Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

No. 20-1422

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff- Appellant,
v.
SAFEHOUSE, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
Civil Action No. 2:19-CV-00519

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE DRUG POLICY SCHOLARS AND FORMER

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL

JEFFREY M. HARRIS
Counsel of Record
TIFFANY H. BATES
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
1600 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 243-9423
jeff@consovoymccarthy.com

May 21, 2020 Counsel for Amici Curiae

 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii

STATEMENT OF INTEREST ................................................................................ 1
ARGUMENT............................................................................................................ 5
I. Evidence supporting Safehouse’s argument that so-called “safe injection”
sites reduce harm for drug-addicted individuals is remarkably weak. ........... 5
II. Injection sites offer no proven benefits and typically have significant
negative consequences. ................................................................................ 10
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 13

i
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Alex Kreit, Safe Injection Sites and the Federal “Crack House” Statute,
60 Bos. C. L. Rev. 413 (2019) .............................................................................. 7

Allison Gandey, U.S. Slams Canada over Vancouver’s New Drug Injection
Site, Canadian Med. Ass’n J. (Nov. 11, 2003), bit.ly/2AhpggY ......................... 16

Amicus Br. of Mayor Jim Kenney et al. ................................................................... 7

Amicus Br. of Philadelphia-Area Community Orgs. ............................................... 7

Bobby Allyn, Justice Department Promises Crackdown On Supervised

Injection Facilities, NPR (Aug. 30, 2018), n.pr/2zA7CEJ ................................... 4

Drug Free Australia, Analysis of KPMG Evaluation (Oct. 2010).......................... 10

Elana Gordon, What’s The Evidence That Supervised Drug Injection Sites Save
Lives?, NPR (Sept. 7, 2018), n.pr/2WLxIwC ....................................................... 8

Evan Wood, et al., Attendance at Supervised Injecting Facilities and Use of

Detoxification Services, 348 New Engl. J. of Med. 2512 (June 8, 2006) ............. 9

Health Canada, Vancouver’s INSITE Service and Other Supervised Injection

Sites: What Has Been Learned from Research? – Final Report of the Expert
Advisory Committee on Supervised Injection Site Research (2008) ................... 11

Int’l Ass’n of Chiefs of Police, Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs Committee’s

Opposition of Safe Injection Sites, bit.ly/35K2dan ............................................... 8

John P. Walters, Heroin Injection Sites Perpetuate Harm, USA Today

(May 16, 2016), bit.ly/2LL9FZF........................................................... 1, 6, 14, 16

Kora DeBeck et al., Injection Drug Use Cessation and Use of North America’s
First Medically Supervised Safer Injecting Facility, 113 Drug & Alcohol
Depend. 172 (2011) ............................................................................................. 11

Thomas Kerr et al., Impact of a Medically Supervised Safer Injection

Facility on Community Drug Use Patterns: A Before and After Study,
332 BMJ 220 (2006) ........................................................................................... 12
ii
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

Tristin Hopper, Vancouver’s drug strategy has been a disaster.

Be very wary of emulating it., Nat’l Post (May 12, 2017), bit.ly/2YPn2j0... 13, 15

iii
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

STATEMENT OF INTEREST1
Amici curiae are scholars and former government officials with expertise in

drug policy. Amici have an interest in ensuring that the Court receives accurate

information about the limited data proffered to show that so-called “safe injection”

sites are beneficial. Amici’s institutional affiliations are provided only for

identification purposes. The amici are:

Hon. William J. Bennett, Former Director, Office of National Drug Control

Policy (1989-1990);

Hon. John P. Walters, Former Director, Office of National Drug Control

Policy (2001-2009);

Hon. Robert C. Bonner, Former U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for

the Central District of California; Former Commissioner, Customs and Border

Protection (2001-2003); Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration

(1990-1993);

Hon. Peter B. Bensinger, Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration (1976-1981);

1
No party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person
other than amici and their counsel contributed money intended to fund the
preparation or submission of this brief. The parties have been notified of amici’s
intent to file this brief and have consented to its filing.
1
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

Hon. John C. Lawn, Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration (1985-1990);

Hon. Karen P. Tandy, Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration (2003-2007); Former Associate Deputy Attorney General (1999-

2003);

Hon. Michele M. Leonhart, Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration (2010-2015);

Dr. Robert DuPont, M.D., Former Director, National Institute on Drug

Abuse (1973-1978); White House Drug Policy Advisor (1973-1977); President,

Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. (1978-Present);

Hon. Bertha K. Madras, Ph.D., Former Deputy Director, Demand

Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy (2006-2009); Professor, Dept. of

Psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School;

Hon. Andrea Barthwell, M.D., Former Deputy Director for Demand

Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001-2004); Past President,

American Society of Addiction Medicine; Director, Two Dreams; Chair of the

Board, Foundation for Opioid Response Effort;

Mr. David W. Murray, Ph.D., Former Chief Scientist, Office of National

Drug Control Policy (2006-2009).

2
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

INTRODUCTION
Drug abuse is a serious problem in America. In 2017, more than 72,000

Americans died from drug overdoses. See Bobby Allyn, Justice Department

Promises Crackdown On Supervised Injection Facilities, NPR (Aug. 30, 2018),

n.pr/2zA7CEJ. Philadelphia alone accounted for more than 1,200 of those deaths.

Id. While Safehouse’s goal of curbing drug overdose deaths is admirable, its

approach is deeply flawed and dangerous. In short, Safehouse seeks to provide a

place where addicts can “safely” use pre-obtained illicit drugs under medical

supervision. That way, according to Safehouse and its amici, a healthcare

professional can stand by and intervene in the event of respiratory failure following

opioid consumption by administering a life-saving antidote once an addict overdoses

in her presence.

That approach not only defies common sense, but its effectiveness is also

unsupported by empirical evidence. While this practice may help prevent individual

deaths during a particular episode of opioid drug consumption for addicts who

participate, such a scheme offers only the illusion of helpful intervention in the long

run. First, there is the problem of inevitable tolerance developing on the part of drug

users, setting in motion the constantly escalating need for greater dosage, or

frequency of use, or potency of the drug used, for those who continue their

3
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

consumption, inclining them always in the direction of future overdose risk, unless

they change their behavior.

Second, the available literature is clear that substantial percentages of those

who utilize Safehouse or other comparable services for drug consumption are only

intermittent participants in the program, and they continue to consume illicit drugs

in settings outside the purportedly safe environment, without medical oversight

being available. Addicted persons continue to face the threat of death from overdose

when they consume outside of the facility. Though their deaths may not transpire

inside the facility itself, stark increases in aggregate drug overdose deaths in the

surrounding community show that the overall risk, even to participants, remains.

Moreover, the risks to the health of the individual from the continued exposure to

illicit drugs—such as impact on endocrine systems or weakening of the immune

system—are still present, even in the absence of an overdose episode.

The purpose of Safehouse is said, by their advocates, to “save lives.” But their

accounting of a life “saved” is shortsighted. No one who rescues a drowning man,

fallen in a river, thinks that they have accomplished their life-saving purpose if they

then simply return the man to the water. Instead of helping drug-addicted individuals

get treatment to reduce or overcome their addictions, injection sites simply

“perpetuat[e] the self-destructive cycle of addiction” and may, in fact, enable greater

4
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

drug abuse. John P. Walters, Heroin Injection Sites Perpetuate Harm, USA Today

(May 16, 2016), bit.ly/2LL9FZF. The most responsible way to support addicts is to

“help them get and stay sober” or otherwise seek appropriate treatment. Id. Indeed,

“[a]ny approach without these goals is cruel and dehumanizing—not healing, but

perpetuating harm.” Id. At bottom, “[a] government-approved place for unlimited

[drug] injection creates the conditions for never-ending addiction and gives

government a drug dealer’s power over the addicted.” Id. This Court should consider

those consequences in resolving this case, and should reverse the decision below.

ARGUMENT
I. Safehouse’s argument that so-called “safe injection” sites reduce harm
for drug-addicted individuals rests on remarkably weak evidence.

Safehouse and its amici claim that “safe injection” or “safe consumption” sites

“will save lives, connect people with treatment, reduce health problems associated

with injection drug use, [and] reduce public disorder.” Amicus Br. of Mayor Jim

Kenney et al. at 7. Those bold claims, however, remain speculative and unproven.

Safehouse and its amici tout various studies purporting to show that “[s]afe injection

sites have been shown to reduce overdose deaths, increase participation in drug

treatment programs and lessen injection drug use in public.” Amicus Br. of

Philadelphia-Area Community Orgs. at 12 (quoting Alex Kreit, Safe Injection Sites

and the Federal “Crack House” Statute, 60 Bos. C. L. Rev. 413, 416 (2019)). But

5
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

no reliable study actually shows that injection sites produce those beneficial results.

In fact, the studies they rely on are limited and often methodically flawed.

Contrary to Safehouse’s claims, there is no strong evidence that injection sites

reduce overdose deaths or otherwise have long-term positive effects on addicted

individuals. Indeed, “the research has not strongly demonstrated an overall reduction

in overdose deaths over time.” Elana Gordon, What’s The Evidence That Supervised

Drug Injection Sites Save Lives?, NPR (Sept. 7, 2018), n.pr/2WLxIwC. Scholars

have consistently insisted that in regard to injection site studies, “[n]obody should

be looking at this literature making confident conclusions,” id. (quoting Stanford

University addiction researcher Keith Humphreys), and “the science is still limited,”

id. (quoting Thomas Jefferson University professor and medical researcher Sharon

Larson). In fact, international law enforcement organizations have specifically

opposed injection site programs due to the “absen[ce] [of] greater study [and]

evaluation.” Int’l Ass’n of Chiefs of Police, Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs

Committee’s Opposition of Safe Injection Sites, bit.ly/35K2dan.

The studies that do exist suffer from major problems—often employing

insufficient methodologies and ignoring realities on the ground. That is

unsurprisingly due, in part, to “the challenge of studying an illicit behavior.” Gordon,

supra (quoting Professor Larson). And those challenges are numerous. For example,

6
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

there is often significant attrition of the studied population, most commonly losing

from the study the most severely affected individuals, thereby skewing the outcome

data towards spurious positive outcomes. Additionally, most studies are only

observational, and rely on participants’ self-reports concerning their drug-using

behavior, which are subject to faulty memory and an incapacity to accurately judge

actual consumption frequency, or volume of drug used, in the absence of any

objective behavioral measure. As such, these studies do not meet the standard of

careful case-controlled comparisons of populations. Further, many injection-site

users decline to participate in studies, do not return to the injection site for follow-

up observations, or may be too mentally ill or intoxicated to provide informed

consent to participate. See e.g. Evan Wood, et al., Attendance at Supervised Injecting

Facilities and Use of Detoxification Services, 348 New Engl. J. of Med. 2512 (June

8, 2006).

Safehouse argued below that “in a 30-year period, no person has died of a

drug overdose in any safe consumption site worldwide.” Def.’s Memo in Opposition

at 15; ECF 48. But that claim simply cannot be true. While it may be true that no

one has died on an injection site property—that statistic fails to paint the full picture.

Many addicted individuals inject illicit drugs daily—oftentimes multiple times

during the day—suggesting that the number of injection episodes within the facilities

7
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

is but a fraction of the real daily drug exposure for participants. In reality, those who

use injection facilities often also go out into the streets, use illicit drugs, and overdose

elsewhere. Yet the cited studies do not account for those deaths. In one Australian

study of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, one-third of participants

who used Sydney’s injection site still injected 80% to 95% of the time outside of the

Centre—including at home, in the street, in a restroom, or in a car. See Drug Free

Australia, Analysis of KPMG Evaluation at 2 (Oct. 2010).2

In another study of Vancouver’s injection site (INSITE), Canada’s Ministry

of Health concluded that “[i]njections at INSITE account for less than 5% of the

overall injections” in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Health Canada,

Vancouver’s INSITE Service and Other Supervised Injection Sites: What Has Been

Learned from Research? – Final Report of the Expert Advisory Committee on

Supervised Injection Site Research 18 (2008). And “[l]ess than 10% [of injection

users] used INSITE for all injections.” Id. at 17. The Health Ministry also concluded

that “[t]here is no direct evidence that SIS (Supervised Injections Sites) influence

overdose death rates and large scale and long-term, case-controlled studies would be

needed to show that SISs (Supervised Injections Sites) influence overdose death

2
That report also “found no measurable impact on drug overdose deaths” in
the evaluated areas. Id. at 2.
8
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

rates among those who use INSITE.” Id. at 21 (citations omitted). Those long-term,

case-controlled studies do not currently exist. Moreover, Canada’s Ministry of

Health determined that supervised injection sites “do not typically have the capacity

to accommodate all, or even most injections that might otherwise take place in

public.” Id. at 22.

Some studies recognize their own critical limitations, including the “number

of limitations associated with the observational nature” of these studies. Kora

DeBeck et al., Injection Drug Use Cessation and Use of North America’s First

Medically Supervised Safer Injecting Facility, 113 Drug & Alcohol Depend. 172,

175 (2011). For example, the DeBeck study stated that “the present study is limited

in that the control group included non-frequent [safe injection facility] users. As has

been described previously selecting adequate control groups is particularly

challenging in observational studies examining the use of healthcare services for

IDU.” Id. (citations omitted). That study also explicitly acknowledged that “the

observational nature of our study precludes inferences regarding causation.” Id. The

DeBeck study also suffered from definitional problems, acknowledging that their

“definition of injection cessation is restricted to a relatively short period of injection

cessation” because “addiction is recognized to be a chronic relapsing condition.” Id.

That alone casts doubt about its conclusions.

9
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

As previously noted, these studies also often rely on drug users to self-report

what constitutes their own criminal behavior, see Thomas Kerr et al., Impact of a

Medically Supervised Safer Injection Facility on Community Drug Use Patterns: A

Before and After Study, 332 BMJ 220, 222 (2006), which will inevitably skew the

results. Simply put, “studies have shown that drug users may under-report some

socially undesirable behaviours.” Id. At best, injection site studies’ claims are simply

not demonstrated and provable. At worst, they are misleading and jeopardize the

health and safely of addicted individuals.

II. Injection sites offer no proven benefits and typically have significant
negative consequences.

Where injection sites have opened, disastrous consequences have often

followed. Take Vancouver, Canada—North America’s first government-approved

injection facility—for example. The city has suffered extremely high rates of drug

use and death despite its injection site, which opened nearly two decades ago. See

Tristin Hopper, Vancouver’s drug strategy has been a disaster. Be very wary of

emulating it., Nat’l Post (May 12, 2017), bit.ly/2YPn2j0. As one investigative

journalist starkly put it, despite the city “concentrating more and more services in its

Downtown Eastside …. Everything seems to be getting worse.” Id. In fact,

homelessness, death, and violent crime have all risen in the areas where these

injection sites are concentrated. Id. Although injection site proponents in Vancouver
10
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

cite studies purporting to show that “supervised injection facilities can help people

quit drugs,” the truth is that “[t]o date, there is no definitive, long-term data showing

that Vancouver’s injection drug users are successfully getting clean and kicking

drugs because of safe injection.” Id.

Additionally, drug dealers congregate around these facilities and target

vulnerable individuals. This perpetuates the cycle of addiction. Though several

studies claim that the operation of these facilities does not demonstrably increase

drug use, the evidence for this claim is minimal, since it relies on self-reports from

current participants that they, themselves, have not increased their consumption

during the study period. There is no feasible means, methodologically, for these

studies to measure the actual aggregate impact on community drug prevalence rates

as affected by these facilities, nor to account for potential erosion of anti-drug norms

that underpin successful deterrence or prevention programs. Such facilities are “a

death sentence for [] already chaotic and drug-ridden neighbourhood[s].” Id. And

while “[a]dvocates for injection sites claim various ‘successes,’” the fact is that

“very few who use these facilities are persuaded to enter treatment and reach

recovery.” Walters, supra.

In fact, the ready provision of a facility, in circumstances where drug buying

opportunities are abundant and police pressure is reduced, may actually undercut the

11
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

incentive for users to enter treatment and sustain recovery. Continued drug use,

particularly injection drug use, presents high-risk behavior leading to a multitude of

medical pathologies. The goal should be to alter those high-risk behaviors that place

the user in jeopardy. Perversely, safe injection facilities serve to sustain the high-

risk behaviors, when investing in successful drug treatment and recovery programs

can diminish these risks. Sadly, many “staff do not want to alienate patients by

counselling or pressuring them to seek treatment.” Hopper, supra. And “[m]any

addicts using such facilities do not stop using heroin and other such drugs from

criminal sources—the ‘safe facility’ is simply another place for drugs. Addicts are

often abusers of multiple drugs and alcohol. Injection facilities sustain all of this.”

Walters, supra.

In reality, “[t]here are no ‘safe [drug] injection sites.’” Id. Indeed, “[t]he only

‘safe’ approach to [dangerous drugs] is not to take [them].” Id. Despite the

unfortunate consequences of injection sites in other countries, efforts remain strong

to bring them to the United States. Dr. Andrea Barthwell, former deputy director of

demand reduction for the White House Drug Policy Office stated that such initiatives

“will only serve to prolong suffering and disease.” Allison Gandey, U.S. Slams

Canada over Vancouver’s New Drug Injection Site, Canadian Med. Ass’n J. (Nov.

12
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

11, 2003), bit.ly/2AhpggY. Indeed, “injection rooms will help people continue the

behaviour and will send a societal message that drug use is acceptable.” Id.

In the end, “[s]upporting addicts’ [drug] use maintains their disease,

administering the poison that causes their illness and diminishes their lives.”

Walters, supra. “Such proposals require us to suppress common sense and adopt

heartless indifference to the lives of the addicted. We do not protect addicts by

reviving them from overdose death only to return them to death’s front door,

perpetuating the self-destructive cycle of addiction.” Id. This Court should not

sanction such a dangerous social experiment.

CONCLUSION
The Court should reverse the decision below.

Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREY M. HARRIS
Counsel of Record
TIFFANY H. BATES
CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
1600 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 243-9423
jeff@consovoymccarthy.com

May 21, 2020 Counsel for Amicus Curiae

13
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this brief complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and (6) because it has been prepared in proportionally

spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2020 in Times New Roman 14-point font.

This brief also complies with the type-volume limitations, which limit amicus curiae

briefs to 6,500 words. This brief contains 2,614 words.

I further certify that I am a member of the bar of this Court. This brief has

been scanned for viruses with Gmail’s anti-virus software and no virus was detected.

Any paper copies of this brief that this Court might order amici to file will be

identical to the electronic version.

By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Harris .

14
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 21, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via the Court’s

CM/ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to all counsel who are

registered CM/ECF users.

By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Harris .

15
 Case:
UNITED20-1422
STATESDocument:
COURT OF 31APPEALS
Page: 20 Date THIRD
FOR THE Filed: 05/21/2020
CIRCUIT

No. 20-1422

United States of America vs. Safehouse, et al.

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Please the list names of all parties represented, using additional sheet(s) if necessary:

List attached.
Indicate the party’s role IN THIS COURT (check only one):

____ Petitioner(s) ____ Appellant(s) ____ Intervenor(s)

____ Respondent(s) ____ Appellee(s) ✔ Amicus Curiae

____

(Type or Print) Counsel’s Name Jeffrey M. Harris

________________________________________________________________
✔ Mr.
____ ____ Ms. ____ Mrs. ____ Miss ____ Mx.

Firm Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC

Address 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700

City, State, Zip Code Arlington, VA 22209

Phone (703) 243-9423 Fax

Primary E-Mail Address (required) jeff@consovoymccarthy.com

Additional E-Mail Address (1) tiffany@consovoymccarthy.com
Additional E-Mail Address (2)
Additional E-Mail Address (3)

If your organization has created a common or general email address for purposes of receiving
ECF notices, that common email address MUST be one of the listed additional email addresses.
Notices generated from the Court’s ECF system will be sent to both the primary e-mail and additional
e-mail addresses. You are limited to 3 additional e-mail addresses.

SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL: /s/ Jeffrey M. Harris

COUNSEL WHO FAIL TO FILE AN ENTRY OF APPEARANCE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
NOTICES OR COPIES OF DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BRIEFS AND APPENDICES. ONLY
ATTORNEYS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT’S BAR OR WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A
PROPERLY COMPLETED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION MAY FILE AN APPEARANCE FORM.

A non-government attorney who is not currently in active status will be required to file the Attorney
Admission Renewal /Adjustment of Status Form in order to proceed with the case. Bar admission is
waived for Federal and Virgin Island government attorneys.

REV. 5/7/2019
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

List of Amici

Hon. William J. Bennett, Former Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy

(1989-1990);

Hon. John P. Walters, Former Director, Office of National Drug Control

Policy (2001-2009);

Hon. Robert C. Bonner, Former U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for

the Central District of California; Former Commissioner, Customs and Border

Protection (2001-2003); Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration

(1990-1993);

Hon. Peter B. Bensinger, Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration (1976-1981);

Hon. John C. Lawn, Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration (1985-1990);

Hon. Karen P. Tandy, Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration (2003-2007); Former Associate Deputy Attorney General (1999-

2003);

Hon. Michele M. Leonhart, Former Administrator, Drug Enforcement

Administration (2010-2015);
 Case: 20-1422 Document: 31 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/21/2020

Dr. Robert DuPont, M.D., Former Director, National Institute on Drug

Abuse (1973-1978); White House Drug Policy Advisor (1973-1977); President,

Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. (1978-Present);

Hon. Bertha K. Madras, Ph.D., Former Deputy Director, Demand

Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy (2006-2009); Professor, Dept. of

Psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School;

Hon. Andrea Barthwell, M.D., Former Deputy Director for Demand

Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001-2004); Past President,

American Society of Addiction Medicine; Director, Two Dreams; Chair of the

Board, Foundation for Opioid Response Effort;

Mr. David W. Murray, Ph.D., Former Chief Scientist, Office of National

Drug Control Policy (2006-2009).