help “right here at home.”

How Right to Try Works

The language of the Right to Try legislation is simple, straightforward and offers protections for patients and manufacturers.  Under the Senate version, an “eligible patient” who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness may be prescribed an experimental drug or biological product to treat their illness, so long as the patient has a qualified physician certify that he or she has exhausted all other treatment options and is unable to participate in a clinical trial. The patient must also provide informed consent to the physician and the physician may not be compensated by the manufacturer of a treatment for certifying the patient.  The patient, physician and manufacturer must all agree on the treatment.

Furthermore, the medical product in question must have successfully completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and must be enrolled in an FDA clinical trial.  The treatment must be authorized by state law, which means that the state must have a Right to Try law – which 38 states currently have.

The manufacturers receive protection under Right to Try legislation, in that there can be no legal liability for injury that may result as a consequence of the medical product’s use, and adverse events that may occur during treatment will not negatively impact any eventual approval of the product by the FDA. 

In an overwhelming and increasingly rare bipartisan display (94-1), the Senate has already passed the Right to Try Act.  The House version is currently awaiting approval.

Critics Deny Democratic Choice 

Critics of Right to Try make several claims to undermine the expansion of choices it would bring to critically ill patients.  Some physicians and medical ethicists claim that the true goal of Right to Try is to weaken the FDA as the only objective and appropriate gatekeeper of drug approval and access.  Some also claim that the legislation is redundant because the FDA already fills this need through its expanded access program. 

Still other critics try to dissuade patients by surreptitiously noting that “scary” conservative and libertarian think tanks like Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity, which are partially funded by the Koch brothers, favor passage of Right to Try legislation.  These criticisms warrant thoughtful consideration, but are not substantive enough to overcome overarching concerns of patients literally dying from their pain.    

Ultimately, Right to Try and stem cell therapy are issues that embody the deepening and broadening of healthcare choice -- a choice that should be embraced by an informed American citizenry, a forward-thinking medical establishment and government agencies that must be by and for the people. 

Carefully curated expansions of choice -- that privilege the humane while also giving due consideration to patient protection – serve as the foundation of all truly democratic institutions.  The FDA should accept that it can better serve people by acceding some of its authority and become more lean and nimble in the process.  Bigger is not always better.

Right to Try will not solve all the problems associated with stem cell therapy.  There is no way to predict with any precision how the law will operate legally or logistically, whether for stem cell therapies or other drugs and medical products.  Additionally, the Trump administration must revisit and revise the FDA’s stem cell guidance, specifically its limits on stem cells which are harvested, processed and administered to the same person to relieve conditions such as chronic pain.    

However, for advocates of stem cell therapy and health choice in general, Right to Try is a step in the right direction.

A. Rahman Ford.jpg

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China.  

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Lawmakers Ask Trump to Restore Marijuana Policy

By Pat Anson, Editor

A bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) has urged President Trump to reinstate an Obama-era policy that instructed U.S. Attorneys not to investigate or prosecute marijuana cases in states that have legalized cannabis.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the so-called Cole memo, the lenient marijuana policy adopted by the Justice Department in 2013.  Sessions, who is a longtime critic of marijuana legalization, said the Colo memo was “unnecessary” and “undermines the rule of law.” He authorized U.S. Attorneys to use their own discretion in investigating and prosecuting marijuana cases.

In a letter to President Trump signed by 54 members of Congress (51 Democrats and 3 Republicans), the lawmakers said Sessions’ order will “have a chilling effect” in states where medical or recreational marijuana has been legalized.

“This action has the potential to unravel efforts to build sensible drug policies that encourage economic development as we are finally moving away from antiquated practices that have hurt disadvantaged communities. These new policies have instead helped eliminate the black market sale of marijuana and allowed law enforcement to focus on real threats to public health and safety,” the letter said.

The letter also pointed out that Trump promised during the 2016 campaign that he would not change the federal enforcement policy on marijuana.

“I wouldn’t do that, no,” Trump said in an interview. “I think it’s up to the states. I’m a states’ person. I think it’s up to the states, absolutely.”


“We trust that you still hold that belief, and we request that you urge the Attorney General to reinstate the Cole Memorandum. This step would create a pathway to a more comprehensive marijuana policy that respects state interests and prerogatives,” the letter from lawmakers said.

Although 29 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana in some form, federal law still prohibits its sale or possession under the Controlled Substances Act.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, 64% of Americans believe marijuana should be legalized. The issue has broad bipartisan support, with 51% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats supporting legalization.

New Jersey Gov. Philip Murphy (D) signed an executive order this week instructing the state health department to expand access to medical marijuana. Although cannabis has been legal in the state since 2010, New Jersey’s medical marijuana law was so rigid that only 15,000 patients qualified for it in a state with 9 million people.

Murphy’s order directs the health department to lift restrictions on doctors that can prescribe cannabis, review the number of medical conditions for which it can be prescribed, allow more dispensaries to open, and consider the sale of edible marijuana products.