Election Day is November 2

I am studying the ballot for the upcoming election. I tend to NOT pay attention to the commercials … especially if they are bad mouthing an opponent. I don’t want to focus on what someone else does badly; I want to know what you ARE going to do – what is your position? It’s easy to whine and complain about others; it’s harder to stand up and give your word and your positions.

As many of you know, I am interested in what the North Carolina legislature is going to do regarding the war on prescription pain medication abuse/addiction/diversion (while not impacting the rights and privacy of people with pain). So, I emailed the four people who are running to represent me in the state house and senate.

I asked them: The State of North Carolina is considering what actions to take to fight the war on prescription medicines and to reduce unintentional poisonings/deaths. NC sheriffs are asking for enhanced access to the NC Controlled Substances Reporting System so they can have access to those people who fill prescriptions for opioid medicines. The FDA says that opioids are an integral tool in fighting pain. There are privacy issues. There are health issues. They are abuse/addiction/diversion issues. Law enforcement, people with pain, doctors, pharmacists, etc., all have valid opinions. Where do you stand on this issue?

• Nelson Dollar, incumbent representative: did not respond.
• Robin Anderson, running for representative: did not respond.
• Richard Stevens, incumbent senator: responded one week later saying, “You are right, this is not a simple issue. In general I am supportive of legislation that gives law enforcement the ability to vigorously fight crime. I also support an individual's right to privacy. If you want an either or answer, I would tell you that in this case I favor law enforcement. However, as I do on any legislation on which I vote in the General assembly, I look at the details of the bill to make sure it does what it is intended to do. If the legislation goes too far in invading an individual's right to privacy, I would seek to amend it in Committee or in the full Senate. Failing that, I would most likely vote against the bill.”
• David Donovan, running for senate: responded within 24 hours saying, “Thank you for your e-mail and thank you for visiting the web site and taking the time to get informed. You ask a good question. This is a very important issue, and when the proposal first came up in committee last month, I approached several pharmacists for their opinions on this question, including a number of pharmacists who've supported my campaign. While abuse of painkillers is a serious public health concern, I can't support opening up people's private medical information to law enforcement officers in the absence of a valid warrant. Right now, doctors and pharmacists have access to the database, and law enforcement can access it with a search warrant, and I would like to improve the current policy to require better compliance from pharmacies. Still, most people who require painkiller medications need them for legitimate medical purposes and use them responsibly. I think it would be violation of people's medical privacy to grant a general right of access to such private information, and so I do not support the current proposal, preferring to pursue other means of reducing painkiller abuse without infringing on the privacy rights of patients generally. I hope you find this answer helpful and thorough, and I would be grateful to have your support when early voting begins. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.”

I bet you can guess which response hit a home run with me. I realize that is just ONE issue, but it’s an important one to me. If it’s important to you, take heed! VOTE!