On opioids, blue state AG politics might be undermining law enforcement
Michael Tremoglie
Video Embed
The aphorism that “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” may actually predate the Roman Empire. Such a long-lasting maxim obviously has a great deal of wisdom in its few words. The idea that what you have now is more valuable than what you might get in the future is very good advice, especially when you are potentially risking the well-being of others.
In the case of a global $26 billion opioid settlement reached last year, almost every state and municipality across the U.S. has opted in. Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is a conspicuous holdout. He is refusing to accept his state’s share of the settlement reached with opioid manufacturer Johnson and Johnson and instead wants a jury trial. He feels he will get more in a separate lawsuit.
As a former Philadelphia police officer who watched this debate in my home state of Pennsylvania over whether to settle or sue, I am not a fan of Ferguson’s legal strategy. The desire to recover more by suing individually is understandable, as it might result in a larger settlement. But it might also result in a smaller one, or a drawn-out court battle. Much like the soft-on-crime policies that many other Democratic attorneys general and district attorneys have adopted, this misguided legal strategy could come to the detriment of hard-working law enforcement professionals in Washington State.
“A settlement provides certainty, litigation entails risk,” said Paul Larkin, the Rumpel Senior Research Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. “Apparently, he [the attorney general] is not concerned about the possibility of a smaller judgment, not concerned about the possibility of losing the case and obtaining any money at all, not concerned about reversals on appeal or a reduction of awards on appeal,” Larkin continued. “Not knowing the strength of the case, it would be impossible to predict the likelihood of success.”
Are such risks in the best interest of Washington and its residents who suffer from opioid addiction? Delaying a settlement could hamper efforts to mirror the work of law enforcement and mental health professionals in other states and localities undertaking with their settlement funds to get illicit opioids off the streets and help break the cycle of addiction.
In Arizona and Ohio, for example, such funds have already been used to educate law enforcement or other first responders regarding appropriate practices and precautions when dealing with fentanyl. Similarly, such funds could be used to launch innovative pilot programs, such as those in Tucson or Miami, that have partnered law enforcement with mental health clinicians. These programs provide crisis intervention training as well as diversionary programs for those suffering from addiction or mental health issues to get them the help that they need.
It is clear that these funds can benefit the citizens of the state of Washington. The question, then, is this: how much more does an independent lawsuit have to gain over a global settlement to make up for litigation expenses and opportunity costs — that is, the opportunities lost now to fund and run opioid mitigation programs such as the ones mentioned above?
The urgency of solving the opioid crisis is not up for debate. According to an analysis by age group of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) overdose data by the Kaiser Family Foundation, of the 68,630 opioid-related overdose deaths in the U.S. in 2020, 24,368 or 35% were in the age group of 0 to 34 years. By contrast, there were 107 military deaths in Afghanistan from January 2015 to the withdrawal. People are wasting away because of this scourge. It is absolutely vital that funding for prevention and rehabilitation not be delayed.
It would be fair to say that elected officials such as a state attorney general often have political considerations in mind. Politics might be a factor in determining which path is taken. But while the desire to maximize the amount of a settlement is an understandable motive for an attorney general, immediate funding for programs to help keep law enforcement safe when handling these dangerous drugs and to help treat opioid addicts is too important to risk.
For thousands of years, mankind has known that what you have in your hand right now is worth twice what you may get later on.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE IN THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Michael Tremoglie is a writer in Pennsylvania.