Liberals - The Ends Justify the Means > EU subsidizes left-leaning groups to lobby itself; Greenpeace lawsuit forces Netherlands to cut nitrogen use

 

Enviromental(sic) groups got EU subsidies to lobby for Timmermans' green plans: report

NL Times

The European Commission has been paying subsidies to environmental groups with the condition that they lobby for the Commission’s green plans, the Telegraaf reports based on a subsidy contract with one environmental group that it has in its possession. Environmental organizations also got subsidies to promote the green plans of former European Commissioner Frans Timmermans, according to the newspaper.

The money came from a pot for climate and environmental subsidies, and many came with conditions, the newspaper wrote. For example, the European Environmental Bureau - an umbrella organization of green organizations in Europe, including Milieudefensie and Natuurmonumenten from the Netherlands - was explicitly instructed to provide at least 16 examples of how the European Parliament has made green legislation more ambitious thanks to their lobbying. The umbrella group also promoted Timmermans’ Nature Restoration Act and had to steer the farmers’ debate in the green direction, according to the contract the Telegraaf has in its possession.

As a member of the budget control committee, NSC Member of the European Parliament Dirk Gotink and several colleagues are now investigating the subsidy contracts with environmental groups. “There were even lobby lists with names of politicians who had to be approached,” he told the Telegraaf. “This is not a smear campaign against the environmental movement. Of course, they are allowed to lobby. I am targeting the European Commission. This seems to be a highly orchestrated interplay between a green coalition led by Timmermans and a left-wing majority in the European Parliament.”

Timmermans is now back in Dutch politics as the parliamentary leader of GroenLinks-PvdA - the biggest opposition party to the Schoof I coalition, which includes the NSC.

“I want to know whether this also applies to other themes, such as migration,” Gotink said. “Brussels is the lobbying capital of Europe: is this a bad apple or is it a widespread practice?”

The European Environmental Bureau responded to the Telegraaf’s accusations with criticism. “A flourishing democracy requires resources that enable the voice of citizens to reach decision-makers,” Secretary General Patrick ten Brink said in a written response. “Unlike actors with much resources, such as foreign governments and multinationals, European citizens and their civil society organizations often do not have sufficient resources. EU support is needed to ensure a level playing field.”

Did the farmers have a level playing field, or were they plowing uphill all the way because you supported the green madness that farmers are a major factor in climate change?

Dutch government ordered to cut nitrogen emissions

by 2030 or face $10M penalty

By Chris Benson

Members of Greenpeace protest in front of the court in The Hague, the Netherlands, on Wednesday. A judge ruled for Greenpeace Netherlands' merits against the state. Greenpeace demands that nitrogen emissions be drastically reduced to protect nitrogen-sensitive nature. Photo By Phil Nijhuis/EPA-EFE

Jan. 22 (UPI) -- A European court has ordered the Dutch government to cut nitrogen pollution in designated protected areas or face a $10 million penalty, according to new information.

"This ruling is a celebration for nature, and finally there is clarity," Andy Palmen, director of Greenpeace Netherlands, said Wednesday.

The non-governmental organization revealed in November its intent to take the administration of Prime Minister Dick Schoof to court due to "excessive nitrogen emissions" and over the government's "inadequate nitrogen approach," arguing that the "most vulnerable" parts of Holland's nature preserves were "in danger of being irreparably damaged or even disappearing if no action is taken quickly."

The Hague verdict will require Schoof's government to make certain at least half of the country's vulnerable habitats fall below a harmful nitrogen threshold by 2030.

Palmen says the ruling means the government will have to "come up with proposals that will finally give farmers clarity and support them in a fair way in the necessary transition to ecological agriculture."

However, an appeal on Wednesday's ruling is viewed as likely.

Excessive nitrogen emissions, meanwhile, are largely caused by livestock farming mixed with transportation and industrial pollution.

This follows similar efforts in nations such as France, Germany and Ireland.

A 2021 ruling by the European Union's Court of Justice determined that Germany had for years "systematically and persistently" violated pollution limits and allowed excessive nitrogen dioxide to be emitted across German cities such as Berlin, Stuttgart, Hamburg and Cologne.

On Wednesday, Palmen added that the Netherlands has been "postponing" measures that left society, particularly Dutch farmers and companies, in a state of "uncertainty," he said, after a series of 2019 rulings trigger a wave of new measures which lead to massive farmer protests.

It arrived after Schoof's right-wing Cabinet in June last year slashed a more than $25 billion transition fund put in place by ex-Prime Minister Mark Rutte. That fund was designed for supporting sustainability efforts and buying land.

Schoof instead opted to focus on tech solutions or other voluntary measures hoping to cut back on nitrogen emissions without stoking civil unrest in parts of the small European country roughly the size of Maryland.

Greenpeace, however, requested that the court test the government's nitrogen policy against the European Birds and Habitats Directive. The Netherlands has roughly 160 spots that could fall under it.

So, it's not the people Greenpeace is concerned about, it's the birds! Perhaps they should drop the "peace" from their name.

The annual cost of damage caused by nitrogen across Europe was between $98 billion and $450 billion, according to a 2011 study by the European Nitrogen Assessment. It concluded nearly 15 years ago that nitrogen pollution at the time was costing each European citizen anywhere from $200 to $1,000 annually.

One would think the EU would notice a line item like that in their budget.

Palmen said that systemically ignoring the nitrogen emission problem has in recent years caused further deterioration in nature.

In November, Greenpeace called it at a hearing the "last chance to save the most vulnerable habitats because if nitrogen emissions don't go down, we risk losing unique plants and animals."

"By not making choices, urgent measures must now be taken," Palmen said Wednesday. "We expect the government to finally take responsibility in the action plan and ensure that all relevant sectors, including agriculture, traffic, aviation and industry, make a fair contribution."

The international environmental action group was born in Canada in 1971 when a ragtag group of anti-nuclear protesters calling themselves the 'Don't Make A Wave Committee' sailed into the Amchitka nuclear test zone in Alaska in an attempt to stop testing.

"It has been so long that the judge has now intervened," Palmen said on the verdict. "It is a celebration without cake, because it should not be necessary for the judge to intervene again."

Without cake - because they need farmers to grow the wheat?

Corruption is Everywhere > Steele Dossier Source Arrested; Dem Black Caucus Pres Pleads Guilty; UK MP Resigns After Investigation

..

DOJ says federal agents arrested analyst involved in anti-Trump

‘Steele Dossier’

4 Nov, 2021 14:34 

US agents have arrested the Russian analyst who served as the primary source for Christopher Steele’s dossier of salacious gossip about Donald Trump. The dossier was used to justify FBI wiretapping on Trump’s campaign.

Igor Danchenko was arrested on Thursday at the behest of Special Counsel John Durham, the New York Times first reported. The Department of Justice later confirmed the arrest and said Danchenko is scheduled to appear before a US magistrate judge.

Durham had been assigned by former President Donald Trump to investigate allegations of wrongdoing in the FBI’s so-called ‘Russiagate’ probe, which examined supposed links between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

A former staffer at the Brookings Institution, Danchenko served as the primary source of much of the information that would make it into former British spy Christopher Steele’s now-notorious dossier.

The dossier ended up being used by the FBI to obtain permission to spy on Trump’s campaign, with this counterintelligence operation eventually spiralling into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ‘Russiagate’ investigation. Mueller would later find that no collusion occurred between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Another disgraceful exhibition of political corruption by the FBI! 

Steele, who had been hired by a Democrat opposition research firm to dig up dirt on Trump, swallowed everything Danchenko fed him, even though Danchenko would reportedly tell the FBI that he never intended the gossip he fed Steele to end up being involved in a criminal investigation. 

In 2019, the Justice Department’s Inspector-General heavily criticized the FBI for continuing to cite the dossier even after the agency interviewed Danchenko and learned that the information within was suspect.

This information included unproven claims that Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, flew to Prague to meet with Russian officials in secret, and scandalous allegations that the Russian government had recorded prostitutes urinating on Trump in a Moscow hotel room - the so-called “pee tape.”

Though the contents of the dossier have long been discredited, Steele told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos last month that he stood by the claims about Cohen, even though the FBI and Mueller’s investigation deemed them untrue. Steele also insisted that the pee tape “probably does” exist - but that Moscow hasn’t released it because “the Russians felt they’d got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president.”

Why was the badly discredited Steele on ABC News? Where were the cancel culture people?

Danchenko was released on a $100,000 bond later in the day. He was ordered to surrender his passport and not travel outside the Washington, DC area, but will not have to wear an electronic monitor.

Before becoming involved in the Steele Dossier debacle, Danchenko had come to the attention of US authorities and was investigated by the FBI a decade earlier for allegedly serving as a “Russian agent” in the US. Danchenko denied the accusation.

Former president of Broward County Democratic Black Caucus

pleads guilty to $300,000 Covid relief fraud scheme

4 Nov, 2021 02:05

FILE PHOTO: A page from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan application form used to obtain financial support for businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic. ©  Reuters / Lucas Jackson

The ex-president of the Democratic Black Caucus in one of Florida’s largest counties has pleaded guilty to fraud, admitting she bilked the government for $300,000 in Covid-19 relief funds using a bogus front company.

Damara Holness, 28, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida entered a guilty plea to one count of fraud on Wednesday, according to the Department of Justice, which noted that the accused served as the head of the Broward County Democratic Black Caucus at the time of the fraud scheme.

Holness, who is also the daughter of Broward County Commissioner Dale Holness, acknowledged that she applied for a federally guaranteed Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan worth $300,000 in June 2020 under the pretext the funds would support her company. While she claimed her firm, Holness Consulting, employed 18 people and spent some $120,000 each month on payroll, “in fact, Holness Consulting had zero employees and no payroll expenses,” the DOJ said, adding that she used fraudulent tax forms on the application.

The former caucus president then spent several months creating an elaborate paper trail to give the appearance her company was paying out the PPP funds to employees as intended, enlisting others in the scheme to cash checks on behalf of non-existent workers and kick the money back to Holness. The accomplices received “a few hundred dollars” for their role in the plot while Holness kept the rest of the money for herself, amounting to around $1,000 per check, according to the DOJ. 

Previous reporting by Fort Lauderdale’s Sun-Sentinel, citing city records, showed that Holness’ company was originally created in 2018 and dissolved a year later – before the Covid-19 pandemic kicked off – but was re-established just five days before she applied for the PPP funds through an online form. 

Holness, who was first charged in August, is set to be sentenced in January 2022. She faces up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 if convicted. Though the DOJ stated Holness is a “past president” of Broward’s Democratic Black Caucus, it is unclear when she stopped serving in that position. The organization’s website offers scant information about its leadership, and a Twitter page that appears to belong to Holness, which is now locked, still names her as president of the caucus in its bio. 

Tory MP accused of corruption resigns from ‘cruel world’

of politics after govt U-turn

4 Nov, 2021 15:51

Owen Paterson (FILE PHOTO) © REUTERS/Peter Nicholls/File Photo

Conservative Owen Paterson has resigned as the MP for North Shropshire amid an ongoing lobbying scandal that forced the government into an embarrassing U-turn. Paterson has vowed to remain a “public servant.”

In a statement on Thursday, Paterson said that, after consulting with his family, he would be resigning from politics. The MP was deemed by the Commons Standards Committee to have broken the rules when he used his position as MP to lobby for two companies he worked for as an adviser. The roles paid him some £100,000 a year on top of his Commons salary.

“I maintain that I am totally innocent of what I have been accused of and I acted at all times in the interests of public health and safety,” he said in his resignation letter, adding that the current system did not give him the chance to clear his name. The MP described the decision as “painful” but the right one, adding: “I will remain a public servant but outside the cruel world of politics.” 

Beyond having his integrity questioned, Paterson said the suicide of his wife, Rose, was ultimately “far, far worse.” According to emails leaked last month, the MP previously claimed there was “no doubt” that the “cruel” Commons inquiry into his alleged lobbying played a role in her suicide in June 2020.  

In his resignation letter on Thursday, the politician claimed that the last few days have been “intolerable” for the family, noting that some MPs “publicly mocked and derided” his wife’s death. His children had asked him to resign from politics, he said.

It's astonishing how adolescent MPs can be. You would think they would be somewhat mature.

Parliament was in the process of deciding whether Paterson should be suspended for the lobbying. On Wednesday, the government proposed restructuring the way the Commons disciplinary process operates in an effort to back their MP. The government later U-turned after a public backlash, as it became apparent that there would be no cross-party consensus.  

Earlier on Thursday, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons, said that the government would give details on a new vote concerning the MP’s potential suspension in due course.  

Last week, the Commons Standards Committee concluded that Paterson misused his position, following a critical report on his behaviour by Standards Commissioner Kathryn Stone. The committee recommended that he be suspended for 30 sitting days. 

US Big Pharma Allowed to Continue Hiding ‘Intimidating’ Price Info from Customers in TV Ads

Corruption is Everywhere - While this may not technically fit the definition of corruption, what do you call it when Congress puts the profits of lobbyists over the welfare of the people they are supposed to be serving?

© Pixabay / TBIT

A federal judge has stepped in to save drug companies from a new rule that would have forced them to disclose drug prices in TV ads, ruling that the Department of Health and Human Services lacks authority over the industry.

“No matter how vexing the problem of spiraling drug costs may be, [Health and Human Services] cannot do more than what Congress has authorized,” US District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled on Monday, blocking the order, which was due to go into effect on Tuesday.

Amgen, Merck, and Eli Lilly, three of the largest US drug companies, and the Association of National Advertisers filed the lawsuit last month, claiming HHS lacked the legal authority to enforce the rule, which would have mandated that pharmaceutical ads display the list price of a 30-day supply of any drug covered under Medicare or Medicaid costing more than $35. The suit also claimed the order violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, but Mehta’s ruling didn’t address that argument.

Drug companies complained the rule would “confuse” and “intimidate” patients because insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid, negotiate discounts with drug companies, meaning the list price, often much higher, could cause sticker shock. But that argument got little sympathy from HHS secretary Alex Azar, who told the companies when he announced the rule in May:

If you’re ashamed of your drug prices,

change your drug prices. It’s that simple.

The US is one of only two countries worldwide where direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is legal, and it is a massive market – $5.2 billion in 2016, according to CBS. According to HHS, the 10 most-advertised drugs have list prices from $488 to $16,938 per month or for a typical therapeutic course, numbers that would surely terrify the average consumer. 

President Donald Trump has made lowering the costs of prescription drugs one of his signature domestic issues, and the HHS rule was designed to bring those costs down, under the reasoning that pharmaceutical companies would be so embarrassed to float those gargantuan numbers on their ads that they’d cut the prices voluntarily.

Much of pharmaceutical advertising remains TV-based and the pharmaceutical industry has argued that it should be allowed to include pricing information on a dedicated website named in the ad. While it might seem absurd to expect consumers to drop everything and open their web browsers after seeing a TV ad they weren’t looking for in the first place, drug companies’ influence in Congress – they spent $4.1 billion on lobbying over the last 20 years, according to OpenSecrets.org, more than any other industry – means they tend to get what they want.

And the people have to pay the exorbitant profits of big pharma as well as the lobbying money that goes into the pockets of the country's lawmakers. As if they weren't already paying them enough.

Flurry of Gun Control Bills Pass Across US as Everytown Delights in ‘Winning’ Against Gun Lobby

Guns - third leading cause of death among USA children - 1300 per year

© Rick Wilking / Reuters

Gun control advocates are celebrating a slew of legislation passed across the country. Domestic abusers are targeted in new bills passed by five states, while other states have enhanced their background checks for purchasing firearms.

Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Tennessee and Utah all passed new restrictions on firearms for domestic abusers, according to Everytown for Gun Safety group, which is funded by billionaire and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Overall, 23 states have enhanced the laws around domestic abusers since 2013, says the gun control advocacy group.

"When you look at what's happening in statehouses across the country, the gun safety movement is winning in state after state — even in this challenging political environment — because volunteers and gun violence survivors have become the counterweight to the gun lobby," said Shannon Watts, who founded Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a part of Everytown.

Hawaii, Tennessee and Washington state passed new laws requiring that police be notified when anyone who fails to pass a background check tries to buy a gun.

Many of these measures were passed with the support of Republican lawmakers and governors, even though the party itself has promised to roll back restrictions on guns and not to allow new ones, points out Everytown.

Gun regulation advocates claimed victory and a loss for the gun lobby, noting that attempts to repeal background checks in Iowa and Nebraska failed, while 17 of 18 states rejected bills to allow guns in schools and 14 of 16 states rejected bills to allow guns on college campuses.

Additionally, 20 of 22 states didn’t pass bills that would have eliminated requirements for permits to carry guns, a top priority for the National Rifle Association, Everytown wrote in its new “report card.”

The new gun regulations could be challenged in front of the Supreme Court, but in the past nine years, SCOTUS has avoided most Second Amendment cases, including those challenging state and local restrictions.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Meanwhile, statistics of gun violence in the country are grim.

Last month, a study found that shootings in the US kill nearly 1,300 children every year, making it the third leading cause of mortality among children after accidents and congenital disease, the study said.

South Dakota Lawmakers Back At It

Fraud on voters? S. Dakota lawmakers repeal lobbying, financing reforms passed by residents

South Dakota State Capitol © wikipedia.org

The South Dakota Legislature has wasted little time in attacking an ethics reform package approved by state voters in November that limits lobbyist gifts, lowers campaign contribution limits and creates public funding for campaigns.

Beginning Monday, the Republican-led Legislature in Pierre has sought to pass a repeal bill that would void the ethics provisions passed via a ballot initiative two months ago. The measure, passed by more than 51 percent of voters, is known as Initiated Measure 22 (IM 22).

IM 22's provisions also include the formation of a state ethics commission, more frequent campaign contribution reporting and limits on when former lawmakers can become lobbyists.

The repeal bill was scheduled for a full state Senate vote on Thursday after passing through a Senate committee on Wednesday and a full House of Representatives vote on Tuesday. However, further debate on the legislation was postponed in the afternoon. The Senate will pick up debate next week, according to AP.

Like his fellow state Republicans, Governor Dennis Daugaard, who is supportive of the repeal effort, has argued that IM 22 was poorly written, overly broad, possibly unconstitutional and pushed by influences outside of South Dakota.

"[Voters] were hoodwinked by scam artists who grossly misrepresented these proposed measures," Daugaard said, according to the New York Times.

Republicans and others have filed a lawsuit against the state that challenges IM 22, prompting a judge to grant a preliminary injunction on the reform effort while the legal process unfolds.

Supporters of ethics reform are calling on lawmakers to heed the voters' wishes and follow IM 22's demands. On Monday, at a legislative committee hearing on the repeal bill, supporters said voiding IM 22 would set a dangerous precedent.

"The problem with repeal and replace is, what we've said from the beginning, that it repeals what the voters asked for and replaces it with something we didn't have a direct say in,"said Doug Kronaizi, spokesman for Represent South Dakota.

Speaking of the numerous scandals that have occurred within state government in recent years, the Capital Journal editorial board wrote that IM 22 came about because voters "were fed up" and chose to back IM 22, despite its flaws.

"We say South Dakotans voted for more transparency and better accountability from their elected officials when they passed IM 22 last year," the board wrote this week. "The legislature owes it to their constituents to give them what they asked for."

What, you mean real democracy? You mean legislators who are not in the pockets of big business? How utterly unAmerican!

On Monday, the same day the state House debated the repeal bill, a legislative committee met to discuss disciplinary action regarding Rep. Matthew Wollman, a Republican, who admitted last week to having consensual sex with multiple legislative interns. Wollman resigned Monday.

In its 2015 report on each state's government transparency and accountability, the Center for Public Integrity gave South Dakota the second-worst score out of all 50 states.

"Across the board, the state lacks robust laws to prevent corruption, apparently the result of a sense, at least among South Dakota’s ruling class, that burdensome controls are not needed in a rural state with a supposedly high degree of familiarity, trust and cordiality," the nonprofit said.

Right!

Big Pharma Spent $880mn on Keeping Opioids Available – Report

If there is anyone alive out there who thinks for one second that the pharmaceutical industry is in any way interested in your health, give your head a shake. Big pharma is interested in one thing only - your money. They don't even care if you kill yourself on prescription drugs, as long as you do it on their drugs. 

When did good corporate citizenship give way to nearly maniacal greed? When did responsibility give way to 'profits - no matter how many people we kill' mentality? And the Senators and Congressmen who sell their souls for a few campaign dollars are the most pathetic of all. They are supposed to represent us, but they are of the same mentality as big pharma. What a sick world!



© Gretchen Ertl / Reuters

In the midst of one of the worst drug epidemics in the US, a report found that the money spent on keeping painkillers regularly prescribed has overshadowed even anti-gun lobbying efforts and may be behind the opioid epidemic ravaging the nation.

The opioid crisis has reached a point where police officers carry Narcan when responding to calls due to the risk of accidental fentanyl exposure. But it may not have had to be like this, as multiple bills that would have limited opioid prescriptions were put in front of state governments.

However, very few of those bills passed, due to aggressive lobbying efforts from the drugmakers that rivaled in size those of anti-gun control groups. In fact, pharmaceutical companies spent more money lobbying against opioid restrictions than tobacco groups in 1998 when they were facing litigation from 40 states.

"The opioid lobby has been doing everything it can to preserve the status quo of aggressive prescribing," Dr. Andrew Kolodny, an opioid reform advocate, told the Associated Press. "They are reaping enormous profits from aggressive prescribing."

The opioid industry and its allied groups, such as the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACSCAN), spent $880 million on lobbying across the country and contributing to political campaigns. An average 1,350 lobbyists were employed by the drugmakers and their groups to maintain a presence in state capitals and be prepared to act quickly when faced with opposing political activity, according to the report.

In 2012, lawmakers received reports on a “crisis of epidemic proportions” that was wreaking havoc on 40 percent of Americans: chronic pain. Some researchers doubt the validity of the study that claims over 100 million Americans suffer from the condition. The study made no mention of the rising numbers of overdoses from OxyContin, Vicodin and Percocet that had quadrupled from 1999 until 2012.

That same year, Senator Bernadette Sanchez (D-New Mexico) sponsored a bill that would have limited initial opioid prescriptions for acute pain to seven-day doses. The purpose of this measure was to make addiction less likely and provide fewer pills that could be resold on the black market.

The measure did not make it past the House Judiciary Committee.

“The lobbyists behind the scenes were killing it,” Sanchez told the AP.

The report found that in 2012, drug companies and their affiliates contributed about $40,000 to various New Mexico campaigns.

In 2014, New Mexico would be home to the second highest death rate from drug overdoses.

“Here in New Mexico we are facing an epidemic,” US Attorney Damon Martinez told the New York Times.

New Mexico is home to the second highest American Indian population in the US and the Native population has been hit particularly hard by opioid addiction. American Indian students had rates of using heroin and OxyContin two to three times higher than the national averages from 2009 to 2012, the New York Times reported.

In 2007, OxyContin manufacturer Purdue paid $600 million in fines after pleading guilty to “misbranding” the drug, which misled doctors, patients and regulators about OxyContin’s high rates of addiction and risk of abuse.

In 2014, the pain study that senators received gained more attention. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cited it as a reason to keep painkillers accessible, but Michael Von Korff, a contributing researcher to the study, did not believe that the conclusion lawmakers and pharmaceutical companies were drawing from his work was correct.

Korff told the AP that the study represented “people with run-of-the-mill pain problems who are already managing them pretty well.” Korff is also a member of the Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, but found the figure of 100 million people with pain to be the centerpiece for lobbying efforts that cost the Pain Care Forum nearly $19 million.

An investigation found that nine out of 19 experts involved in the report had served as leaders in various groups that received funding from the painkiller industry, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

In July, a bill meant to tackle the drug addiction epidemic was stripped of its $920 million funding by Republican senators. Meanwhile, the report found that opioid sales topped $9.6 billion last year – more than 10 times what the US government would have allocated to expand treatment options. In the last decade alone, Purdue has generated over $22 billion from opioid sales.

Pharmaceutical companies are not solely trying to crush any potential limitation on their products. They’ve been long pushing bills that are meant to combat the opioid abuse. But those bills also involve a new cash cow for the drugmakers: patent-protected abuse-deterrent opioids with extended release.

Some experts are hesitant to believe that abuse-deterrent opioids will be the remedy for the opioid crisis, however.

“The FDA shouldn’t be allowing these drugs to be labeled as ‘abuse-deterrent’ because they don’t really deter abuse–they deter misuse by specific routes,” Andrew Kolodny, the executive director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing and senior scientist at Brandeis University's Heller School for Social Policy and Management, told Forbes.

“If a pill has been made difficult to crush, it should be labeled ‘crush resistant,” or “One of the main problems with calling them ‘abuse deterrent’ is that the terms ‘abuse’ and ‘addiction’ are often used interchangeably.”

In simple terms, making these drugs more difficult to abuse does not mean they aren’t addictive. According to Kolodny, they are “every bit as addictive and patients can become addicted taking pills exactly as prescribed.”

“If doctors make the mistake of thinking ADF opioids are less addictive, they may continue to over prescribe,” he added.

The other issue with the abuse-deterrent pills is that they are no deterrent of profits for pharmaceutical companies. Pennsylvania’s state senate will hear a bill that requires health insurance plans to cover abuse-deterrent painkillers with a patented formulation and cost three to five times more than standard painkillers, according to New Castle News.

The bill was lobbied by Purdue Pharma and written from recommendations of an opioid task force that met in private, held no public hearings and included pharmaceutical industry representatives. Its wording is nearly identical to at least 21 other bills in the country.

The FDA has held back on making bold stances on the opioid epidemic. Some limitations have been placed on prescribers, such as adding new warnings to immediate-release opioids but the federal agency has refused to require training doctors in writing safer prescriptions.

In fact, the first federal guidelines on reducing opioid prescriptions came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The recommendations advise that chronic pain sufferers look into non-opioid pain relievers and work with physical therapy. The resistance to these suggestions included threats of congressional investigation and legal action.