State rep explains her ‘no’ vote on drug overdose calls

After reading Ms. Daubenmier’s letter (Livingston Daily, July 3) regarding my vote on House Bills 5649 and 5650, I thought an answer was warranted as to why I would be the singular “no” vote, especially given that I have never been the standalone opposing vote previously. The short answer: To get the Senate’s attention in time to fix legislation that needs amending.

HBs 5649/5650 have merit, which is why I voted for a nearly identical version (now Public Act 220 of 2015) when it came before us last October as a bill dealing with “individuals under the age of 21.” The impetus for PA 220 was a teenager’s death from overdosing while attending a “Skittles Party.” Teenagers bring their parents’ prescription medications, mix them up and take them, not having any idea of what they are ingesting.

Teenagers were not seeking medical help for fear of potential consequences with law enforcement. PA 220 allows individuals under the age of 21 to seek medical help for a possible overdose without legal ramifications, whether for a friend or themselves, in order to encourage teenagers to seek help even when they’ve made a one-time error in judgment.

HBs 5649/5650, which I voted against, would remove the age limit. Initially it may seem like the merciful thing to do, but I believe this legislation creates other issues.

First, if we are going to expand this legislation to include adults, we should require they have addiction counseling before they become immune to legal consequences, thus addressing the real problem instead of ignoring it. Passing this legislation as written might result in more people seeking medical help, but it will likely also result in continued or increased drug abuse from adults who are overdosing.

Second, the legislation as written provides a possible get-out-of-jail-free pass to people who purposely murder someone by injecting them with a deadly drug dose. In Livingston County, we have multiple people serving jail time for delivering a controlled substance causing death. Under this new law, had those individuals called 911 to “seek medical attention” for their victims, they could become immune from prosecution even if murder were the intent.

Frankly, the whole country is experiencing an overdose epidemic.

Passing legislation that creates a lack of accountability or a free pass to intentionally harm another individual would be a horrific approach. It would not help — and could intensify — the overall drug problem. Both of these unintended consequences are correctable; and my “no” vote was meant to get the attention of the state Senate so they can make the necessary changes before passing the bill.

The next time Ms. Daubenmeier (or any 42nd District resident) has questions regarding a vote or if anyone would like to opine on legislation before the vote, I ask they contact my office by calling 517-373-1784 or emailing Residents who wish to read legislation or follow a bill throughout the legislative process can do so by visiting

Lana Theis represents Livingston County in the 42nd District on the Michigan House of Representatives.