Author: John

Safety Regulations Discussed After Deadliest Hot Air Balloon Crash In U.S. History

on November 30, 2018

Safety Regulations Discussed After Deadliest Hot Air Balloon Crash In U.S. History

hot-air-balloon-crash The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced that the pilot of the deadliest hot air balloon crash in U.S. history had seven different drugs in his system at the time of the accident.

The tragic event took place in the early hours of July 30, 2016 when Alfred Nichols was piloting a hot air balloon near Lockhart, Texas, with 15 passengers on board. The tragic event unfolded when the balloon crashed into a nearby field after colliding with high-voltage power line. All 15 passengers including Nichols, were killed in the accident and the balloon was substantially damaged after hitting the power lines and catching fire.

According to NTSB records, Nichols had a history of medical and psychiatric conditions which included, diabetes, depression, and he was being treated with several different medications commonly prescribed for chronic back pain, attention deficit disorder and fibromyalgia, among his other medical ailments.

Autopsy findings showed some alarming results. three of the medicines that were found in his system — diazepam (i.e. Valium), oxycodone (i.e. Oxycontin) and methylphenidate (i.e. Ritalin) — are drugs that legally prevent a pilot from obtaining a medical certificate and are not currently tested for on the DOT 5 panel drug screening requirements.

Other medicines that were found — cyclobenzaprine (a muscle relaxant) and diphenhydramine (i.e. Benadryl) — are medications that pilots are informed not to fly while taking, in as much as those drugs could impair the pilot and prevent the pilot from flying safely, per NTSB documents.

As it currently stands, the FAA does not require hot air balloon pilots to hold a medical certificate, while both fixed-wing and helicopter pilots do need this certificate. Although Nichols may not have legally been required to obtain a medical certificate to fly, depression is a disqualifying condition for pilot medical certification.

The FAA could possible issue a “special issuance of a medical certificate,” which allows pilots suffering from depression to fly, but only if the pilot proved that after six months of treatment, the pilot was clinically stable on one of four FAA-approved medications.

In this tragic accident, Mr. Nichols was found to have bupropion (an anti-depressant) which is not one of the four FAA-approved medications.

Upon further investigation, Nichols also had multiple arrests, convictions and incarcerations, which included five alcohol-related incidents, possession of drugs, and driving with a suspended driving license, according to FBI National Crime Information Center records and Missouri driving records, obtained by the NTSB.

Despite the mandatory requirement to report incidents of this type within 60 days of their occurrence, Nichols never reported any of his drug convictions or motor vehicle violations, according to testimony presented to the NTSB.

Even after discovering that Nichols failed to report alcohol-related motor incidents, the FAA ultimately dismissed legal enforcement action against the pilot, according to a July 29, 2013, letter sent by the federal agency to Nichols.

In an NTSB testimony today, the FAA said it decided not to pursue legal action against Nichols because of its “Stale Complaint Rule” and its inability to show “appropriate diligence.”

The “Stale Complaint Rule” is an FAA rule that says any complaint may generally be dismissed if the alleged offenses occurred more than six months before the time of the complaint, unless the FAA can show it took “appropriate diligence” in the case, according to testimony presented today at the NTSB hearing.

Furthermore, the FAA’s 2013 letter urged Mr. Nichols to document his alcohol incidents when applying for a future Airman Medical Certificate, even though the FAA does not require hot air balloon pilots to hold medical certificates.

FAA Federal Air Surgeon Dr. James Fraser explained at the NTSB hearing, though, that even if a pilot does not legally need a medical certificate, the pilot is still responsible from abstaining from flight if he is not fit to fly.

When asked whether the FAA should require a medical certificate for balloon operators, Fraser suggested it may be time for a change in policy.

“I feel a medical evaluation is a part of the holistic plan to keep the national air space safe,” Fraser said.

Following the hearing, NTSB Board Member Robert Sumwalt admitted that while the balloon industry and the FAA may have resisted change in the past, there may also be a renewed interest in cooperation with safety regulations.

John Burgos, CPC
Business Development Manager
https://accrediteddrugtesting.net
(800)221-4291
Accredited Drug Testing

Florida Voters Legalize Medical Marijuana

by John

on November 30, 2018

Florida Voters Legalize Medical Marijuana

Nov 14 2016

Florida Voters Legalize Medical Marijuana

Florida voters approved a state constitutional amendment Tuesday November 8, 2016 to legalize medical marijuana. This amendment will broaden access to marijuana beyond the limited therapeutic uses approved by the legislature two years ago.

Currently, the law permits non-smoked, low-THC pot for patients with cancer or ailments that cause chronic seizures or severe spasms. The ballot measure formally legalizes medical marijuana, and broadens access for diseases with symptoms other than seizures or spasms.

Amendment 2 was heavily backed by Orlando lawyer John Morgan and the group United for Care.

Specifically, the amendment allows prescriptions for 10 illnesses: cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, AIDS, post-traumatic stress disorder, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis. It also authorizes doctors to prescribe marijuana for any other similar kind of ailment.VE

Florida becomes the 26th state along with the District of Columbia to legalize the marijuana plant for medical use. Before the passage of Amendment 2, Florida was one of 16 states where only part of the marijuana plant is used.

The Department of Health will regulate how medical marijuana can be distributed along with mandating identification cards for caregivers and patients. Many rules and regulations — from how the marijuana is grown to regulations on how it can be transported for in-home delivery — already have been passed by the legislature under laws for limited use of marijuana. Those regulations also will apply to the constitutional amendment.

FL Amendment 2 – Medical Marijuana100% of Precincts Reporting (6,027/6,027)
	Votes	Split
✓ Yes	6,496,157	71%
No	2,616,128	28%

Ballot Link

John Burgos, CPC
Business Development Manager
https://accrediteddrugtesting.net
(800) 221-4291
Accredited Drug Testing Inc
Health Screening USA Inc

Drug Testing Positive Results By Classification

by John

on November 30, 2018

Nov 1 2016

Drug Testing Positive Results By Classification

Let’s take a more in-depth look at the statistics, facts, data, and outputs that have an impact workplace drug testing programs. Utilizing Quest Diagnostics as a resource, we will take a deeper dive into positivity by drug type.

The Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index™ (DTI) measures these drugs by using a combination of three factors: drug category, specimen type, and workforce segment.

Substances are classified the following drug categories which include:

6-AM (heroin)
Amphetamines
Barbiturates
Benzodiazepines
Cocaine
Marijuana
MDMA (ecstasy)
Methadone
Opiates
Oxycodones
PCP
Propoxyphene.

Specimen types referenced are Urine, Oral Fluid, and Hair.
The study examined three workforce segments: federally-mandated safety-sensitive employees; the general U.S. workforce; and the combined U.S. workforce.

The Drug Testing Index (DTI) is considered the most comprehensive compilation of workplace drug testing data that is available to industry, government, media, and employers for data and insights. The index utilizes a five-year snapshot which help identifies trends in positivity rates. If the positivity rate of a particular drug changes in the same path for several years and/or is observed across various specimen types, it may be viewed as a trend.

The 2015 data compiled in DTI analysis, Dr. Barry Sample, Senior Director of Science and Technology, Quest Diagnostics, reported that “the rate of amphetamine and heroin detection in urine drug tests and the rate of marijuana detection in oral fluid drug tests has increased annually for the past five years in the general U.S. workforce.”

Urine Drug Testing exhibited the following characteristics and insights:

Rate of amphetamine positivity increased in 2015, and has increased dramatically by 44 percent from 2011 to 2015.
Rate of marijuana positivity has increased by 26 percent since 2011. Furthermore, 45 percent of the general U.S. workforce in 2015 that had a reported positive drug test showed evidence of marijuana use.
Rate of heroin positivity has increased to an alarming 147 percent in the past five years.

These numbers illustrate that individuals in the workforce continue to use and test positive for amphetamine, marijuana, and heroin. Furthermore, the most recent data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) reports that 67 percent of drug users in fact are employed. Consequently, employers should remain conscientious in their efforts to combat substance abuse in the workplace.
For information regarding the effects of drug abuse – Click Here
For information on a drug free work place – Click Here
For information on substance abuse programs – Click Here
For information on DOT Drug / Alcohol Testing requirements – Click Here

John Burgos, CPC
Business Development Manager
https://accrediteddrugtesting.net
(800) 221-4291
Accredited Drug Testing Inc
Health Screening USA Inc

Winnipeg drivers asked to voluntarily submit DNA

by John

on November 30, 2018

Winnipeg drivers asked to voluntarily submit DNA sample for drug testing at check point

Oct. 17 2016

Winnipeg drivers asked to voluntarily submit DNA sample for drug testing at check point

WINNIPEG — It was an unusual roadside check point that had left some Winnipeggers wondering what their information may be used for.

In the early morning hours of Sept. 8, drivers were being checked at a roadside stop on Century Avenue and asked the standard “have you been drinking” question by Winnipeg police officers.

However, the conversation that followed is what left some drivers concerned.

Once drivers were cleared by police, they were solicited complete a voluntary survey.

“We are asking for your help in a voluntary driver safety survey that deals with alcohol, drugs and driving,” read a part of the survey obtained by Global News. “(You will be asked) to provide a breath sample to measure the amount of alcohol in your system… If the test shows that you are over the legal limit, you will be asked to let a non-impaired passenger drive, or we will provide you with a free taxi ride to your destination.”

Volunteers were handed a tablet which contained several survey questions. Some examples were, “have you been drinking anything tonight, when was the last time you used heroin, and when was the last time you used cocaine.”

Many motorists claimed that after the breathalyzer the really invasive part of the survey began and volunteers where handed a saliva swab and were given the instructions of putting the swab under their tongue until the sensor turns blue.

MPI said it is using the samples to test for drug usage and are trying to determine a baseline before marijuana use is legalized in Canada.

“The goal is to get 1,200 surveys,” said MPI spokesperson Brian Smiley. “From those 1,200 we’ll have a very firm baseline in terms of what actually is happening out there and the impact legalization may have on impaired driving in Manitoba.”

MPI said all information is voluntary and remains anonymous.

Participants were given a $10 gift certificate, provided by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for taking the survey.

MPI said they will be conducting these surveys every Wednesday through Saturday until the end of September. They will be conducted in Winnipeg, Brandon, Thompson, Steinbach and Portage la Prairie.

For information regarding the effects of drug abuse – Click Here
For information on a drug free work place – Click Here
For information on substance abuse programs – Click Here
For information on DOT Drug / Alcohol Testing requirements – Click HereJohn Burgos, CPC
Business Development Manager
https://accrediteddrugtesting.net
(800) 221-4291
Accredited Drug Testing Inc
Health Screening USA Inc

Drug Testing for Unemployment Benefits

by John

on November 30, 2018

Drug Testing for Unemployment Benefits

Sep 26 2016

Drug Testing for Unemployment Benefits After four years of the initial law being passed, which would allow states to drug test applicants for federal unemployment payments, The Ready to Work Act of 2016 bill was passed by Chairman Kevin Brady of Texas introduced H.R. 5945

This bill fully implements the bi-partisan 2012 law which overturned a 1960’s era Department of Labor ban against states drug testing unemployment applicants.

The legislation confirms that states would be allowed, but not required, to test unemployment applicants who lost their jobs as a result of drug use or are seeking a new job that generally requires new employees to pass a drug test.

States would also be allowed to create or design programs that would assist unemployed applicants overcome any obstacles relating to their drug use and be ready for work.

The White House defaulted on their responsibility to implement the law as Congress had originally intended. There were several roadblocks, delays and obstructive regulations issued during the past four years which would guarantee progressive states such as Texas could not screen and test for drugs.

Texas officials deem this is a common-sense measure to ensure unemployed workers are ready and available to work and potential employers have access to good workers. It is their belief that a potential employee should be able to pass a basic pre-employment drug test for a job that requires one.

Background: In 2012, Congress passed and President Obama signed the bipartisan Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which included an important policy allowing (but not requiring) states to test UI applicants who either (1) lost their job due to drug use, or (2) are seeking a new job that generally requires new employees to pass a drug test.

In August of this year, over four years after the drug testing provision was enacted, DOL issued its final rule, which fell significantly short of achieving the intended purpose of the law, effectively preventing states from implementing this important policy.

The Ready to Work Act of 2016 provides relief from the final DOL rule so that states—not the federal government—can determine how to administer UI benefits and help unemployed Americans return to work.

The following members of the Committee on Ways and Means joined Chairman Brady in introducing the “Ready to Work Act of 2016”: U.S. Reps. Sam Johnson (TX-03), Peter Roskam (IL-06), Charles Boustany (LA-03), Tom Price (GA-06), Tom Reed (NY-23), Mike Kelly (PA-03), George Holding (NC-13), Adrian Smith (NE-03), Jason Smith (MO-08).

John Burgos, CPC
Business Development Manager
https://accrediteddrugtesting.net
(800) 221-4291
Accredited Drug Testing Inc
Health Screening USA Inc

2 Dead and 17 Injured In NJ Transit Bus Accident

by John

on November 30, 2018

2 Dead and 17 Injured In NJ Transit Bus Accident

Aug 29 2016

2 Dead and 17 Injured In NJ Transit Bus Accident

A tragic accident occurred on Friday morning August 19, 2016 when two NJ Transit busses collided.

The driver of the No. 59 bus driver was traveling westbound on Broad Street with no passengers onboard when it T-boned the No. 13 bus headed north on Raymond Boulevard with approximately 20 passengers onboard.

According to a NJ Transit spokesperson, the driver of the 59 bus and 1 passenger were killed along with 17 other passengers taken to nearby hospitals with seven listed in critical condition.  When the two buses collided, the impact forced one to flip over and appeared to be partially split in half at a Newark intersection Friday morning.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and Department Of Transportation (DOT) regulations 49 CFR Part 382.303 regulates the criteria for post accident testing.

What CDL/DOT Drivers Need to Know

DOT drug and alcohol tests include:

Pre-employment – An employer must receive a negative drug test result before permitting a CDL driver to operate a CMV.
Post-accident – Drug and alcohol tests may be required after crashes.  Click here for info https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/drug-alcohol-testing/what-tests-are-required-and-when-does-testing-occur
Random – CDL drivers must be randomly tested throughout the year.  Any employer who employs only himself/herself as a driver, who is not leased to a motor carrier, shall implement a random testing program of two or more covered employees in the random testing selection pool as a member of a consortium.
Reasonable suspicion – Drivers who appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol are subject to immediate testing. Employers must have trained supervisors to detect the symptoms of driver impairment.
Return-to-duty – This is required for drivers who have tested positive, refused to test, or otherwise violated the prohibitions of  49 CFR Part 382 Subpart B; and drivers must also complete the return-to-duty process with a DOT-qualified substance abuse professional. This return to duty test is directly observed, and a negative result is required before resuming driving duties.
Follow-up – Required for drivers who tested positive, refused, or otherwise violated the prohibitions of and who have completed the return-to-duty process with a DOT-qualified substance abuse professional, and have tested negative for a return-to-duty test. This testing is prescribed by the substance abuse professional for a minimum of 6 directly observed tests in 12 months, but could be extended an additional four years.

Are Olympic Athletes Allowed To Smoke Weed?

by John

on November 30, 2018

Are Olympic Athletes Allowed To Smoke Weed? Drug Testing At Rio Will Not Be Strict.

Aug. 1 2016

Marijuana use has been a dicey subject for Olympic athletes in the past. Back in 2009, Michael Phelps acknowledged a photo of him using a bong was real, and he was suspended from competition for three months. On top of that, he lost a lucrative sponsorship from Kellogg’s. Now, eight years after Phelps won big with eight gold medals in Beijing, he, along thousands more athletes, will head to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the summer Olympic Games. Over the intervening years, marijuana has been decriminalized in jurisdictions around the world. But what about for Olympians? Are Olympic athletes allowed to smoke weed?

Since the 2014 Winter Olympics, athletes have not needed to worry about testing unless they are extreme users. Technically cannabis is included on the list of banned substances in competition, so, no, athletes cannot use it during the games. But before or after is just fine. In May 2013 the World Anti-Doping Agency raised the level of allowed marijuana in an athlete’s system 10 times the prior amount to 150 nanograms per milliliter. That’s makes it harder for someone who uses it outside of competitions like the Olympics to test positive.

Before the rule change, there was always the possibility that an athlete would test positive for the drug, even when they had only been using it recreationally before the competitive event. Four athletes tested positive for THC in 2012 when the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency conducted tests before the London games. That was a very small percentage of athletes, but it led to at least one wrestler being kept from the team.

We are seeing so many changes in the way people view marijuana. Many sports teams across the US have ran into contradictions and issues where it may be legal in there home state however, it is not everywhere else. Accredited Drug Testing will work hard and continue to keep people in safety sensitive positions drug free. Drug Free Workplace Programs are a great idea to avoid liability and what is most important, not having innocent people hurt because of poor decision making from someone else.

See Full Article

Brandon Rains
Director Of Online Marketing
https://accrediteddrugtesting.net
(800) 221-4291
Accredited Drug Testing Inc
Health Screening USA Inc

The Presidential Candidates Stand On Drug Policy

by John

on November 30, 2018

The Presidential Candidates Stand On Drug Policy

July 26 2016

The last time the Democratic Party’s platform mentioned marijuana was in 1984, when it cited “25 million regular abusers of marijuana” and “15,000 tons of marijuana” entering the United States each year as “clear evidence that we are losing the effort overseas to control the production and transshipment of…dangerous drugs.” The draft for this year’s platform mentions marijuana half a dozen times, and the context is notably different:

We believe that the states should be laboratories of democracy on the issue of marijuana, and those states that want to decriminalize marijuana should be able to do so. We support policies that will allow more research on marijuana, as well as reforming our laws to allow legal marijuana businesses to exist without uncertainty. And we recognize our current marijuana laws have had an unacceptable disparate impact, with arrest rates for marijuana possession among African Americans far outstripping arrest rates among whites, despite similar usage rates.

Assuming something like that language is included in the final version of the platform, the Democrats, after three decades of silence on the subject, have gone from advocating an escalation of the war on weed to facilitating more tolerant approaches, including outright legalization. What’s more, every presidential candidate you are likely to see on your ballot this November agrees that states should be free to legalize marijuana—a remarkable development attributable not only to the landmark 2012 initiatives in Colorado and Washington but to a concomitant shift in public opinion nationwide.

Once you get beyond the question of how the federal government should respond to states that legalize marijuana, there are some notable differences on drug policy among the four parties with wide ballot access. Here is a summary of where they stand, arranged from least to most tolerant.

Republican Party

Unlike New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a former rival for the GOP nomination who is now a supporter and potential running mate, Donald Trump has never promised to stop marijuana legalization in its tracks. To the contrary, he says “that should be a state issue,” although he also says legalization is bad idea (albeit one he used to support, not only for marijuana but for other drugs as well).

Marijuana federalism aside, Trump sounds like an unreconstructed drug warrior. “I’m going to create borders,” he promises. “No drugs are coming in. We’re gonna build a wall. You know what I’m talking about. You have confidence in me. Believe me, I will solve the problem.”

That’s how most Republicans and many Democrats have been talking about drugs for as long as I can remember: If only we put our minds to it and spend enough money, we can stop the flow of drugs that threatens to turn us into a nation of dope fiends. A century of failure with this approach should have demonstrated its folly even to those unfamiliar with the economics of black markets.

On the question of how to treat Americans who manage to obtain arbitrarily proscribed intoxicants despite the best efforts of border-blocking drug warriors, Trump sounds at least as sympathetic as Richard Nixon. “The people that are in trouble, the people that are addicted, we’re going to work with them and try to make them better,” he says, “and we will make them better.”

Democratic Party

Hillary Clinton is down with “laboratories of democracy,” as long as the experiments involve cannabis. “I want to wait and see what the evidence is,” she says. Unlike Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator who ran against her in the Democratic primaries, Clinton is not ready to repeal federal prohibition, although she thinks marijuana should be moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to Schedule II, which she says will facilitate medical research.

Clinton’s promises regarding addiction treatment are at least as grandiose as Trump’s plan to stop drugs at the border. “There are 23 million Americans suffering from addiction,” she says. “But no one is untouched. We all have family and friends who are affected. We can’t afford to stay on the sidelines any longer—because when families are strong, America is strong. Through improved treatment, prevention, and training, we can end this quiet epidemic once and for all.”

Despite her compassionate pose and her support for sentencing reform, Clinton is not forswearing the use of force and violence to discourage drug use. When Clinton says “our state and federal prisons…are no substitute for proper treatment,” when she talks about “ensur[ing] every person suffering from addiction can obtain comprehensive treatment” and “prioritiz[ing] treatment over prison for low-level and nonviolent drug offenders,” what she has in mind is, at best, giving consumers of politically incorrect intoxicants a choice between a treatment slot and a jail cell.

Although Clinton’s addict estimate includes alcoholics, that is not a choice even the heaviest drinker has to confront unless he commits a crime. Drinking itself, unlike the use of illegal drugs, does not qualify. A corollary is that even casual drug users with no addiction to treat may still have to choose between treatment and jail if they happen to get caught.

Clinton does not bother to defend this blatantly unequal approach, because it is indefensible. It is therefore hard to take seriously her pose as an enlightened public servant who only wants to help “sick people that deserve to get well.” This medicalization of drug policy may take some of the rough edges off the war on drugs (or not), but only at the cost of denying the moral agency of drug users, which justifies the government’s shabby and often brutal treatment of them.

View Full Article

For information regarding the effects of drug abuse – Click Here
For information on a drug free work place – Click Here
For information on substance abuse programs – Click Here
For information on DOT Drug / Alcohol Testing requirements – Click HereBrandon Rains
Director Of Online Marketing
https://accrediteddrugtesting.net
(800) 221-4291
Accredited Drug Testing Inc
Health Screening USA Inc

Five Little-known Facts About NFL Drug Policy

by John

on November 30, 2018

Five Little-known Facts About NFL Drug Policy

The NFL’s marijuana policy has been all over the news lately, from criticism of the league’s stance by the likes of Eugene Monroe, Derrick Morgan and Jake Plummer to SI Films’ upcoming in-depth look at Ricky Williams’s relationship with the drug and the sport. But how much do you really know about the sport’s actual testing, intervention and discipline procedures? We dug into the details to bring you five things you might not know about the current rules.

1. The league’s substance abuse policy predates its PED protocol. Commissioner Pete Rozelle first introduced a loose recreational drug code, focused on education, in 1971; the preseason testing structure still used today came into being as part of the ’82 CBA—and suspensions didn’t begin until ’89. Separate language for steroids didn’t appear until ’83.

2. Players outside the “intervention program”—those who’ve never had a violation—are tested just once a year. Anyone under contract is tested once between April 20 (yup: 4/20) and Aug. 9. The player is given at most a three-hour warning before being visited by a collector, who must directly witness the player providing the urine sample.

3. For every player suspended under the policy, five to 10 others anonymously enter and exit the intervention program. Not even teams are made aware of a player’s positive test until he is suspended, which only occurs after multiple violations. Team physicians, however, have that information in order to prevent cross-medication issues.

4. Marijuana is handled differently from all other substances. The discipline procedures for marijuana abusers are less strict than violations for all other drugs. Clause 1.5.2(c) states that an additional offense is allowed before suspensions are leveled in cases involving marijuana. And up until that point, fines for positive tests are less steep.

5. Hundreds of people are involved in the program. There are generally two or three clinicians per NFL team who administer treatment plans for each player in the program. Then there’s the legion of agents who help conduct 15,000-plus tests each year. Combined with the steroid program, the NFL spends about $13 million per year on its drug programs.

We have commented several times on the subject of how big of a role sports figures play in our society. We tend to forget that they are people too and can have everyday struggles that lead them down a road of poor decisions. We believe sometimes a tough Drug Free Work Place Policy can be the wake-up call some need to face reality. Drug Testing can seem intrusive and even be frustrating at times however, the lives it could help and change are endless.

Brandon Rains
Director Of Online Marketing
https://accrediteddrugtesting.net
(800) 221-4291
Accredited Drug Testing Inc
Health Screening USA Inc

A New Direction on Drugs

by John

on November 30, 2018

A New Direction on Drugs

Michael Botticelli says the old war on drugs is all wrong, and wants to refocus the U.S. drug policy

June 13 2016

A New Direction on Drugs

The following is a script from “A New Direction on Drugs” which aired on Dec. 13, 2015, and was rebroadcast on June 5, 2016. Scott Pelley is the correspondent. Denise Schrier Cetta, producer.

After 40 years and a trillion dollars, the nation has little to show for its war on drugs. Prisons are beyond crowded and there’s a new outbreak in the heroin epidemic. If it’s time for a change, it would be hard to find a leader more different than the man we first met last year. Michael Botticelli is the president’s new director of the National Drug Control Policy. He isn’t a cop. He’s lucky he didn’t go to jail himself. And we knew that things had changed the first time we used the nickname that comes with his job, the “drug czar.”

Michael Botticelli: It’s actually a title that I don’t like.

Scott Pelley: Why?

Michael Botticelli: Because I think it connotes this old “war on drugs” focus to the work that we do. It portrays that we are clinging to kind of failed policies and failed practices in the past.

Scott Pelley: Are you saying that the way we have waged the war on drugs for more than 40 years has been all wrong?

Michael Botticelli: It has been all wrong.

Blunt force didn’t knock out the drug epidemic. 21 million Americans are addicted to drugs or alcohol. And half of all federal inmates are in for drug crimes.

Michael Botticelli: We can’t arrest and incarcerate addiction out of people. Not only do I think it’s really inhumane, but it’s ineffective and it costs us billions upon billions of dollars to keep doing this.

Scott Pelley: So what have we learned?

Michael Botticelli: We’ve learned addiction is a brain disease. This is not a moral failing. This is not about bad people who are choosing to continue to use drugs because they lack willpower. You know, we don’t expect people with cancer just to stop having cancer.

Scott Pelley: Aren’t they doing it to themselves? Isn’t a heroin addict making that choice?

Michael Botticelli: Of course not. You know, the hallmark of addiction is that it changes your brain chemistry. It actually affects that part of your brain that’s responsible for judgment.

“WE CAN’T ARREST AND INCARCERATE ADDICTION OUT OF PEOPLE. NOT ONLY DO I THINK IT’S REALLY INHUMANE, BUT IT’S INEFFECTIVE AND IT COSTS US BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO KEEP DOING THIS.”

That is the essence of Michael Botticelli’s approach — addicts should be patients, not prisoners. He did it in Massachusetts as Director of Substance Abuse Services. There, his initiatives included a high school for teens in recovery and expanding drug courts, like this one in Washington D.C., where offenders can choose treatment over jail. And the charges can be dropped.

Scott Pelley: You know that there are people watching this interview and they’re saying to themselves, “Oh, great. He wants to open the jails and let the drug addicts out.”

Scott Pelley: I think we have to base our policy on scientific understanding. You know, and we’ve had really great models and evaluated models to show that we can simultaneously divert people away from our criminal justice system without an increase in crime. And it actually reduces crime.

Botticelli pursues reform with the passion of the converted because he, himself, is recovering from addiction. Back in 1988, he was a university administrator, whose car slammed into a truck. Botticelli was drunk, in truth, he’d been drunk for years.

Scott Pelley: Did you love drinking?

Michael Botticelli: I would say that I probably had an unhealthy love affair with drinking. You know, I grew up as this kind of insecure kid, you know, kind of making my way. And, you know, drinking took all of that away, you know? People drink and do drugs for a reason. ‘Cause it makes them feel good, you know — until it doesn’t anymore.

Scott Pelley: Is it true that after the accident you woke up handcuffed to a gurney?

Michael Botticelli: I did. I did. And, you know, you think to yourself, “how did I get to this point, you know, in my life?”

That point included imminent eviction from his apartment because the booze had washed away all the money.