Reinstating Good Samaritan: A Step in the Right Direction

In July 2015, Rhode Island’s Good Samaritan Law, which granted individuals who alerted emergency services to someone overdosing on drugs immunity from prosecution, was allowed to sunset. Lawmakers in the house and senate couldn’t compromise on how far such immunity should stretch, and the legislative session concluded without a resolution. The bicameral support for some version of the bill was overwhelming, and Governor Raimondo appeared at a state house rally to  call for action to reinstate the act.

When the bills were heard in April 2015, Joee Lindbeck, assistant to the attorney general and in charge of legislative affairs for the office of the attorney general, delivered testimony critical of the house bill explaining its potential to grant legal protection to those who distribute and manufacture narcotics. A recent statement issued by the Attorney General’s Office echoes the same sentiment:

“While I believe in the merits of and support the intentions of a Good Samaritan Law – to ensure those experiencing an overdose get access to emergency care and those who call 911 are not prosecuted – I am concerned about any legislation that would shield those who traffic in drugs. Expanding immunity to those who manufacture and distribute narcotics would protect those who are selling heroin and operating drug houses that enable heroin use, putting those individuals suffering from substance abuse disorders at much greater risk of an overdose.”

This argument has been met with vocal opposition by protesters who feel the AG prioritizes high conviction rates over saving  lives.

The Good Samaritan Overdose Prevention Act of 2016
AG Peter Kilmartin’s opposition notwithstanding, this year, with the governor’s urging, companion bills S 2002 and H 7003 contain identical language and powerful sponsorship. On the senate side, the key sponsor is Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Michael McCaffrey (Democrat – District 29, Warwick) who is followed by Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed and Senate Majority Leader Dominick Ruggerio. The identical house version is sponsored by House Committee on Municipal Government Chair Robert Craven (Democrat – District 32, North Kingstown), who was appointed by Governor Raimondo in 2015 to serve on the governor’s working group to examine the state’s criminal justice system. Also listed as sponsors are the Chair of House Judiciary Cale Keable (Democrat – District 47, Burrilville/Glocester) and House Majority Leader John DeSimone (Democrat – District 5, Providence). As we go to press, the bill is scheduled for hearing and consideration in the House Committee on Judiciary on January 12.

To put it in terms apropos to contemporary pop culture, this bill has been given a legislative light saber to cut through potential opposition and the greatest possible odds of making it to the governor’s desk faster than the Millennium Falcon can make the Kessel Run.

This is good news. Yet (and now a metaphor for sports fans) the dexterity with which the GA is recovering last session’s fumble is really just a few inches of forward motion past the line of scrimmage on the gridiron of the criminal justice system for the offense playing on the “addiction is a public health and welfare concern and not a crime against the state” team. For those who understand that addiction is a medical disorder left untreated by the criminal justice and exacerbated by economic inequality and institutional racism, codifying the common decency of allowing an individual to avoid incarceration for saving a dying person, notwithstanding his or her own problem of possession, probation or parole, is truly the least the law can do.

The Wrong Question
To the state’s credit, since the 2009 legislative repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses and the 2012 decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana, the Department of Corrections has seen a drastic reduction in incarceration rates for almost all drug-related offenses. The exception, however, is heroin.

Whether supply or demand is the critical factor in the drug’s continuing popularity and simultaneous lethality remains an unsolvable problem for law enforcement. Yet, this only serves to bolster the argument that critical resources are wasted trying to come up with the right answer to the wrong question. Does it benefit us to know whether addicts want more heroin or suppliers are pushing more heroin to addicts? During an epidemic, investigating the symptoms and origins of a disease to punish the carriers or the victims is futile. Instead, investigation targets the most effective means of treating the infected and inoculating the population.

Addiction is, of course, more complicated than measles. There is no good needle to prevent the use of bad needles. And addiction does not discriminate based on race, creed, color, or socio-economic status. However, drug users who go untreated experience limited access to economic mobility, education, quality physical and mental healthcare, and a family or community support system. In short, addiction can strike anyone who uses. But recovery discriminates.

The Good Samaritan Overdose Prevention Act of 2016 is a step in the right direction. I have complete faith that it will pass and become law again very soon. Furthermore, it includes the language:

“In the first week of January, 2017, and each year thereafter, the attorney general shall, in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies and the state police, submit to the general assembly a report summarizing the impact of this chapter on law enforcement. The report shall include any incidents in which a law enforcement agency was barred, due to the immunity provisions of §21-28.9-4, from charging or prosecuting a person under chapters 28 and 28.5 of this title who would have otherwise been so charged or prosecuted, and indicating whether the person was charged with, or prosecuted for, any other criminal offense resulting from the agency’s response to the request for medical assistance.”

I commend the accountability and the requirement to collect data. But, simply nudging individuals not to be too afraid of legal repercussions for their own petty crimes to alert authorities of potential drug overdoses is not treating addiction. In fact, while such measures of libertarian paternalism encourage life saving measures, they only support those living with addiction by not promoting that they die from addiction. Any recovering addict will tell you that living as an addict is markedly different from living in and working in recovery. Yes, we should breathe a collective sigh of relief that this bill will be reinstated. That said, when this bill is signed into law, it should be noted that a step was taken only toward making it less likely that the disease of addiction will demonstrate the symptom of death. And, while it is inarguably true that an addict has a better chance of recovery if he or she is not dead, without a comprehensive public health policy plan to educate, treat and holistically empower addicts to live in recovery and develop life skills to succeed as survivors of addiction, our costly public health epidemic will continue to eat away at the most vulnerable population in our society.

So, policymakers who care about the unacceptable levels of addiction sweeping across Rhode Island’s 39 cities, towns, and municipalities, we are back at keeping people breathing. What’s next?