These drug recognition experts, known as DREs, are trained to recognize signs of impairment in drivers who are under the influence of drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol. The officers are also trained to identify the category of drugs causing the impairment.

“The addition of more specially trained drug recognition experts will enhance efforts to reduce all types of impaired driving on our roadways,” Noonan said. “These troopers and officers are assets to their communities and improve traffic safety through their knowledge of the signs, symptoms and effects of controlled substance use.”

The program also trains officers to recognize whether an individual is suffering from a medical condition rather than drug impairment, he said.

Drug recognition experts are trained to determine if a driver is under the influence of illegal drugs, prescription drugs or any other substance that impairs a motorist’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

“Motorists should know that they may be incapable of driving safely and can be charged with driving under the influence after ingesting any intoxicating substance, whether the substance is legal or illegal, prescribed by a physician or purchased over the counter,” Noonan said. “Individuals need to be aware of how taking a particular drug will affect their body.”

Pennsylvania’s DRE training program is coordinated by Cpl. David Andrascik of the state police Bureau of Patrol’s Driving Under the Influence/Field Operations Section.

The program, which was developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and approved by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, includes classroom study and hands-on exercises for participating officers. As part of the training, participants are required to conduct evaluations of actual subjects impaired by drugs.

“With the additional officers obtaining certification, the state will have 80 troopers and 29 municipal police officers certified as DREs,” Andrascik said.

Since 2004, Pennsylvania DREs have conducted nearly 6,000 evaluations of people believed to be impaired by substances other than alcohol. Arrests for driving under the influence of drugs have more than doubled statewide during that time frame.

State Police troopers completing training in March were Tpr. Christopher Winesburg, Troop J, Avondale; Tpr. Matthew Klein, Troop K, Media; Tpr. Christopher Graf, Troop L, Jonestown; Tpr. Matthew Lowe, Troop M, Fogelsville; Cpl. Jacob Rothermel, Troop F, Coudersport; Tpr. Christopher Zukowsky, Troop N, Hazleton; Tpr. Joseph Holland, Troop R, Blooming Grove; Tpr. Michael Burns, Troop H, Carlisle; Tpr. William Dubbs, Troop H, Chambersburg; Tpr. Benjamin Frantz, Troop H, Chambersburg; Cpl. Christopher Robbins, Troop D, Kittanning; Tpr. Craig Johnson, Troop D, Butler and Tpr. Andrew Falcon, Troop E, Erie.

Municipal police officers certified as DREs were Patrolman Joshua Bucher, Carlisle Police Department, Cumberland County; Patrolman Kevin Quinter, Wyomissing Police Department, Berks County; Patrolman Matthew Lynch, Chambersburg Police Department, Franklin County; Officer Robert Keen, State College Police Department, Centre County; Officer Jeffrey Bileck, Mount Lebanon Police Department, Allegheny County; Sgt. Craig Scott, Haverford Township Police Department, Montgomery County and Officer Jamie Nolan-Trently, Archbald Township Police Department, Lackawanna County.

For more information about Pennsylvania State Police, visit www.psp.state.pa.us or call 717-783-5556.

Media contact: Maria A. Finn, 717-783-5556

“As we learned from two public hearings we held on this bill during the summer, prescription drug abuse is becoming an epidemic in our state,” DiGirolamo said. “Right now, only law enforcement in our state has the ability to track prescriptions for criminal investigations. That leaves a gaping hole in being able to address prescription drug misuse and abuse from prevention and treatment standpoints. Although this bill won’t cure prescription drug abuse, I’m hopeful it will go a long way in putting a dent in it.”

DiGirolamo’s House Bill 1651 would create a database, to be managed by the new Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, to enable informed and responsible prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances and to reduce diversion and misuse of the drugs of concern. The intent of the bill is to pinpoint the potential for abuse and misuse of prescription drugs and for doctors to counsel their patients for treatment if a problem may be suspected.

Pennsylvania’s rate of overdoses is among the highest in the nation, according to DiGirolamo, and 73 percent of those are opiate-related.

DiGirolamo believes that by creating an online registry of pharmaceutical disbursements, doctors and pharmacists can keep track of dangerous prescription drugs and be alerted if someone is suspected of “doctor shopping” or “pharmacy shopping.” The practice occurs when people seeking drugs go to several doctors or pharmacies who do not know their medical histories and might be more inclined to arbitrarily prescribe medications.

The registry would allow a doctor or pharmacist to look at a secure website to find out if a patient they’re treating or filling a prescription for recently obtained a similar prescription from another doctor or pharmacy.

“This database would not interfere with the legitimate use of prescriptions for those who have obtained written permission from their physicians,” said DiGirolamo, an outspoken advocate for drug treatment and prevention. “This is merely a tool that is necessary to prevent ‘doctor shopping’ and ‘pharmacy shopping’ and to help stop people who are using these tactics to further their destructive drug habit.”

The measure also would encourage treatment for the people who are identified as having an addiction problem and would call for continuing medical education for prescribing health care providers to learn more about identification, referral and treatment of addiction. DiGirolamo also sees cost savings in terms of insurance and Medicaid payments, if addiction is stopped in its tracks.

In total, 47 other states are monitoring prescriptions in some way now, and the U.S. government is likely to support interstate communication in the near future. The bill has language to allow communication among states so Pennsylvania can also help people who live near a border with another state, many of whom seek treatment in the other states near their residence.

The legislation now moves to the House floor for consideration.

The party will be held at Strikers Alley on Main St. in Smethport, Pa. There will be a speaker from the Alumni Association and the afternoon  will feature a special visit from Santa Claus. There will be bumper lanes for the kids and a small arcade.

Pizza, wings, and drinks will be provided. Folks are welcome to bring a dessert dish to share. You do not have to be a member of  the alumni to attend.

Bring the family for fun and fellowship.

For any information please contact:

Maple Manor 814-642-9522

Jason B 814-335-8614

Sam M 814-545-1224

Chairman Gene DiGirolamo (R-Bucks) began the hearing by saying “it is not in my nature to go public on an issue. It is my nature to fight for what I believe in, but it’s not in my nature to go public on an issue, especially against an administration and a governor who I respect very much, who I admire, and who on a number of occasions have worked very closely with on a number of issues, especially concerning drugs and alcohol.” Chairman DiGirolamo added that he was “baffled, disappointed, and in a variety of ways, a little bit angry,” that the Corbett Administration had not implemented Act 50, which was signed into law by Gov. Rendell in 2010 and was supposed to be implemented with a new Department in place, by July 1, 2011. He added that it was passed in the legislature on three separate occasions, with strong bi-partisan support on every one of those occasions.

Chairman DiGirolamo declared that drug and alcohol addiction is the number one health problem in Pennsylvania and not enough is currently being done to address the issue. “Our prisons are absolutely full and overcrowded; we are talking about building more prisons. If you look at the impact that addiction has on the budget, this is a cost saving measure,” he said, adding that “it’s not about increasing bureaucracy; it’s exactly the opposite, it’s streamlining state government.” Chairman DiGirolamo expressed consternation that the Corbett administration is picking and choosing what laws to follow. Chairman DiGirolamo concluded his opening remarks asking “why aren’t we following the law and implementing this new department?”

Charles Zogby, Secretary of Budget, testified that the Corbett administration, “in light of severe shortfall in revenues in the current fiscal year and looming signs of fiscal stress in the coming year coupled with the overwhelming message sent from Pennsylvania voters last November to reduce the size and scope of government bureaucracy, has determined that it will not move forward with the creation of this new department.” Sec. Zogby said more needs to be done in terms of coordinated, patient-focused delivery of prevention and treatment for drug and alcohol addiction, but added that “a new department cannot accomplish this task when it controls less than 17 percent of the over $660 million spent on drug and alcohol programs and has no authority over the other seven agencies with some role in this matter or the balance of the 83 percent of funding for programs and services within their purview.” Sec. Zogby emphasized “our financial resources are finite,” and added that “steering dollars away from treatment or services to administrative overhead and new bureaucracy is not the answer and will help no one…A far more productive exercise would be to focus our energies on getting people needed services, and working to enhance coordination and policy and programs across state government.”

Todd Shamash , Deputy Chief of Staff for Gov. Corbett, spoke in defense of the Corbett administration’s decision to not move forward with the implementation of Act 50, and stressed that the state should focus on how to coordinate addiction prevention and treatment services in other agencies. He urged the committee to assist the administration in those efforts.

Chairman DiGirolamo asked incredulously, “how do you not follow the law as stated in Act 50?” Sec. Zogby responded that he would defer to the administrations legal counsel, who was not present, but added his belief the administration is on firm legal ground in not moving forward with the implementation of Act 50. Shamash added that his worry is trying to implement a new department with insufficient funds.

Chairman DiGirolamo commented that he believed Act 50 would revolutionize the way addiction was viewed in Pennsylvania and that the other drug and alcohol organizations from which money would be drawn to create this department were 100 percent behind its creation. He added that this act would streamline all the different services and provide the leadership, under a department secretary, needed for efficient and effective management of resources. Chairman DiGirolamo exclaimed “you’re looking for ways not to do this.” Sec. Zogby responded, “we don’t disagree with the end goal, it’s just the coordination,” and added that “we are going into a budget year that is going to be very dramatic. We may have to cut more in the way of services.” Sec. Zogby also added that there are difficult decisions to make, and that Pennsylvania should be focusing money on needed services for people rather than expanding government bureaucracy.

Chairman DiGirolamo recognized the tight budget, but said the situation “can’t let good ideas die for the sake of a small investment of money.” Chairman DiGirolamo pointed out that money could be found for the new school voucher program and he could not uerstand why money could not be found for Act 50. Sec. Zogby explained that the money for the school voucher program was being redirected from school districts. Chairman DiGirolamo expressed his appreciation for the testimony from Sec. Zogby and Shamash, but declared “you’re in for a fight. I’m going to fight for this… I think it’s worthwhile, I think it’s worth fighting for…and I’m going to do everything I can to implement this.”

Chairman Mark Cohen (D-Philadelphia) expressed dismay over the administration’s failure to implement Act 50 and establish a new Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs. Chairman Cohen stated that there has been little partisan disagreement, and added that “Governor Corbett cannot pick and choose which laws to follow or implement; either the law has to be repealed, which I will oppose, or it must be implemented.” Chairman Cohen stressed the need for a central department to better serve the plight of those suffering from drug and alcohol addiction, and lauded the effects Act 50 would have on reducing the state budget and streamlining the multiple services already in existence. Chairman Cohen stated, “I really hope that this administration will reconsider as quickly and expeditiously as possible, this is a bipartisan concern, this is a broad based concern; it is something that could be done much better, there are many, many people who need additional treatment who don’t get it, there are people in prison who shouldn’t be there.”

Chairman Cohen wanted to know if there were any non-budgetary concerns with the legislation. Sec. Zogby replied that the budgetary concerns were the primary concerns and added that from a policy perspective, the department is charged with numerous responsibilities but is only allotted 17 percent of the budgetary allotment for drug and alcohol programs and has no authority over the remaining programs which control the other 83 percent of the available funds. Chairman Cohen then questioned whether amended legislation would be submitted to the legislature. Sec. Zogby responded that is not his intent, noting he believes the administration’s goals could be reached without a new department through increased coordination amongst the various agencies.

Chairman Cohen questioned how a budget surplus carried over from the last fiscal year is now producing a deficit. Sec. Zogby responded there was a structural deficit in the budget that was not covered and that looking beyond this fiscal year, the “cost drivers” – Medical Assistance, corrections, debt service, and pensions – will be outgrowing the available revenues year after year for the next four years. “We are under considerable fiscal stress,” Sec. Zogby said, adding he does not believe it makes sense to divert dollars from needed services to simply put into more state bureaucracy. Chairman Cohen suggested that the administration look at the corrections budget and mandatory sentences to reduce costs.

Rep. Thomas Quigley (R-Montgomery) wanted to know what plans the administration has to deliver the intent of Act 50. Sec. Zogby responded that information is not under the purview of the Budget office, but he noted his understanding is that the policy office is working in coordination with agencies that currently have drug and alcohol programs to increase the coordination of programs and policies throughout the state. Shamash added that the administration had the Departments of Welfare, Education, Corrections, and Transportation, the Attorney General, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency and the Liquor Control Board involved on focusing efforts and delivering more efficient care. Rep. Quigley suggested to Chairman DiGirolamo that if the administration is not going to enact Act 50 then maybe the committee should aid and pursue this effort to coordinate and streamline the various agencies.

Rep. Pamela DeLissio (D-Philadelphia) questioned the sincerity of the administration in implementing even the intent of the legislation since the deadline of July 1, 2011, for the establishment of a new Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs is long past and the administration is only discussing this lapse now. Rep. DeLissio commented that if addiction was a more visible disease, the government would be more likely to respond to the situation with a sense of urgency. She added that Act 50 would reduce the costs to the budget overall and that the “cost benefit analysis is pretty evident.” Rep. DeLissio stated that “where there is political will and determination things do happen, and I am happy to throw my weight behind both chairmen to make this vision a reality and not to compromise it.” Sec. Zogby responded that he appreciates the passion of everyone involved in this issue, but the administration is not just “engaging today.” Sec. Zogby compared the creation of a new department at this time to starting a bridge without the money to see it completed, stating that it is a case of wanting to do it correctly.

Rep. Eli Evankovich (R-Westmoreland) commented that in his previous career, he saw teams responded better when they were given a timeline. He asked if the administration could provide a date by which it would have a policy to streamline and consolidate the various agencies. Sec. Zogby responded that he was not in a position or prepared to give a deadline, but  stated that he could have something to the committee fairly expeditiously.

Rep. Jake Wheatley (D-Allegheny) wanted to know whether, in his analysis of the budget, Sec. Zogby had taken into account the savings which would be produced by the creation of a Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs with better administration and better coordination that has accountability and oversight of these programs. Sec. Zogby responded that there is accountability within the Department of Health and that raising a bureau up to the level of a department was not feasible. Sec. Zogby added that the bureau was being supported by the Department of Health and that creating that support structure separately did not add any benefit. Rep. Wheatley commented that “the reason that so many people are interested in seeing this raised to the level of a department is a signal of priority as well as smart business sense.” Rep. Wheatley added that a Department for Drugs and Alcohol Programs would solely function to assess how best to address the issue of addiction and would save lives and money. Rep. Wheatley concluded his questioning by stating “if the General Assembly passes the act and then the executive body can just unilaterally decide which act they want to impose and which ones they don’t, that says something about our checks and balances system…You either have to come back with a repeal or amendment to Act 50… not just unilaterally dismiss a law that was passed and signed.”

Rep. Tony Payton (D-Philadelphia) questioned whether any consideration was given to the outcome and ultimate goals of this new Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs. Sec. Zogby responded that he is always focused on outcomes, and that as part of this budget process “we are working with department around goals and outcomes for the programs under their purview, so outcomes will be very much part of the discussion that we are going to have in terms of the 2012-2013 budget.”

Chairman DiGirolamo again expressed his support for Act 50 and stated that based on what he heard today, he does not see the administration making an effort to enact this law and was extremely disappointed. “You’ve got a fight on your hands,” he concluded.

Deb Beck, President of the Drug and Alcohol Service Providers Organization of Pennsylvania, told the committee and those present at the hearing that “currently, the authority for drug and alcohol abuse prevention and addiction treatment is diffuse, dispersed and diluted across various agencies of government. This act will reduce duplication and this thicket of overlapping bureaucracy.” Beck added that Act 50 will streamline and bring focus to the alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment efforts in the state. Beck stressed the importance of Act 50, providing the committee with the reasons the legislation was enacted to begin with, stating that, “70 percent of the prison population has an alcohol and/or drug problem… with an estimated impact on the budget of the Department of Corrections estimated conservatively at $1.4 billion a year,” and that “at least one of every five dollars spent on Medicaid on hospital care is expended for drug and alcohol related health care problems and injuries.” Beck ended by expressing confusion over why “we wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to streamline bureaucracy and why we wouldn’t want to implement this law that so clearly cuts the cost of crime and health care.”

Gary Tennis, Vice Chair of the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws and Former Chief of Legislation for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, spoke in strong favor for the immediate implementation of Act 50. Tennis declared that 80 percent of crimes result from or are integrally related to untreated drug and alcohol addiction and that “study after study shows about a 70 percent reduction in criminal recidivism when offenders are provided sufficient drug and alcohol addiction treatment, including the full continuum of care.” He went on to explain to the committee that a study was conducted to assess the impact of a new Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs and it found that the department could be expected to produce a return of four dollars on every dollar spent on its implementation and maintenance. Tennis provided evidence from a comparable study conducted in California, which “demonstrated a $7 return to state taxpayers from every $1 spent on drug and alcohol addiction treatment, primarily in reduced criminal justice and health care costs.” He noted other returns included “reduced workplace absenteeism, injuries, and thefts, reduced domestic and child abuse, and a reduced number of car crashes.” In the final point of his testimony, Tennis stated that it was his understanding from his high school civics course, that the legislature makes the laws and the executive branch enforces them.

Greg Heller, Attorney with Young, Ricchiuti, Caldwell and Heller and currently representing the Drug and Alcohol Service Providers Organization of Pennsylvania, suggested that the committee consider seeking a writ of mandamus, which compels a government official to do what they are obliged by law to do. Heller stated that if the governor refuses to do something that he is legally obligated to do, then seeking a writ of mandamus is a completely appropriate response. Heller added that he has never seen a clearer case for the application of a writ of mandamus than this current situation and emphasized that the governor is failing to implement a provision of law.

Rep. Eddie Day Pashinski (D-Luzerne) wanted an example of a particular and normal drug/alcohol happenstance and how the process in place today deals with that as opposed to the way a new department would handle it. He also asked what degree prevention would play in the department’s charge. Beck replied one example would be the difficulty individuals face in obtaining Medicaid to receive drug and alcohol treatments. She also stated that individuals newly released from prison face the same issue in obtaining Medicaid and as a result find themselves in violation of their parole, which oftentimes stipulates that they attend drug and alcohol treatment programs. Beck added that both these situations place a higher cost on taxpayers and that a Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs would be able to coordinate with the Department of Welfare to better address these situations.

Chairman Cohen inquired whether the Drug and Alcohol Service Providers Organization of Pennsylvania is pursuing a writ of mandamus suit at this time. Heller responded that he could get back to the chairman with that information but was uncertain at this time. Chairman Cohen then commented that if they are going to pursue a writ of mandamus, then he is interested in joining such a suit as a plaintiff. Chairman Cohen commented that he would like to further consider reducing correction costs by addressing mandatory sentences, as suggested in Tennis’s testimony. Tennis responded that he would like to see a Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs in place first to ensure that those prisoners being released are receiving the proper and necessary treatment. Beck added that “two weeks of treatment for a needle injecting heroin addict is ridiculous; that’s an example of what is not treatment,” and there needs to be a department to ensure quality and effective treatment.

Additional testimony was provided by Mary Lash, Former Executive Director of the Clearfield/Jefferson Drug and Alcohol Commission.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G5dsrGcHhY

The political courage represented by Rep. DiGirolamo and other legislators who have supported the enactment of this law is to be applauded. The long-term financial and health benefits to be gained from enactment far outweigh the short sighted, small savings with ignoring the law. One action seems aimed at promoting the long term wellness of Pennsylvania, the other more tied to the type of political correctness that gets attached to election life cycles. Just saying.

“Sales of tobacco to minors in California have dropped to 5.6 percent, the lowest rate since the state started keeping track of the sales in 1995, the state’s Department of Public Health announced.

In 1995, the rate was 37 percent, CBS San Francisco reports. The state collects its data each year by sending minors into randomly selected stores to try to buy cigarettes. Stores caught selling tobacco to minors can be fined as much as $6,000.”

Pretty impressive. Since Pennsylvania has been operating a similar initiative, I was curious to see how we stacked up. According to the official record, Pennsylvania Tobacco Facts 2009/10 (39):

Key findings for Pennsylvania from this report show:

• Cigarette sales in Pennsylvania declined by 28 percent between 2002 and 2009.

• Between 2003 and 2008, there was a statistically significant drop in smoking prevalence among adults in Pennsylvania (p<0.05)*.

• Approximately 20,000 Pennsylvania adults die annually, at a rate of 16 percent, from smoking-related causes.

• Tobacco-related personal health care costs total approximately 4.7 billion dollars annually in Pennsylvania.

• Smoking attributable productivity losses in Pennsylvania total 4.7 billion dollars annually.

• Smoking attributable years of potential life lost totaled approximately 266,000 years annually for Pennsylvania adults aged 35 and older.

• Statistically significant (p<0.05)* disparities exist in smoking rates based on age (lower rates are associated with older ages), race (higher rates of smoking are shown in African Americans compared to Whites), education (increasing education is associated with lower rates of smoking), income (higher income is associated with lower smoking rates) and health care coverage (lack of coverage is associated with higher smoking rates).

• Youth cigarette use in both Pennsylvania middle schools and high schools did not change between school year 2006-2007 and 2008-2009.

• Rates of illegal sales of cigarettes in Pennsylvania to minors have fallen dramatically from over 50 percent in 1996 to an estimated 5 percent in 2008.

• Approximately 86 percent of Pennsylvania adults said that smoking is not permitted at their workplace in late 2008 and early 2009.

• Among adults who have children at home, about 85 percent said that smoking was not permitted in their home in late 2008 and early 2009.

Oh yeah. We rock.

BRING A DISH TO PASS