Last Week Tonight With John Oliver (2014) s11e11 Episode Script
Opioid Settlements
Welcome to "Last Week Tonight!"
I'm John Oliver.
Thank you so much for joining us.
It has been a busy week.
Kristi Noem cut short her book tour,
allowing her more time at home,
which should be concerning
to any of her remaining pets.
It emerged that RFK Jr. once said
a worm ate part of his brain,
which honestly sounds like a terrible
experience for that worm,
and the Eurovision Song Contest took
place amid a slew of controversies,
from calls for boycotts
over Israel's participation,
to the last-minute elimination
of this Dutch contestant
for alleged "unlawful threats"
backstage.
It was a lot of serious news
around what is usually
a magnificently silly competition,
which, to be fair,
still had some striking contestants,
from Baby Lasagna from Croatia,
to Bambie Thug from Ireland,
to my absolute favorite,
this guy from Finland.
Yes! 14,000 out of 10.
A man with flowing blonde locks
and pervert glasses,
hatching out of a denim egg?
Like Botticelli's "Birth of Venus",
only this time it's actually good.
The name of that artist, and I do mean
artist, is "Windows95man".
His stage costume consists
of a Windows 95 T-shirt, hat,
and importantly, not much else.
Which is why his performances
basically consist of him
doing an extended Austin Powers bit.
But maybe the best thing
about Windows95man,
other than his name, face,
outfit, and partial nudity,
is that, during Finland's contest to
pick its representative at Eurovision,
the jury ranked him dead last,
but he took the audience vote by such
a large margin he won anyway.
Which makes sense to me.
The people of Finland
are naturals at ski jumping, sauna,
and knowing a fucking star
when they see one.
I don't know what their
other contestants were like,
but I highly doubt that they had
stagecraft like a pair of jean shorts
descending from the ceiling,
followed by this.
Make some noise, let's go!
Fuck all other music.
It is dead to me now!
I don't know whether
he won Eurovision or not last night,
but to quote a great poet clad
in exploding denim
"I don't care what's wrong or right,
it's how I live my life."
And that is my champion
right there.
Sadly, we've got to turn to something
much less fun to talk about:
the U.K., whose prime minister,
Rishi Sunak,
has been having a terrible time.
He needs to call a general election
before next January,
which his party
is widely expected to lose.
So, he's currently
trying to shore up support
with his base with a ridiculous
immigration policy.
Let me explain.
For years now,
desperate migrants have been crossing
the English Channel on small boats,
a perilous journey
that's resulted in hundreds drowning.
But instead of processing
their asylum applications,
Sunak's solution
is to put them on planes
and fly them
from the U.K. 4,000 miles,
all the way to Rwanda,
where, just to be clear,
they are not actually from.
And last week,
amid a roundup of those migrants,
Sunak released this triumphant video,
set to dramatic music.
The next few weeks
will be about action.
We need solutions to address
what is a global migration crisis.
And the success of this deterrent
doesn't rest on one flight alone.
It rests on the relentless,
continual process
of successfully and permanently
removing people to Rwanda.
And I have a plan to deliver it.
So, we will start the flights,
and we will stop the boats.
I don't think there has ever been
a greater mismatch
of soundtrack to human being.
That music
belongs underneath Batman,
not the least charismatic
man on Earth
trying to give the concept
of "banishment" a PR makeover.
This plan was struck down last year
by the U.K.'s Supreme Court,
which found it "would breach
both British and international law",
because Rwanda could not be
considered safe for refugees.
And the UN's top human rights
official has criticized the policy,
saying it "seriously hinders
the rule of law in the U.K.
and sets a perilous
precedent globally".
And yet, Sunak has persisted, even at
one point engaging in this fun wager.
I'll bet you 1,000 pounds
to a refugee charity
you don't get anybody
on those planes before the election.
I want to get the people
on the planes, all right?
- Want to bet on it?
- Of course I want that!
- 1,000 pounds.
- I want to get them on the planes.
"I want to get the people
on the planes."
Do you want to get the people
on the planes, do you?
Set aside the grossness
on display there,
imagine what a monster
you have to be
to put me in the position of genuinely
wanting Piers Morgan to win something.
In the end,
Sunak did an end-run
around that ruling that Rwanda
was too dangerous,
by simply having his government
declare Rwanda a safe country,
a maneuver that lawyers in the House
of Lords called "a legal fiction".
I would say that that sounds like
the title of a novel James Patterson
wrote after he stopped giving a shit,
but just two months ago,
he published one
called "The #1 Lawyer".
"He's America's best lawyer,
until he's its #1 murder suspect."
So, I don't think he has
any more shits left to give.
This plan is grotesque.
And Sunak's government
has been aggressive in pushing it.
His former Home Secretary,
Suella Braverman,
was such a huge enthusiast
of the idea,
she once expressed frustration
at how long it was taking.
I would love to be here saying,
well, claiming victory.
I would love to be having
a front page of the Telegraph
with a flight, a plane taking
off to Rwanda, that's my dream.
Wait, that's your dream?
People's dreams
are normally "fall in love"
or "meet LeBron James"
or "kiss this horse on the mouth",
completely normal stuff,
not "I'd love to violate human rights
on a potentially massive scale."
To put a happy face on the plan,
Braverman even traveled to Rwanda
to do a photo op in one
of the accommodations
being prepared
for asylum seekers.
I very much like
the interior designer,
or the interior design
of these buildings.
They're just fantastic.
I was just saying,
these houses are really beautiful,
and I think they're high-quality,
they're welcoming.
And I quite like
your interior design here.
I don't know
what the appropriate thing to say is
while touring the future apartment
of someone you're about to deport,
but I'm pretty sure it isn't "Is your
decorator taking on new clients?"
Because that light
really answered the question
"What if the Pixar lamp
got invited to the Met Gala
and kind of misunderstood
the assignment?"
And for what it's worth, at least 70%
of the homes in that development
have since been taken
by local buyers
"leaving space for only
a few dozen migrants,
if flights ever take off."
That speaks to the fact that,
even putting aside
its horrific moral considerations,
this plan is incredibly
poorly thought-through.
I haven't even mentioned
the cost yet.
Sunak has claimed that it would
save the U.K. billions in the long run.
And far be it for me to question
the keen financial acumen
of a man who earned his gigantic
fortune through marriage,
but there is just no way
that's true.
Rwanda's not taking these migrants
out of the kindness of its heart.
The U.K. government's
already paid it 240 million pounds
for its role in this.
It's going to have to pay 540 million
to deport the first 300 migrants.
And there are thousands of them.
And just watch as a reporter did the
math in front of Sunak's chancellor,
which is basically
the U.K.'s treasury secretary.
According
to the national order office,
the cost of sending
the first 300 migrants to Rwanda
is 1,8 million pounds each.
Just to put that in context,
school funding is around
7,600 pounds per child per year.
So, the cost of sending
one migrant to Rwanda
would give 234 children
education for a year.
Is that a good use of money?
You're the chancellor.
Let's be clear.
We might spend a lot of money
to send some people back to Rwanda,
but if that has the effect
of deterring lots of people
from trying to come to the U.K.
in the first place,
We don't know whether it will or not.
We don't have the numbers.
With respect, Sophy,
we're already hearing this week
that it is beginning
to have a deterrent effect.
A few things there. First, you're not
sending people "back" to Rwanda
if that's not where they are
from in the first place.
"We're hearing it's having a deterrent
effect" is conveniently vague.
You're gonna have to back that
claim up with more than just vibes.
It is genuinely hard to believe
that this is going to put people off.
Asylum seekers tend to flee
their country out of necessity.
I don't think
they're coming to the U.K.
for its beautiful weather
or tantalizing cuisine.
In fact, one of the reasons
they might be coming to the U.K.
is that it has loudly advertised itself
as a champion for human rights,
which this policy
makes a mockery of.
And after all of this,
it is worth mentioning
that the government
has so far managed to send
exactly one migrant to Rwanda.
And not even under this law.
It was under a voluntary scheme
where the government gives asylum
seekers 3,000 pounds to move there.
Which doesn't get you to "billions
in savings" for multiple reasons,
even if it might get you 1,000 pounds
from Piers fucking Morgan.
None of this feels likely to work,
meaning that the main outcome
of Sunak's policy
will be the misery
and chaos that it causes.
This is an absolute disgrace,
entirely emblematic of the Tory Party,
whose naked cruelty has been
exposed yet again for all to see.
And frankly,
unfortunately for them,
there is just not a pair
of flaming jorts on Earth
big enough to cover that up.
And now, this!
And Now:
The Men of Local News
Are Ready for Mother's Day.
- You can't go wrong with flowers.
- No, flowers.
And a nice card,
that always goes along well.
Except when I get flowers, then,
what do you feel guilty about?
I asked my daughters, I said
"Mommy said she doesn't want flowers.
Does that mean
that she does want flowers?"
Do you usually do flowers
on this holiday?
I think she's saying
step up your game.
I'm okay with you getting that,
that top gift that's on your list.
- Which is what?
- I don't even know.
I'm just saying, just go ahead
and order it and we're good to go.
- Do I do anything for my wife?
- My God, yes.
- Why?
- She birthed your two children.
Then they should do something
for her.
I know I plan to give my wife
an experience for Mother's Day.
Do I want to know?
- I'm not picky though.
- You're not a mom.
That's true.
I do have a cat.
James, listen, you could make
your mom a handmade card
and draw on it, doodle on it,
and I bet you, and I'm not kidding,
- I bet you that would be meaningful.
- No!
Moving on. Our main story tonight
concerns the opioid crisis.
If you take out one I, it's actually
an anagram for "rich idiot posse",
which would make
a pretty good sweatshirt
at the next
Sackler family reunion.
The opioid crisis is still raging
despite varying efforts
to combat it over the years,
including this brilliant plan
from then-President Trump.
The best way to prevent drug
addiction and overdose
is to prevent people
from abusing drugs in the first place.
If they don't start,
they won't have a problem.
If they do start,
it's awfully tough to get off.
So, we can keep them
from going on
and maybe by talking
to youth and telling them
"No good, really bad
for you in every way",
but if they don't start,
it will never be a problem.
It's hard to believe
that message didn't land.
From Trump "talking to youth"
with the words
"No good, really bad for you
in every way",
to Melania staring icily
into the distance
as she burns another day
waiting patiently
for coronary artery disease
to do its fucking job.
The point is, the opioid crisis
is nowhere near over.
We're in what's been referred to
as the fourth wave of it.
The first wave began with increased
prescribing of opioids in the '90s,
the second
began in 2010 with heroin,
followed by a third wave
around 2013,
involving synthetic opioids
like fentanyl.
And this fourth wave
is characterized by
"overdose deaths involving
fentanyl plus a stimulant",
like cocaine or meth,
which can sometimes be spiked
without the user's knowledge.
"Most of the street drug supply
is apparently now adulterated",
that is how pervasive
this problem is.
But to the extent
there is any good news here,
it's that the companies
most implicated in that first wave,
drugmakers and other players
that pumped pills into communities,
have finally been forced
to pay a price for their actions,
as you probably know,
if you've seen stories like these.
Walmart has agreed
to pay $3.1 billion
to settle lawsuits nationwide
over the impact of prescriptions
its pharmacies
filled for opioid painkillers.
Two of the largest pharmacy chains
will pay about $10 billion
in prescription opioid
lawsuit settlements.
Four U.S. corporations
will pay a combined $26 billion
to settle claims over their role
in the opioid epidemic.
Johnson & Johnson and 3 major drug
distributors agreed to the settlement,
while insisting
it was not an admission of guilt.
It wasn't an admission of guilt,
was it?
26 billion is exactly how much you pay
when you're not guilty of anything.
Who among us hasn't surrendered
the GDP of Iceland, just 'cause?
When you put
all those settlements together,
collectively, these companies
have agreed to pay out
more than $50 billion over 18 years
to state and local governments.
And getting to this point
wasn't easy.
It involved consolidating
thousands of lawsuits
filed by various government entities,
and has been called
"the most complicated litigation
in the history of complex litigation".
And I think this goes
without saying, but: boner alert.
That is a Bat-Signal for this show,
something so boring
it's genuinely kind of hot.
And people have understandable
complaints about these settlements.
First, that the dollar amounts are
too small, which they absolutely are.
Putting aside the loss of hundreds
of thousands of lives over the years,
the opioid crisis did an estimated
one and a half trillion dollars
in damage in 2020 alone.
And second,
almost none of the money
is going to the individuals
or families harmed.
Instead, it's going to governments,
theoretically,
to be used to mitigate
the damage that opioids are doing.
And there are backstories
behind both of those decisions,
including that, for a bunch
of complicated legal reasons,
governments tend to get better
outcomes in lawsuits like these
than individuals
and that the most appropriate
punishment for these companies,
throwing them into the fucking sun,
is sadly currently unavailable to us,
though I am working on a design for
a catapult and I'm tantalizingly close.
I could talk more about all of that,
but the truth is,
those decisions have now been made,
they're in the past.
And for this story, I'd like
to do something slightly different,
which is to mainly talk
about the future,
and the decisions
that haven't been made yet.
Because while 50 billion is clearly
not enough to undo the damage here,
it's also not nothing.
It's "double NASA's budget and
5 times the revenue of an NBA season".
And you should know,
this is also the bulk of the money
governments are likely
to get out of these companies.
Under the terms of their settlements,
they're being released
from future claims.
When it comes to restitution, this is
all the blood money we're getting,
making it feel especially important
that we spend it well.
But there've already been troubling
signs that, at least in some places,
the decision process on how
to do so can be deeply flawed.
Which is particularly frustrating
for those who've lost loved ones
to this crisis, like this woman.
A dozen New York parents
descended on Albany this week
to complain the governor's budget
is not being open
about where the money is going.
One Long Island mom,
Linda Ventura,
carried her son's ashes
in a Tupperware container.
in New York State
because no one should join the club
that these parents are here for.
That is a brave thing
for that woman to do,
and a powerful message
for her to send.
"My name is Linda, I'm gonna be
a pain in the ass for you,
and in case you sons of bitches
forgot why we're here,
I brought along
a Tupperware of my son."
I know that that sounds worrying,
but the thing is,
because we're only three years in,
to what will be
18 years' worth of payments,
there is still time for us
to correct course.
But that is why we need
to talk about this right now.
So, tonight, let's look
at the opioid settlements.
And let's start with the fact
that this isn't the first time
governments have received
a huge pile of money
after companies
caused a public health crisis.
Back in the 1990s, there was a similar
wave of lawsuits against big tobacco
that ended with a settlement
of an estimated $246 billion.
And at the time,
everyone took a victory lap.
Finally, we are going to begin to hold
the tobacco industry accountable
for decades
of marketing their products
and selling their products
to our kids.
The states will receive the largest
financial recovery in history.
We've arrived
at our final destination,
and that's the destination
of tobacco justice.
"Tobacco justice!"
And look, it did sound great!
Not only were tobacco companies
paying a huge amount of money,
the settlement also imposed
restrictions on cigarette advertising,
including banning
cartoon characters like Joe Camel.
Although personally, I never found
a sexy camel that persuasive.
It seemed ridiculous
My God, how the fuck
did you just do that?
But interestingly,
that settlement is now seen as a
prime example of what not to do.
Because at the time,
the expectation was
that "a significant portion
of the funding
would be set aside
to reduce tobacco use".
But there were no binding requirements
on how the money should be spent.
So, in practice, most states
just used it as a slush fund,
"to cover budget shortfalls,
subsidize tax cuts,
and support general
government services."
Within just a few years,
stories like this
were starting to hit the news.
Here in North Carolina, the nation's
number one tobacco producer,
not a penny of the state's
$4.6 billion share
has been spent
on anti-smoking programs.
So, where's the money going?
$200,000
to improve this horse park,
$15,000
for this tobacco museum
to help produce
a tobacco history video,
and $400,000 toward
the engineering of this plant
that will one day
process tobacco.
Yeah, that's not great.
I realize that "spending other
people's money in a dumb way"
could well be
my exact job description.
But even I know building
a tobacco processing plant
with tobacco settlement money
is a very bad idea.
And that is not
the only cautionary tale.
There's another example
from early in this current wave
of opioid settlements,
specifically, the one between
state governments and McKinsey.
In New York State,
once that money started rolling in,
some public health advocates
were shocked
at where most of it
seemed to be going.
$21 million went into New York
State's general fund
to build bridges and tunnels
and to fill budget gaps,
and that's absolutely inexcusable.
I will be damned if I see a dollar
go to fixing a pothole.
Do we need potholes fixed?
Absolutely.
That's not what this money is about.
Yeah, he's right. He's also perhaps
the most New York guy to ever exist.
A man named Anthony Rizzuto,
ranting about potholes on behalf
of an organization called FIST.
A man like that isn't born,
someone in Massapequa
rubbed a meatball parm
and he appeared
in a puff of smoke like a genie.
Now, thankfully, this current
50 billion in settlement money
has rules on how it can be spent.
They're both very complicated,
and not nearly strong enough.
For instance,
"most of the settlement agreements
say that at least 85% of the money has
to be used for 'opioid remediation'",
which sounds good,
but that term "is broadly defined".
And while they include a long list
of what could fit into that category,
they also note that the list
is "nonexhaustive,"
meaning governments could attempt
to justify almost any purchase.
As for the remaining 15%,
that's a free-forall.
Making it basically
a multi-billion-dollar slush fund.
But, as this legal expert who's been
tracking the settlements points out,
there are worryingly few rules
requiring state or local governments
to report how they spend
any of the money.
Public reporting of opioid
settlement expenditures
is not required by the settlement
agreements themselves.
So, we're in wild,
wild west territory.
Minhee found only 16 states
promised to publicly report
100% of their opioid
settlement spending.
Another 16 have not agreed to report
any spending publicly at all,
and the rest,
only a portion of it.
First, shoutout to the states
promising to report
on how they spend
"some of the money".
I'm not sure that's much better
than not reporting it at all.
"We'll report on every dollar
that doesn't go
into our mysterious money hole."
A few more states
have since agreed to disclose
at least some of their spending,
so it's now only these seven
who are doing zero public reporting.
But the point remains: there can be
shockingly little transparency
about where this money is going,
or, in some cases, not going.
Because despite the fact
that we are three years in,
some states
haven't even started spending.
For instance,
Iowa's state legislature
recently couldn't come to an agreement
on how to spend its settlement money,
and then simply adjourned
for the year,
leaving more than $25 million
unspent until 2025.
But that's fine, I guess.
It's not like this is a life and death
situation or anything.
Meanwhile, other states seem to be
engaging in accounting tricks
to get around restrictions.
New York's Governor Kathy Hochul
"proposed cutting the budget
of the Office of Addiction Services
and Supports by more than 13%".
And it's believed that her plan
was to then replace that funding
with money
from the opioid settlement.
But that's not increasing
services, is it?
It's moving the money around so
you can use it for whatever you'd like.
Which is infuriating!
It turns out
it's a lot less entertaining
to watch someone
try to launder millions in drug money
when it's not Bryan Cranston
who's doing it.
And while so far,
I've mainly talked about states,
more than half this money
is going to local governments.
It's actually being divided up
among cities and counties,
as this local news report explains,
with some top-tier graphics.
Every single county in Michigan
will get some money,
but it really depends
on how much.
The smallest amount just $173
in Union Charter Township.
The biggest amount,
nearly 70 million in Wayne County.
Here in West Michigan,
Kent County is getting
more than $18 million.
So, how are they actually
going to use that money?
All of the experts I spoke with
said it needs to be poured
into four different buckets:
prevention, harm reduction,
treatment, and recovery.
I know she's telling us that the money
should be going to things
like harm reduction
and recovery there.
But it kinda feels like it's going
to local news graphics departments,
because that is excellent.
But she is right
that experts generally agree
that there are good ways
to spend this money.
We could hire and train more
counselors and peer specialists
to work with those struggling
with addiction.
We could also increase access
to medication-assisted treatment,
using drugs like methadone,
buprenorphine, and naltrexone.
We could also better fund interventions
for those continuing to use drugs,
from overdose prevention centers,
which we've discussed before,
to "distributing naloxone, detecting
fentanyl through testing strips,
providing sterile syringes, and
connecting people to adequate housing."
All of that is a great use
of settlement money.
It's sometimes been hard for advocates
to get that message across,
given local leaders often simply
don't have the experience
with addiction or health policy
to guide them in using the money well.
And that can be understandably
very frustrating
for those with personal
experience of this crisis.
People who use drugs
are not being included at all.
Trish Perry is a county
coordinator for OhioCAN,
a nonprofit started by family members
of individuals battling addiction.
Every Saturday,
they hand out food, clothing,
and the overdose-reversal
drug, Narcan, in Newark, Ohio.
Fentanyl testing strips?
But Perry says her organization
has so far encountered stigma
and hurdles when applying for
funding from opioid settlement money
that's earmarked
for local governments.
If you don't supply
people with clean use supplies
and fentanyl testing strips,
they die.
And if they die, they never get to be
a productive citizen
in the community.
That seems like a pretty good use
of settlement money.
Honestly, all other options
tend to pale in comparison
to "if people don't get the stuff
I'm handing out right now,
they'll fucking die."
And when you see that, the idea
of using this money to fill potholes
starts to sound
like second-degree murder,
as this magnificent New York
stereotype will undoubtedly tell you.
And I will say, there are places
that are spending this money wisely
on prevention, harm reduction, and
the other things on those CGI buckets.
Places without the expertise or good
guidance can become easy targets
for companies looking to take this
sudden surge of money off their hands.
Companies that make pill
disposal products, safe pill storage,
or even products for law
enforcement like speed ray guns
are pushing municipalities to use their
settlement funds for their products,
and even have tabs on their websites
to track your state's settlement money.
That's true.
Salesmen are going to small towns,
trying to convince them that they're
selling the cure for the opioid crisis.
It's like an insanely dark remake
of "The Music Man".
"There's trouble, folks,
right here in River City.
Trouble with T and that rhymes
with P and that stands for painkillers.
Thousands are dead."
One of those products is Deterra
drug disposal pouches,
which apparently contain activated
carbon, and cost about $4 each.
The way they work is,
customers place their unused
medications in a Deterra pouch
and add water, deactivating
the drugs before tossing them,
ensuring that they cannot be used,
even if fished out of the trash.
And if you're thinking,
"Wait, hold on, it's essentially then
just throwing away pills in water?
Can't you already
do that with a toilet?"
Yes, you can. This might be news
to people, but unlike most drugs,
"the FDA lists opioids
on its flush list for disposal"
Which is bad news for Deterra,
but another huge win for the toilet,
the greatest invention
in human history.
Thank you, toilet!
But despite that,
Deterra's manufacturer
has promoted it heavily
to local governments,
even buying Google ads
to get their attention.
Because when you search
for opioid settlement related terms,
you can get served sponsored ads
for Deterra with headers like
"How to use opioid settlements,
get the Deterra grant guide".
And it seems to have worked,
as it's won a bunch of contracts,
including a million-dollar order
from the health department
in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Which seems like a waste of money,
assuming that that county has toilets.
And if they don't have toilets,
then find money to spend on that!
Stop shitting in buckets!
Shit in one of these!
They're a real treat!
Thank you, toilet.
But most upsettingly, in many places
the money's going somewhere
that could do the exact opposite
of reducing harm, the police.
And that is despite explicit
warnings against doing that.
Last year,
130 public health advocates
issued an open letter
to local governments, saying
"No opioid settlement money should
be spent on law enforcement personnel,
overtime, or equipment."
Which does make sense.
Because if we learned one thing
from the war on drugs,
it's that Nancy Reagan and Mr.
produced the single strangest photo
in the history of cameras.
But if we learned two things,
it's that policing drug use
does not make it stop.
And yet, in some places, sending
opioid money to police is mandatory.
Louisiana decided to allocate
20% of its funds directly to sheriffs,
with no obligation for them
to report how they spend any of it.
And many smaller municipalities are
funneling it to law enforcement, too.
Sullivan County, New York is using
some of their settlement funds
to pay for police overtime.
Oceana, West Virginia is using some
for a new police cruiser.
Bibb County, Alabama spent over
$120,000 on two new Chevy pickups
for the sheriff's office,
as well as new lights,
sirens, radios,
and roadside cameras.
And as for Brownwood, Texas, it spent
$15,000 of its settlement funds
to buy nine BolaWrap devices.
A BolaWrap is a restraint device
which fires a cord around a suspect.
And I could describe it to you,
but instead, I'll show you
a video that the company made.
Cool.
Just a second ago,
I thought sirens were the least helpful
thing to spend opioid money on,
but I saw something that makes targets
walk slightly slower away from you.
Still, BolaWrap is another useful tool
for cops to add to their belt,
along with a bunch
of way more lethal tools
they'll definitely reach for instead,
and it's not just high-tech lassos.
We also found
multiple police departments
pitching local governments on something
called the TruNarc drug analyzer,
arguing that it will increase
officer safety.
Here is a cop in Kenosha County,
Wisconsin, doing exactly that,
at a county finance
committee meeting.
So, without having to open
a package of a suspected narcotic,
we can shine this,
point this equipment at that product
and it will tell us what the makeup
is of whatever's inside of it.
So, we've all seen the videos of the
all over the country
opening up a bag.
You don't do that anymore, breathing
in that substance and passing out.
What's the word?
- Not passing out, OD-ing.
- Yeah, overdosing.
Going unconscious, I should say,
from an OD.
For the ten thousandth time,
it's all but impossible for a cop
to just encounter fentanyl
in the field and overdose.
To quote one expert "There has never,
ever ever, ever been a confirmed case"
of that happening.
That is two more "never ever"'s
than Taylor Swift uses
for getting back together.
So, you know
they're not fucking around.
But again, that argument worked.
He said
"We need the magic drug flashlight",
and that was good enough
for the council to spend $30,000 on it.
I do have some sympathy
for the people making these decisions.
You can imagine town councils
full of members
who feel enormous responsibility
to spend this money well,
but don't know where to start.
In that situation,
if a police official shows up and says
"Give it to us, we know what to do
with it", that's almost a relief.
Take Vienna, West Virginia,
a city in a state absolutely
hammered by the opioid crisis.
Their council was approached
by their police chief
with a request for $13,000
from their opioid settlement fund,
to spend on a new police dog,
because their current one
was getting old.
The council
unanimously agreed to it,
even as one member
made a pretty revealing comment.
This is the first time council
has kind of been informed
that we've even received
those funds.
And I'm not entirely sure
how we're going to use the rest of it,
but we should definitely
have a plan in place.
Not that this isn't a good need.
But I would hate to see
that money get whittled away,
13, $15,000 at a time
without being thoughtful
about the impact this money
could have for the city of Vienna.
Right. When you don't have
a plan for your money,
it can be easy to spend it
in a thoughtless way.
It's a lot harder
to break into your savings
when it's labeled
"college fund" and not
"holy shit,
look at all this free jar money."
And that impulse
of not wanting the settlement
to be whittled away without
serious thought is a good one.
But here's the thing,
just three months later,
the same
guy returned to that same room
to show off photos of the
new police dog they'd bought,
and make a new request.
And here's the mayor announcing
that request to the council.
The next item on our agenda
this evening
is a resolution
to authorize the purchase
of two mid-size or full-size SUVs
for the Vienna Police Department
using opioid settlement funds.
No! Don't do it!
The police have multiple funding
sources they could use for cars.
We're constantly throwing money
at them.
They're basically your rich friend
that Venmo requests you $2.45
after splitting
a popcorn at the movies.
Tristyn, this would be unhinged
behavior even if your mom's name
wasn't blue on Wikipedia.
Now, to their credit,
a council member spoke up again,
to express reservations
about how little consideration
seemed to be going into how
they were spending this money.
I think we need to sit down
and have a broader conversation
about what we want to do
with this money
and get more voices at the table.
We're going to take care of the police
department in the ways that we can,
but it's a bigger thing,
it's about prevention,
and we want to see
that those prevention dollars
filter into our community.
I think that, council,
we need to put our heads together
and have some time to figure out
how we're going to direct that money
most effectively and efficiently.
Exactly!
And that was only slightly undermined
by the fact that just 10 seconds
after she was done speaking,
the council voted unanimously to spend
the money on the SUVs anyway.
Which is just maddening.
Even Oprah would watch that and think
"Guys, you can't just
give people cars that way!"
Because the sad truth is, even if
every penny from this settlement
did go to alleviating
the opioid crisis,
it'd still just be
scratching the surface.
But anytime you watch the money
go toward policing drug users
instead of helping them,
it feels like adding insult to injury,
especially to communities of color,
who are so used to being
over-policed and under-served.
So, what can we do?
Again, the good news here
is that we are still pretty close
to the beginning of this process.
So, we're at a point where we
can change the arc of this story.
And there are ways to do that.
For instance, states can decide
what counts as an allowable expense.
California has said
that local governments
may not use money
from the abatement fund
to purchase many of the law
enforcement toys that you've seen.
They put out a list explicitly stating
the money can't be spent on K-9s,
BolaWrap, or the TruNarc analyzer,
which is good!
States could also be more transparent
about how they're spending their funds.
And some are doing
a good job of that.
North Carolina and Colorado
are currently the gold standard,
with each having online portals
providing up-to-date information
on where their money is going.
But it's clearly not enough
for the decisions to be transparent.
They also have to be good.
There are tools
that we know work here,
and they need to be funded
with this money as additional spending,
not just swapping out
one funding stream for another.
And for the final time,
there are places spending it wisely,
on proven tools
that have a real impact.
There are other places that aren't.
And if you're wondering
"Which place do I live in?"
you may need to find out.
And that, unfortunately,
can mean heaving to show up
in small rooms like the ones
you've seen tonight,
asking questions
and advocating for real solutions.
And if someone in that room
suggests spending the money
on rope-jizzing guns,
or new sirens, or, God forbid,
filling a pothole, tell them no.
Because, as I believe this human
Statue of Liberty once said,
that is not what this money is for.
And now, this!
And Now:
People on TV Share Heartwarming
Memories of Their Mothers.
My mom would get in fights
at restaurants
that wouldn't allow children.
And she said "My children are better
behaved than most of your dining room,
and they are properly dressed
for dinner",
and she'd fight with them
until they would let us in.
My mom used to always
look at me in the car randomly.
We'd be driving,
she'd be smoking,
and then she would look at me
and she would go "Don't be cheap!"
I can remember my mom being
- For five minutes?
- Yeah, totally.
She would go and hide
in the bathroom.
I remember my mom telling me,
before I was even married,
"Don't think I'm gonna raise
your children, because I'm not".
My mom used to tell me,
ever since I was a little girl,
she used to quote
a Run DMC song, that said,
"You talk too much,
you never shut up".
Never mind,
anyone can call me a moron,
my mom used to call me a moron
but, then again, she was family.
My mom used to call me a leech.
She's like "You're just always on me,
like, you're always near me.
Just, like, you're a leech!"
My mom would say, Doc,
"Let's get down to brass tax.
If you can't kiss,
you're never gonna touch her heart.
And if you can't touch her heart,
Or the rest of her!
"You're never gonna
get anywhere near her vagina."
That's our show.
We'll see you next week!
He did it again!
Thank you, toilet!
I'm John Oliver.
Thank you so much for joining us.
It has been a busy week.
Kristi Noem cut short her book tour,
allowing her more time at home,
which should be concerning
to any of her remaining pets.
It emerged that RFK Jr. once said
a worm ate part of his brain,
which honestly sounds like a terrible
experience for that worm,
and the Eurovision Song Contest took
place amid a slew of controversies,
from calls for boycotts
over Israel's participation,
to the last-minute elimination
of this Dutch contestant
for alleged "unlawful threats"
backstage.
It was a lot of serious news
around what is usually
a magnificently silly competition,
which, to be fair,
still had some striking contestants,
from Baby Lasagna from Croatia,
to Bambie Thug from Ireland,
to my absolute favorite,
this guy from Finland.
Yes! 14,000 out of 10.
A man with flowing blonde locks
and pervert glasses,
hatching out of a denim egg?
Like Botticelli's "Birth of Venus",
only this time it's actually good.
The name of that artist, and I do mean
artist, is "Windows95man".
His stage costume consists
of a Windows 95 T-shirt, hat,
and importantly, not much else.
Which is why his performances
basically consist of him
doing an extended Austin Powers bit.
But maybe the best thing
about Windows95man,
other than his name, face,
outfit, and partial nudity,
is that, during Finland's contest to
pick its representative at Eurovision,
the jury ranked him dead last,
but he took the audience vote by such
a large margin he won anyway.
Which makes sense to me.
The people of Finland
are naturals at ski jumping, sauna,
and knowing a fucking star
when they see one.
I don't know what their
other contestants were like,
but I highly doubt that they had
stagecraft like a pair of jean shorts
descending from the ceiling,
followed by this.
Make some noise, let's go!
Fuck all other music.
It is dead to me now!
I don't know whether
he won Eurovision or not last night,
but to quote a great poet clad
in exploding denim
"I don't care what's wrong or right,
it's how I live my life."
And that is my champion
right there.
Sadly, we've got to turn to something
much less fun to talk about:
the U.K., whose prime minister,
Rishi Sunak,
has been having a terrible time.
He needs to call a general election
before next January,
which his party
is widely expected to lose.
So, he's currently
trying to shore up support
with his base with a ridiculous
immigration policy.
Let me explain.
For years now,
desperate migrants have been crossing
the English Channel on small boats,
a perilous journey
that's resulted in hundreds drowning.
But instead of processing
their asylum applications,
Sunak's solution
is to put them on planes
and fly them
from the U.K. 4,000 miles,
all the way to Rwanda,
where, just to be clear,
they are not actually from.
And last week,
amid a roundup of those migrants,
Sunak released this triumphant video,
set to dramatic music.
The next few weeks
will be about action.
We need solutions to address
what is a global migration crisis.
And the success of this deterrent
doesn't rest on one flight alone.
It rests on the relentless,
continual process
of successfully and permanently
removing people to Rwanda.
And I have a plan to deliver it.
So, we will start the flights,
and we will stop the boats.
I don't think there has ever been
a greater mismatch
of soundtrack to human being.
That music
belongs underneath Batman,
not the least charismatic
man on Earth
trying to give the concept
of "banishment" a PR makeover.
This plan was struck down last year
by the U.K.'s Supreme Court,
which found it "would breach
both British and international law",
because Rwanda could not be
considered safe for refugees.
And the UN's top human rights
official has criticized the policy,
saying it "seriously hinders
the rule of law in the U.K.
and sets a perilous
precedent globally".
And yet, Sunak has persisted, even at
one point engaging in this fun wager.
I'll bet you 1,000 pounds
to a refugee charity
you don't get anybody
on those planes before the election.
I want to get the people
on the planes, all right?
- Want to bet on it?
- Of course I want that!
- 1,000 pounds.
- I want to get them on the planes.
"I want to get the people
on the planes."
Do you want to get the people
on the planes, do you?
Set aside the grossness
on display there,
imagine what a monster
you have to be
to put me in the position of genuinely
wanting Piers Morgan to win something.
In the end,
Sunak did an end-run
around that ruling that Rwanda
was too dangerous,
by simply having his government
declare Rwanda a safe country,
a maneuver that lawyers in the House
of Lords called "a legal fiction".
I would say that that sounds like
the title of a novel James Patterson
wrote after he stopped giving a shit,
but just two months ago,
he published one
called "The #1 Lawyer".
"He's America's best lawyer,
until he's its #1 murder suspect."
So, I don't think he has
any more shits left to give.
This plan is grotesque.
And Sunak's government
has been aggressive in pushing it.
His former Home Secretary,
Suella Braverman,
was such a huge enthusiast
of the idea,
she once expressed frustration
at how long it was taking.
I would love to be here saying,
well, claiming victory.
I would love to be having
a front page of the Telegraph
with a flight, a plane taking
off to Rwanda, that's my dream.
Wait, that's your dream?
People's dreams
are normally "fall in love"
or "meet LeBron James"
or "kiss this horse on the mouth",
completely normal stuff,
not "I'd love to violate human rights
on a potentially massive scale."
To put a happy face on the plan,
Braverman even traveled to Rwanda
to do a photo op in one
of the accommodations
being prepared
for asylum seekers.
I very much like
the interior designer,
or the interior design
of these buildings.
They're just fantastic.
I was just saying,
these houses are really beautiful,
and I think they're high-quality,
they're welcoming.
And I quite like
your interior design here.
I don't know
what the appropriate thing to say is
while touring the future apartment
of someone you're about to deport,
but I'm pretty sure it isn't "Is your
decorator taking on new clients?"
Because that light
really answered the question
"What if the Pixar lamp
got invited to the Met Gala
and kind of misunderstood
the assignment?"
And for what it's worth, at least 70%
of the homes in that development
have since been taken
by local buyers
"leaving space for only
a few dozen migrants,
if flights ever take off."
That speaks to the fact that,
even putting aside
its horrific moral considerations,
this plan is incredibly
poorly thought-through.
I haven't even mentioned
the cost yet.
Sunak has claimed that it would
save the U.K. billions in the long run.
And far be it for me to question
the keen financial acumen
of a man who earned his gigantic
fortune through marriage,
but there is just no way
that's true.
Rwanda's not taking these migrants
out of the kindness of its heart.
The U.K. government's
already paid it 240 million pounds
for its role in this.
It's going to have to pay 540 million
to deport the first 300 migrants.
And there are thousands of them.
And just watch as a reporter did the
math in front of Sunak's chancellor,
which is basically
the U.K.'s treasury secretary.
According
to the national order office,
the cost of sending
the first 300 migrants to Rwanda
is 1,8 million pounds each.
Just to put that in context,
school funding is around
7,600 pounds per child per year.
So, the cost of sending
one migrant to Rwanda
would give 234 children
education for a year.
Is that a good use of money?
You're the chancellor.
Let's be clear.
We might spend a lot of money
to send some people back to Rwanda,
but if that has the effect
of deterring lots of people
from trying to come to the U.K.
in the first place,
We don't know whether it will or not.
We don't have the numbers.
With respect, Sophy,
we're already hearing this week
that it is beginning
to have a deterrent effect.
A few things there. First, you're not
sending people "back" to Rwanda
if that's not where they are
from in the first place.
"We're hearing it's having a deterrent
effect" is conveniently vague.
You're gonna have to back that
claim up with more than just vibes.
It is genuinely hard to believe
that this is going to put people off.
Asylum seekers tend to flee
their country out of necessity.
I don't think
they're coming to the U.K.
for its beautiful weather
or tantalizing cuisine.
In fact, one of the reasons
they might be coming to the U.K.
is that it has loudly advertised itself
as a champion for human rights,
which this policy
makes a mockery of.
And after all of this,
it is worth mentioning
that the government
has so far managed to send
exactly one migrant to Rwanda.
And not even under this law.
It was under a voluntary scheme
where the government gives asylum
seekers 3,000 pounds to move there.
Which doesn't get you to "billions
in savings" for multiple reasons,
even if it might get you 1,000 pounds
from Piers fucking Morgan.
None of this feels likely to work,
meaning that the main outcome
of Sunak's policy
will be the misery
and chaos that it causes.
This is an absolute disgrace,
entirely emblematic of the Tory Party,
whose naked cruelty has been
exposed yet again for all to see.
And frankly,
unfortunately for them,
there is just not a pair
of flaming jorts on Earth
big enough to cover that up.
And now, this!
And Now:
The Men of Local News
Are Ready for Mother's Day.
- You can't go wrong with flowers.
- No, flowers.
And a nice card,
that always goes along well.
Except when I get flowers, then,
what do you feel guilty about?
I asked my daughters, I said
"Mommy said she doesn't want flowers.
Does that mean
that she does want flowers?"
Do you usually do flowers
on this holiday?
I think she's saying
step up your game.
I'm okay with you getting that,
that top gift that's on your list.
- Which is what?
- I don't even know.
I'm just saying, just go ahead
and order it and we're good to go.
- Do I do anything for my wife?
- My God, yes.
- Why?
- She birthed your two children.
Then they should do something
for her.
I know I plan to give my wife
an experience for Mother's Day.
Do I want to know?
- I'm not picky though.
- You're not a mom.
That's true.
I do have a cat.
James, listen, you could make
your mom a handmade card
and draw on it, doodle on it,
and I bet you, and I'm not kidding,
- I bet you that would be meaningful.
- No!
Moving on. Our main story tonight
concerns the opioid crisis.
If you take out one I, it's actually
an anagram for "rich idiot posse",
which would make
a pretty good sweatshirt
at the next
Sackler family reunion.
The opioid crisis is still raging
despite varying efforts
to combat it over the years,
including this brilliant plan
from then-President Trump.
The best way to prevent drug
addiction and overdose
is to prevent people
from abusing drugs in the first place.
If they don't start,
they won't have a problem.
If they do start,
it's awfully tough to get off.
So, we can keep them
from going on
and maybe by talking
to youth and telling them
"No good, really bad
for you in every way",
but if they don't start,
it will never be a problem.
It's hard to believe
that message didn't land.
From Trump "talking to youth"
with the words
"No good, really bad for you
in every way",
to Melania staring icily
into the distance
as she burns another day
waiting patiently
for coronary artery disease
to do its fucking job.
The point is, the opioid crisis
is nowhere near over.
We're in what's been referred to
as the fourth wave of it.
The first wave began with increased
prescribing of opioids in the '90s,
the second
began in 2010 with heroin,
followed by a third wave
around 2013,
involving synthetic opioids
like fentanyl.
And this fourth wave
is characterized by
"overdose deaths involving
fentanyl plus a stimulant",
like cocaine or meth,
which can sometimes be spiked
without the user's knowledge.
"Most of the street drug supply
is apparently now adulterated",
that is how pervasive
this problem is.
But to the extent
there is any good news here,
it's that the companies
most implicated in that first wave,
drugmakers and other players
that pumped pills into communities,
have finally been forced
to pay a price for their actions,
as you probably know,
if you've seen stories like these.
Walmart has agreed
to pay $3.1 billion
to settle lawsuits nationwide
over the impact of prescriptions
its pharmacies
filled for opioid painkillers.
Two of the largest pharmacy chains
will pay about $10 billion
in prescription opioid
lawsuit settlements.
Four U.S. corporations
will pay a combined $26 billion
to settle claims over their role
in the opioid epidemic.
Johnson & Johnson and 3 major drug
distributors agreed to the settlement,
while insisting
it was not an admission of guilt.
It wasn't an admission of guilt,
was it?
26 billion is exactly how much you pay
when you're not guilty of anything.
Who among us hasn't surrendered
the GDP of Iceland, just 'cause?
When you put
all those settlements together,
collectively, these companies
have agreed to pay out
more than $50 billion over 18 years
to state and local governments.
And getting to this point
wasn't easy.
It involved consolidating
thousands of lawsuits
filed by various government entities,
and has been called
"the most complicated litigation
in the history of complex litigation".
And I think this goes
without saying, but: boner alert.
That is a Bat-Signal for this show,
something so boring
it's genuinely kind of hot.
And people have understandable
complaints about these settlements.
First, that the dollar amounts are
too small, which they absolutely are.
Putting aside the loss of hundreds
of thousands of lives over the years,
the opioid crisis did an estimated
one and a half trillion dollars
in damage in 2020 alone.
And second,
almost none of the money
is going to the individuals
or families harmed.
Instead, it's going to governments,
theoretically,
to be used to mitigate
the damage that opioids are doing.
And there are backstories
behind both of those decisions,
including that, for a bunch
of complicated legal reasons,
governments tend to get better
outcomes in lawsuits like these
than individuals
and that the most appropriate
punishment for these companies,
throwing them into the fucking sun,
is sadly currently unavailable to us,
though I am working on a design for
a catapult and I'm tantalizingly close.
I could talk more about all of that,
but the truth is,
those decisions have now been made,
they're in the past.
And for this story, I'd like
to do something slightly different,
which is to mainly talk
about the future,
and the decisions
that haven't been made yet.
Because while 50 billion is clearly
not enough to undo the damage here,
it's also not nothing.
It's "double NASA's budget and
5 times the revenue of an NBA season".
And you should know,
this is also the bulk of the money
governments are likely
to get out of these companies.
Under the terms of their settlements,
they're being released
from future claims.
When it comes to restitution, this is
all the blood money we're getting,
making it feel especially important
that we spend it well.
But there've already been troubling
signs that, at least in some places,
the decision process on how
to do so can be deeply flawed.
Which is particularly frustrating
for those who've lost loved ones
to this crisis, like this woman.
A dozen New York parents
descended on Albany this week
to complain the governor's budget
is not being open
about where the money is going.
One Long Island mom,
Linda Ventura,
carried her son's ashes
in a Tupperware container.
in New York State
because no one should join the club
that these parents are here for.
That is a brave thing
for that woman to do,
and a powerful message
for her to send.
"My name is Linda, I'm gonna be
a pain in the ass for you,
and in case you sons of bitches
forgot why we're here,
I brought along
a Tupperware of my son."
I know that that sounds worrying,
but the thing is,
because we're only three years in,
to what will be
18 years' worth of payments,
there is still time for us
to correct course.
But that is why we need
to talk about this right now.
So, tonight, let's look
at the opioid settlements.
And let's start with the fact
that this isn't the first time
governments have received
a huge pile of money
after companies
caused a public health crisis.
Back in the 1990s, there was a similar
wave of lawsuits against big tobacco
that ended with a settlement
of an estimated $246 billion.
And at the time,
everyone took a victory lap.
Finally, we are going to begin to hold
the tobacco industry accountable
for decades
of marketing their products
and selling their products
to our kids.
The states will receive the largest
financial recovery in history.
We've arrived
at our final destination,
and that's the destination
of tobacco justice.
"Tobacco justice!"
And look, it did sound great!
Not only were tobacco companies
paying a huge amount of money,
the settlement also imposed
restrictions on cigarette advertising,
including banning
cartoon characters like Joe Camel.
Although personally, I never found
a sexy camel that persuasive.
It seemed ridiculous
My God, how the fuck
did you just do that?
But interestingly,
that settlement is now seen as a
prime example of what not to do.
Because at the time,
the expectation was
that "a significant portion
of the funding
would be set aside
to reduce tobacco use".
But there were no binding requirements
on how the money should be spent.
So, in practice, most states
just used it as a slush fund,
"to cover budget shortfalls,
subsidize tax cuts,
and support general
government services."
Within just a few years,
stories like this
were starting to hit the news.
Here in North Carolina, the nation's
number one tobacco producer,
not a penny of the state's
$4.6 billion share
has been spent
on anti-smoking programs.
So, where's the money going?
$200,000
to improve this horse park,
$15,000
for this tobacco museum
to help produce
a tobacco history video,
and $400,000 toward
the engineering of this plant
that will one day
process tobacco.
Yeah, that's not great.
I realize that "spending other
people's money in a dumb way"
could well be
my exact job description.
But even I know building
a tobacco processing plant
with tobacco settlement money
is a very bad idea.
And that is not
the only cautionary tale.
There's another example
from early in this current wave
of opioid settlements,
specifically, the one between
state governments and McKinsey.
In New York State,
once that money started rolling in,
some public health advocates
were shocked
at where most of it
seemed to be going.
$21 million went into New York
State's general fund
to build bridges and tunnels
and to fill budget gaps,
and that's absolutely inexcusable.
I will be damned if I see a dollar
go to fixing a pothole.
Do we need potholes fixed?
Absolutely.
That's not what this money is about.
Yeah, he's right. He's also perhaps
the most New York guy to ever exist.
A man named Anthony Rizzuto,
ranting about potholes on behalf
of an organization called FIST.
A man like that isn't born,
someone in Massapequa
rubbed a meatball parm
and he appeared
in a puff of smoke like a genie.
Now, thankfully, this current
50 billion in settlement money
has rules on how it can be spent.
They're both very complicated,
and not nearly strong enough.
For instance,
"most of the settlement agreements
say that at least 85% of the money has
to be used for 'opioid remediation'",
which sounds good,
but that term "is broadly defined".
And while they include a long list
of what could fit into that category,
they also note that the list
is "nonexhaustive,"
meaning governments could attempt
to justify almost any purchase.
As for the remaining 15%,
that's a free-forall.
Making it basically
a multi-billion-dollar slush fund.
But, as this legal expert who's been
tracking the settlements points out,
there are worryingly few rules
requiring state or local governments
to report how they spend
any of the money.
Public reporting of opioid
settlement expenditures
is not required by the settlement
agreements themselves.
So, we're in wild,
wild west territory.
Minhee found only 16 states
promised to publicly report
100% of their opioid
settlement spending.
Another 16 have not agreed to report
any spending publicly at all,
and the rest,
only a portion of it.
First, shoutout to the states
promising to report
on how they spend
"some of the money".
I'm not sure that's much better
than not reporting it at all.
"We'll report on every dollar
that doesn't go
into our mysterious money hole."
A few more states
have since agreed to disclose
at least some of their spending,
so it's now only these seven
who are doing zero public reporting.
But the point remains: there can be
shockingly little transparency
about where this money is going,
or, in some cases, not going.
Because despite the fact
that we are three years in,
some states
haven't even started spending.
For instance,
Iowa's state legislature
recently couldn't come to an agreement
on how to spend its settlement money,
and then simply adjourned
for the year,
leaving more than $25 million
unspent until 2025.
But that's fine, I guess.
It's not like this is a life and death
situation or anything.
Meanwhile, other states seem to be
engaging in accounting tricks
to get around restrictions.
New York's Governor Kathy Hochul
"proposed cutting the budget
of the Office of Addiction Services
and Supports by more than 13%".
And it's believed that her plan
was to then replace that funding
with money
from the opioid settlement.
But that's not increasing
services, is it?
It's moving the money around so
you can use it for whatever you'd like.
Which is infuriating!
It turns out
it's a lot less entertaining
to watch someone
try to launder millions in drug money
when it's not Bryan Cranston
who's doing it.
And while so far,
I've mainly talked about states,
more than half this money
is going to local governments.
It's actually being divided up
among cities and counties,
as this local news report explains,
with some top-tier graphics.
Every single county in Michigan
will get some money,
but it really depends
on how much.
The smallest amount just $173
in Union Charter Township.
The biggest amount,
nearly 70 million in Wayne County.
Here in West Michigan,
Kent County is getting
more than $18 million.
So, how are they actually
going to use that money?
All of the experts I spoke with
said it needs to be poured
into four different buckets:
prevention, harm reduction,
treatment, and recovery.
I know she's telling us that the money
should be going to things
like harm reduction
and recovery there.
But it kinda feels like it's going
to local news graphics departments,
because that is excellent.
But she is right
that experts generally agree
that there are good ways
to spend this money.
We could hire and train more
counselors and peer specialists
to work with those struggling
with addiction.
We could also increase access
to medication-assisted treatment,
using drugs like methadone,
buprenorphine, and naltrexone.
We could also better fund interventions
for those continuing to use drugs,
from overdose prevention centers,
which we've discussed before,
to "distributing naloxone, detecting
fentanyl through testing strips,
providing sterile syringes, and
connecting people to adequate housing."
All of that is a great use
of settlement money.
It's sometimes been hard for advocates
to get that message across,
given local leaders often simply
don't have the experience
with addiction or health policy
to guide them in using the money well.
And that can be understandably
very frustrating
for those with personal
experience of this crisis.
People who use drugs
are not being included at all.
Trish Perry is a county
coordinator for OhioCAN,
a nonprofit started by family members
of individuals battling addiction.
Every Saturday,
they hand out food, clothing,
and the overdose-reversal
drug, Narcan, in Newark, Ohio.
Fentanyl testing strips?
But Perry says her organization
has so far encountered stigma
and hurdles when applying for
funding from opioid settlement money
that's earmarked
for local governments.
If you don't supply
people with clean use supplies
and fentanyl testing strips,
they die.
And if they die, they never get to be
a productive citizen
in the community.
That seems like a pretty good use
of settlement money.
Honestly, all other options
tend to pale in comparison
to "if people don't get the stuff
I'm handing out right now,
they'll fucking die."
And when you see that, the idea
of using this money to fill potholes
starts to sound
like second-degree murder,
as this magnificent New York
stereotype will undoubtedly tell you.
And I will say, there are places
that are spending this money wisely
on prevention, harm reduction, and
the other things on those CGI buckets.
Places without the expertise or good
guidance can become easy targets
for companies looking to take this
sudden surge of money off their hands.
Companies that make pill
disposal products, safe pill storage,
or even products for law
enforcement like speed ray guns
are pushing municipalities to use their
settlement funds for their products,
and even have tabs on their websites
to track your state's settlement money.
That's true.
Salesmen are going to small towns,
trying to convince them that they're
selling the cure for the opioid crisis.
It's like an insanely dark remake
of "The Music Man".
"There's trouble, folks,
right here in River City.
Trouble with T and that rhymes
with P and that stands for painkillers.
Thousands are dead."
One of those products is Deterra
drug disposal pouches,
which apparently contain activated
carbon, and cost about $4 each.
The way they work is,
customers place their unused
medications in a Deterra pouch
and add water, deactivating
the drugs before tossing them,
ensuring that they cannot be used,
even if fished out of the trash.
And if you're thinking,
"Wait, hold on, it's essentially then
just throwing away pills in water?
Can't you already
do that with a toilet?"
Yes, you can. This might be news
to people, but unlike most drugs,
"the FDA lists opioids
on its flush list for disposal"
Which is bad news for Deterra,
but another huge win for the toilet,
the greatest invention
in human history.
Thank you, toilet!
But despite that,
Deterra's manufacturer
has promoted it heavily
to local governments,
even buying Google ads
to get their attention.
Because when you search
for opioid settlement related terms,
you can get served sponsored ads
for Deterra with headers like
"How to use opioid settlements,
get the Deterra grant guide".
And it seems to have worked,
as it's won a bunch of contracts,
including a million-dollar order
from the health department
in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Which seems like a waste of money,
assuming that that county has toilets.
And if they don't have toilets,
then find money to spend on that!
Stop shitting in buckets!
Shit in one of these!
They're a real treat!
Thank you, toilet.
But most upsettingly, in many places
the money's going somewhere
that could do the exact opposite
of reducing harm, the police.
And that is despite explicit
warnings against doing that.
Last year,
130 public health advocates
issued an open letter
to local governments, saying
"No opioid settlement money should
be spent on law enforcement personnel,
overtime, or equipment."
Which does make sense.
Because if we learned one thing
from the war on drugs,
it's that Nancy Reagan and Mr.
produced the single strangest photo
in the history of cameras.
But if we learned two things,
it's that policing drug use
does not make it stop.
And yet, in some places, sending
opioid money to police is mandatory.
Louisiana decided to allocate
20% of its funds directly to sheriffs,
with no obligation for them
to report how they spend any of it.
And many smaller municipalities are
funneling it to law enforcement, too.
Sullivan County, New York is using
some of their settlement funds
to pay for police overtime.
Oceana, West Virginia is using some
for a new police cruiser.
Bibb County, Alabama spent over
$120,000 on two new Chevy pickups
for the sheriff's office,
as well as new lights,
sirens, radios,
and roadside cameras.
And as for Brownwood, Texas, it spent
$15,000 of its settlement funds
to buy nine BolaWrap devices.
A BolaWrap is a restraint device
which fires a cord around a suspect.
And I could describe it to you,
but instead, I'll show you
a video that the company made.
Cool.
Just a second ago,
I thought sirens were the least helpful
thing to spend opioid money on,
but I saw something that makes targets
walk slightly slower away from you.
Still, BolaWrap is another useful tool
for cops to add to their belt,
along with a bunch
of way more lethal tools
they'll definitely reach for instead,
and it's not just high-tech lassos.
We also found
multiple police departments
pitching local governments on something
called the TruNarc drug analyzer,
arguing that it will increase
officer safety.
Here is a cop in Kenosha County,
Wisconsin, doing exactly that,
at a county finance
committee meeting.
So, without having to open
a package of a suspected narcotic,
we can shine this,
point this equipment at that product
and it will tell us what the makeup
is of whatever's inside of it.
So, we've all seen the videos of the
all over the country
opening up a bag.
You don't do that anymore, breathing
in that substance and passing out.
What's the word?
- Not passing out, OD-ing.
- Yeah, overdosing.
Going unconscious, I should say,
from an OD.
For the ten thousandth time,
it's all but impossible for a cop
to just encounter fentanyl
in the field and overdose.
To quote one expert "There has never,
ever ever, ever been a confirmed case"
of that happening.
That is two more "never ever"'s
than Taylor Swift uses
for getting back together.
So, you know
they're not fucking around.
But again, that argument worked.
He said
"We need the magic drug flashlight",
and that was good enough
for the council to spend $30,000 on it.
I do have some sympathy
for the people making these decisions.
You can imagine town councils
full of members
who feel enormous responsibility
to spend this money well,
but don't know where to start.
In that situation,
if a police official shows up and says
"Give it to us, we know what to do
with it", that's almost a relief.
Take Vienna, West Virginia,
a city in a state absolutely
hammered by the opioid crisis.
Their council was approached
by their police chief
with a request for $13,000
from their opioid settlement fund,
to spend on a new police dog,
because their current one
was getting old.
The council
unanimously agreed to it,
even as one member
made a pretty revealing comment.
This is the first time council
has kind of been informed
that we've even received
those funds.
And I'm not entirely sure
how we're going to use the rest of it,
but we should definitely
have a plan in place.
Not that this isn't a good need.
But I would hate to see
that money get whittled away,
13, $15,000 at a time
without being thoughtful
about the impact this money
could have for the city of Vienna.
Right. When you don't have
a plan for your money,
it can be easy to spend it
in a thoughtless way.
It's a lot harder
to break into your savings
when it's labeled
"college fund" and not
"holy shit,
look at all this free jar money."
And that impulse
of not wanting the settlement
to be whittled away without
serious thought is a good one.
But here's the thing,
just three months later,
the same
guy returned to that same room
to show off photos of the
new police dog they'd bought,
and make a new request.
And here's the mayor announcing
that request to the council.
The next item on our agenda
this evening
is a resolution
to authorize the purchase
of two mid-size or full-size SUVs
for the Vienna Police Department
using opioid settlement funds.
No! Don't do it!
The police have multiple funding
sources they could use for cars.
We're constantly throwing money
at them.
They're basically your rich friend
that Venmo requests you $2.45
after splitting
a popcorn at the movies.
Tristyn, this would be unhinged
behavior even if your mom's name
wasn't blue on Wikipedia.
Now, to their credit,
a council member spoke up again,
to express reservations
about how little consideration
seemed to be going into how
they were spending this money.
I think we need to sit down
and have a broader conversation
about what we want to do
with this money
and get more voices at the table.
We're going to take care of the police
department in the ways that we can,
but it's a bigger thing,
it's about prevention,
and we want to see
that those prevention dollars
filter into our community.
I think that, council,
we need to put our heads together
and have some time to figure out
how we're going to direct that money
most effectively and efficiently.
Exactly!
And that was only slightly undermined
by the fact that just 10 seconds
after she was done speaking,
the council voted unanimously to spend
the money on the SUVs anyway.
Which is just maddening.
Even Oprah would watch that and think
"Guys, you can't just
give people cars that way!"
Because the sad truth is, even if
every penny from this settlement
did go to alleviating
the opioid crisis,
it'd still just be
scratching the surface.
But anytime you watch the money
go toward policing drug users
instead of helping them,
it feels like adding insult to injury,
especially to communities of color,
who are so used to being
over-policed and under-served.
So, what can we do?
Again, the good news here
is that we are still pretty close
to the beginning of this process.
So, we're at a point where we
can change the arc of this story.
And there are ways to do that.
For instance, states can decide
what counts as an allowable expense.
California has said
that local governments
may not use money
from the abatement fund
to purchase many of the law
enforcement toys that you've seen.
They put out a list explicitly stating
the money can't be spent on K-9s,
BolaWrap, or the TruNarc analyzer,
which is good!
States could also be more transparent
about how they're spending their funds.
And some are doing
a good job of that.
North Carolina and Colorado
are currently the gold standard,
with each having online portals
providing up-to-date information
on where their money is going.
But it's clearly not enough
for the decisions to be transparent.
They also have to be good.
There are tools
that we know work here,
and they need to be funded
with this money as additional spending,
not just swapping out
one funding stream for another.
And for the final time,
there are places spending it wisely,
on proven tools
that have a real impact.
There are other places that aren't.
And if you're wondering
"Which place do I live in?"
you may need to find out.
And that, unfortunately,
can mean heaving to show up
in small rooms like the ones
you've seen tonight,
asking questions
and advocating for real solutions.
And if someone in that room
suggests spending the money
on rope-jizzing guns,
or new sirens, or, God forbid,
filling a pothole, tell them no.
Because, as I believe this human
Statue of Liberty once said,
that is not what this money is for.
And now, this!
And Now:
People on TV Share Heartwarming
Memories of Their Mothers.
My mom would get in fights
at restaurants
that wouldn't allow children.
And she said "My children are better
behaved than most of your dining room,
and they are properly dressed
for dinner",
and she'd fight with them
until they would let us in.
My mom used to always
look at me in the car randomly.
We'd be driving,
she'd be smoking,
and then she would look at me
and she would go "Don't be cheap!"
I can remember my mom being
- For five minutes?
- Yeah, totally.
She would go and hide
in the bathroom.
I remember my mom telling me,
before I was even married,
"Don't think I'm gonna raise
your children, because I'm not".
My mom used to tell me,
ever since I was a little girl,
she used to quote
a Run DMC song, that said,
"You talk too much,
you never shut up".
Never mind,
anyone can call me a moron,
my mom used to call me a moron
but, then again, she was family.
My mom used to call me a leech.
She's like "You're just always on me,
like, you're always near me.
Just, like, you're a leech!"
My mom would say, Doc,
"Let's get down to brass tax.
If you can't kiss,
you're never gonna touch her heart.
And if you can't touch her heart,
Or the rest of her!
"You're never gonna
get anywhere near her vagina."
That's our show.
We'll see you next week!
He did it again!
Thank you, toilet!