Just when you thought the arguing was over, two of Vermont’s top elected officials have contracted cases of Post-Traumatic Bunched Knicker Syndrome — an exaggerated sense of wounded entitlement whose onset comes well after the triggering event.
That triggering event was the failure of a bill that would have allowed law-enforcement officials to get their foot in the door of the state Health Department’s prescription drug database. Never mind that when the database was established only a few years ago, we were assured that it was to be used purely and solely for health-care purposes. Never mind that those assurance are still prominently displayed on the Health Department’s website. Never mind that the Health Department’s own figures indicate that since the database was established, the rate of prescription-drug abuse in Vermont has declined or stayed the same.
The details of the bill’s demise, for those just joining us: the State Senate approved a bill that would grant law enforcement limited warrantless access to the database. The State House refused to go along with that provision, but did approve several other measures aimed at fighting prescription drug abuse. The entire bill then died in conference for lack of a compromise.
After the jump: Case File No. 1 (Peter Shumlin) and Case File No. 2 (John Campbell).
PTBKS Case File No. 1: Governor Peter Shumlin. In this week’s Wednesday news conference, he had some harsh words for opponents of the database-access provision.
“The fact that the House didn’t agree with the Senate version of that bill, I think, is inexcusable. I think Vermonters will die because of it. I think we will see crime continue to rise because of it. And, I’m astonished that they’re not taking this crisis more seriously,” Shumlin said Wednesday.
He went on, and on, and on in this vein, even expressing the hope that opponents — many of whom are fellow Democrats — would be punished at the polls this fall. He also took issue with a story by the Associated Press’ Dave Gram*, which pointed to Health Department statistics that bely Shumlin’s characterization of prescription drug abuse as an “epidemic.” The health data show that misuse of prescription opiates is “declining or remaining steady,” that deaths from prescription opiates declined in each of the last six years, and that Vermont has substantially improved its ranking in non medical use of pain relievers, from 11th in 2006 to 34th in 2009.
*We should note that Gram’s story was based entirely on research by Allen Gilbert of the VT ACLU. He deserves much credit for a most timely bit of advocacy; the story may have blunted the bill’s momentum at a crucial moment.
Nonetheless, Shumlin harrumphed, “It IS an epidemic.”
That’s a funny epidemic, if you ask me. And Shumlin’s apparent desire to make this a major campaign issue, and to bring it back in 2013, shines a light on one of his less endearing traits: the unwillingness to listen to others or to let go of an idea once he’s made up his mind.
Of course, his obvious vulnerability to BKS might explain his habit of sleeping, and chasing bears, in the altogether. Can’t get your knickers in a twist if you’re not wearin’ any.
PTBKS Case File No. 2: Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell. Another chronic BKS sufferer, whose symptoms are apparently unrelieved by the end of the legislative session.
On Wednesday, the Senate leader joined with House Speaker Shap Smith for what was supposed to be a mutual back-slapping review of the 2012 session. And by and large, they stuck to the script, lauding their accomplishments in health care reform, balancing the budget, redistricting, and rebuilding Vermont after Tropical Storm Irene.
But Campbell went rogue on the failure of the drug database bill, per Vermont Digger:
The Windsor Democrat said House members didn’t “understand” the legal ramifications of probable cause and reasonable belief. Campbell in turn blamed House members, the Vermont ACLU and some of the people who gave testimony for causing confusion…
Ohhh, I see. anyone who disagrees with Mr. Campbell is suffering from a lack of understanding caused by the nefarious activities of the bill’s opponents. What a masterpiece of condescension! The Speaker was quick to respond:
When asked whether he thought House members were confused, Smith replied: “I think there wasn’t any confusion. People saw this issue through different philosophical lenses.”
Bear in mind that the House was perfectly willing to pass a prescription drug abuse bill that included every provision in the Senate bill except police access to the database. But Senate leaders rejected that proposal; they wanted all or nothing. Remember that, if Shumlin or Campbell tries to demagogue this issue in coming months: they could have had almost everything they wanted, but they scuttled the whole bill instead. Bunched knickers are not good for the legislative process.
Chances are, this whole thing will quickly pass into the rearview mirror — at least for now. Shumlin will almost certainly bring the issue back next year, assuming (cough, cough) that he decides (cough, choke) to run for re-election. And I doubt that he will actively campaign against fellow Democrats who oppose police access to the database.
On the other hand, this kind of intra-party squabbling is often a consequence of single-party government. In Massachusetts, the Republicans are impotent and the Democrats are their own worst enemy. (And we thank the Mass Dems sincerely for giving us Senator Scott Brown through their own hubris and ineptitude.) I hope this isn’t an early warning sign of divisions in the Vermont Democratic Party. (Maybe it’s time for a homeopathic treatment of Progressivism.)
There are so many people clamoring to turn a valuable tool for helping people cope with addictions through appropriate medical care into a weapon.
I know, I know, the DEA is more likely to provide a whole bunch of free cash to law enforcement when they make big, showy drug busts, but our health care system is supposed to improve the health and well-being of our citizens, not turn them into cash cows for police departments.
If the police need more money to fund their work, they can bring their requests to the taxpayers at town meeting, just like everyone else.
In the mean time, they can keep their noses out of the private medical lives of people about whom they have no probable cause to suspect of anything.
NanuqFC
In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying. ~ Bertrand Russell
No police anywhere should have unfettered access to this kind of data.
If they have cause then they can get a warrant, like the Constitution says. If they don’t feel the US Constitution applies to them, then they should go become TSA or Border Patrol agents.