CrackPipeGate Just Got a Lot More Interesting—and Confusing – Opinion

Did they or didn’t they? The question many people are asking is about the White House crack pipe financing scandal. When it was first reported that the Biden administration would be funding the distribution of crack pipes to underserved communities as part of “smoking kits,” it seemed like a Babylon Bee headline. However, the…” Washington Free Beacon’s The report expressed serious concern about funding for such questionable drug-consuming sources.

Even more attention was paid to the matter after the White House discredited claims that the grant would be used for distribution of paraphernalia which would permit the consumption crack cocaine or meth. The issue is now under scrutiny after several reports came in from various sources. Washington PostThe rebuttal of the Free BeaconThis issue is even more complex.

It Washington PostA report that covered the crack pipe debate was published. It also added additional details to the story. This report outlined the story, from beginning to end. This is what the author said:

We thought that we knew what was happening, despite having covered Washington for over three decades. The Department of Health and Human Services official statement seemed more precise than the blunt White House comments. It was obvious that a sub-agency was working on a program, and it confirmed these plans to a reporter. After the White House was alerted, top officials at the main agency responded, and we were able to create a much more precise policy.

It seems that the Administration reversed its plans to distribute crack pipes following the events. Free BeaconPublication of its report. The report was not published. PostDiscussed the email exchange between Free BeaconPatrick Hauf is a reporter and Patrick Hauf is a spokesperson from the Media Office at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is part of Department of Health and Human Services.

After watching the webinar on the HHS grant, Hauf reached out the SAMHSA to inquire about harm reduction programs that include smoking kit. “One of the listed types of equipment qualified to be purchased with grant money is ‘safe smoking kits/supplies.’ Could you please specify what these kits are and how they can help with harm reduction in communities?” the reporter asked.

Christopher Garrett (a spokesperson for SAMHSA) replied to Hauf the following:

Neglecting to quit smoking can result in open sores or cuts and burns on your lips. It can also increase your risk of getting infected if you smoke marijuana. The spread of diseases can be reduced by using safe smoking tools. Harm Reduction Program applicants should justify the use of grant funds to buy supplies for safe smoking. Federal funding for harm reduction must comply with all applicable laws and regulations in relation to these programs and services.

Garrett did not give any details about the material in the smokeless kits. He only described the purpose of the products.

Hauf asked a follow-up question: “Just to confirm, these kits intended to help users reduce risk when smoking crack and meth?”

Garrett responded: “I wouldn’t limit to those two substances. It would reference ‘any illicit substance.’”

The spokesman did not mention crack pipes being included in the kits during the exchange. Hauf didn’t ask specifically about whether drug paraphernalia would make it into the program. The evidence suggests that Free BeaconPipes would have been included in the report because of other harm reduction programs that were previously implemented. But this is not true for all procedures.

It Washington Post acknowledged that “[a] 2019 paper issued by Harm Reduction International says smoking kits ‘can include glass stems, rubber mouthpieces, brass screens, lip balm and disinfectant wipes.’”

However, the original Free Beacon report, Hauf states that the spokesman told the news outlet that “these kits will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and ‘any illicit substance.’”

Again, it appears Hauf made the leap to crack pipes without Garrett explicitly acknowledging that this would be part of the grant’s funding. Jorge Silva was the HHS deputy assistant secretary in public affairs. Post that the reporter seemed to have jumped the gun, also noting that the spokesman’s statement indicated the smoking kids would need to be in compliance with federal, state, and local laws.

“He never asked, and we never confirmed,” Silva said. “I honestly don’t know how that would have been answered.” The official also explained that if Hauf had specifically asked about pipes, Garrett would have consulted with SAMHSA’s legal department before answering.

Its part, however, is the Free Beacon Garrett acknowledged that crack pipes were not part of his equation, but he did not confirm it explicitly. In an email to Washington PostHe stated:

They refused to specify what was in the kit. We followed up to confirm that they were indeed for crack smoking. Based on information from crack smokers across the nation, we report that the government will be financing crack pipes. These are the smoking kits.

At this point, it is not clear what the Biden administration’s initial intentions were in regards to the smoking kits. The Biden administration was not the only one to support smoking kits. Post acknowledged that “[w]ithout HHS being put on the spot before the article was published, it’s difficult to determine what the policy would have been if the program had been allowed to proceed without adverse publicity.”

To make matters even more convoluted, the Drug Policy Alliance, a non-profit organization seeking to address drug addiction by seeking alternative solutions to strict laws, issued a statement accusing the White House of “backtracking on providing critical evidence-based resources that could greatly improve the health of people who consume drugs through smoking.”

According to the group, it was misled into believing that the kits contained pipes. Matt Sutton, the spokesperson for the group did not confirm whether SAMHSA officials informed him in private that the grants would fund glass stems and pipes. However, he stated that certain groups believed they would be included.

“That was the intention,” he said in a phone interview with the Post. “It would seem pointless to distribute these kits without” pipes, which he said, “are the main part of the smoking kit to prevent the transmission of disease.”

On Twitter, the group expressed dismay at the inability to include pipes as part of the funding.

That’s why @HHSGov & @ONDCP  decision today to remove pipes from safe smoking equipment is deeply disappointing. It is an opportunity missed to prevent more overdose deaths.

That’s why @HHSGov & @ONDCPToday’s disappointing decision to take out safe smoking devices is deeply regrettable. Overdose is preventable.

— Drug Policy Alliance (@DrugPolicyOrg) February 9, 2022

The However, Post also notes that “not all safe smoking kits include a glass stem.” The author wrote:

Some safe smoking kit do not include a glass stem. For example, the Free Beacon article linked to the North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition’s description of safe smoking kits that include a mouthpiece to attach to a stem. The kit included screens and rubber bands that could prevent lips from burning, as well as antibiotic ointment to treat sores. It also contained alcohol wipes and cleaning wipes.

Wait! Itre’s more!

The Washington Free Beacon issued a scathing rebuttal, taking on critics and supposed “fact checkers” who ran interference for the Biden administration. The article claimed the White House’s story was “utter nonsense” and reiterated that many other harm reduction programs include pipes. “Take, for example, a program from California’s Department of Public Health, which openly advertises glass pipes. Other programs in cities such as Annapolis, Md., New Haven, Conn., and Seattle, Wash., all include crack pipes in their smoking kits,” the author wrote.

The article also explained that the HHS spokesman told the news outlet that the department “does not specify what is in the kits, leaving that detail to program participants at the local level.”

It is clear that the whole thing is an absurd mess. Is it likely that the Biden administration fully intended to fund the distribution of crack pipes in minority neighborhoods to promote “equity”? It is possible.

But it’s important to note that this wasn’t as clearly stated in the original. Free Beacon Report suggested. The fact that the reporter didn’t actually confirm whether the pipes were included in the kit lends the White House an air of plausible denial, which means that we may never be able to know the truth. The issue raises more questions about the best ways to fight drug addiction. Perhaps this will spark a deeper discussion.