Jeremiah David Carlton, 21, of Canyon Lake is accused in the death of the teenager, identified in court documents only as “J.G.”

Carlton is charged with second-degree murder, transportation of controlled substances for sale and possession of controlled substances for sale.

During a pretrial hearing Tuesday at the Southwest Justice Center in Murrieta, Riverside County Superior Court Judge John Monterosso conferred with the prosecution and defense regarding a specific date for the next stage of proceedings, and both sides indicated they would be prepared to move forward at the end of next month.

Carlton is being held in lieu of $1 million bail at the Byrd Detention Center.

His co-defendant, 21-year-old Raymond Gene Tyrrell of French Valley, who was charged separately, pleaded guilty in July to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to three years in state prison. However, due to the amount of time he’d already spent in jail awaiting disposition of the case, along with other sentencing credits, Judge Stephen Gallon converted his prison term to what’s known as a “paper commitment,” enabling Tyrrell to instantly go on parole.

Sgt. Rick Espinoza of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department alleged that Carlton and Tyrrell provided the drugs that led to the death of J.G. on the night of Feb. 24, 2021, at a residence in the 35000 block of Sugar Maple Street, near Leon Road.

Espinoza said deputies were called to the location to investigate two possible fentanyl poisonings and discovered the girl and a man, whose identity was not released, comatose. Both were taken to a regional trauma center, where the man was revived but the girl succumbed to the toxic ingestion.

“Detectives conducted an investigation and developed information that this was possibly a homicide,” the sergeant said, declining to elaborate on the circumstances.

Tyrrell was summoned to the sheriff’s Southwest station in Murrieta a day later and interviewed by detectives, after which he was taken into custody. Carlton was served with an arrest warrant and taken into custody at his residence.

Neither defendant had documented prior felony convictions.

Since February 2021, the District Attorney’s Office has charged over 30 people countywide in connection with fentanyl poisonings.

In November, prosecutors closed the books on the county’s first fentanyl murder case to go before a jury, culminating in the conviction of 34- year-old Vicente David Romero, who was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for the 2020 death of a Temecula woman. District Attorney Mike Hestrin said it was the first fentanyl murder conviction in the state.

According to public health statistics, there were 550 known fentanyl- related fatalities countywide in 2023, a 9% increase from 2022, when there were 503.

Fentanyl is manufactured in overseas labs, principally in China, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, which says the synthetic opioid is smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border by cartels.

Fentanyl is 80-100 times more potent than morphine and can be mixed into any number of street narcotics and prescription drugs, without a user knowing what he or she is consuming. Ingestion of only two milligrams can be fatal.

Fentanyl is the leading cause of death for Americans between 18 and 45 years old.

The post Trial Date Set For Canyon Lake Man Accused In Girl’s Fentanyl Death appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Two new bills would allow state funding to support sober housing — a significant departure from current law, which requires providers to accept people regardless of their drug and alcohol use. 

“If people want to get off of drugs and away from drugs, we should give them that option,” said Assemblymember Matt Haney, a Democrat from San Francisco who wrote Assembly Bill 2479. “They shouldn’t be forced to live next to people who are using drugs.”

There are at least 12,000 sober living beds in the state, but more than twice that many Californians who would qualify for those services, according to data from the California Research Bureau quoted in the Assembly Health Committee’s analysis of the second bill, AB 2893.

As state law prohibits spending housing funding on sobriety-focused programs, many are funded by private donations. 

The lawmakers behind the two bills say they aren’t trying to alter the key idea that everyone deserves immediate housing, even people struggling with addictions. Instead, they’re attempting to give more choices to people who want to be sober. But some experts worry that, because California has a shortage of homeless housing, people who relapse in sober housing or who don’t want to stay sober would have nowhere to go but back to the street. 

The bills come as California’s homelessness population is skyrocketing, having increased from about 118,000 in 2016 to more than 181,000 last year. Some critics blame and want to overturn the state’s inclusive housing policy. At the same time, as public fears about crime soar, voters in some liberal cities are putting limits on who can receive public assistance.

San Francisco voters this year passed an initiative mandating drug screenings for welfare recipients. In San Diego County, Vista Mayor John Franklin recently introduced a measure pledging not to support “any program that enables continued drug use” and criticizing housing first for precluding sober housing.

“I think we are seeing a cultural shift,” said Christopher Calton, a research fellow who studies housing and homelessness for libertarian think-tank the Independent Institute. “People are starting to say these permissive policies aren’t working.”

California’s ‘housing first’ homelessness policy

At issue is the state’s adherence to “housing first,” a framework where homeless residents are offered housing immediately and with minimal caveats or requirements, regardless of sobriety. The housing should be “low-barrier,” meaning residents are not required to participate in recovery or other programs. After someone is housed, providers are then supposed to offer voluntary substance use and mental health treatment, job training, or other services. The idea is that if people don’t have to focus all their energy on simply surviving on the streets, they’re better equipped to work on their other issues.

Housing first became law of the land in California in 2016 when the state required all state-funded programs to adopt the model. 

The federal government also uses that framework. But in 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said requiring sobriety is not necessarily anti-housing first. California did not follow suit.

Some Republicans and conservative-leaning groups now are pushing to overturn California’s housing first framework, saying it hasn’t successfully reduced homelessness. Assemblymember Josh Hoover, from Folsom, is trying to completely repeal housing first with AB 2417. That bill has yet to be heard by a committee, and likely won’t advance this year.

But with more than 180,000 Californians lacking a home, even Democrats want to see changes. The bills by Haney and Assemblymember Chris Ward of San Diego would allow up to 25% of state funds in each county to go toward sober housing. 

Neither Democrat wants to upend housing first. Instead, they want sober housing facilities to operate under a housing first framework. Haney’s bill would require counties to make sure sober facilities kept people housed at rates similar to facilities without sobriety requirements.

Both bills specify that tenants should not be kicked out of their sober housing just because they relapse, and instead they should get support to help them recover. If a resident is no longer interested in being sober, the program should help them move into another housing program. 

Having a sober living option for people who want it would be a good thing — but it would have to be their choice, said Sharon Rapport, director of California state policy for The Corporation for Supportive Housing. But homeless housing is so scarce in California, that it’s unlikely participants would be given a true choice, she said. And, these bills would divert already limited state money away from low-barrier housing.

“My worry is that we have one pie of funding for housing,” she said. “So it’s not like we’re saying, ‘Let’s add extra money and try this other approach.’ We’d be saying, ‘Let’s spend less money on harm-reduction housing.’”

Her organization has not taken an official position on the bills. 

To make sure people don’t end up back on the street after a relapse, counties would have to keep spaces in low-barrier housing free, in case someone needs to move out of sober housing, Haney said. But that’s not explicitly mandated in the bill. 

One key motivation for Haney to draft his sober housing bill is the surge of deaths caused by the opioid fentanyl. 

“Our housing first policies in California do not reflect the realities of fentanyl and the need to provide pathways to get off of and away from such a deadly drug,” he said.

Overdose deaths are rampant inside San Francisco’s homeless housing, a 2022 San Francisco Chronicle investigation found. But the state doesn’t track those deaths in public housing, meaning if Haney’s sober housing bill passes, it will be all but impossible to tell whether it saves lives.

The state should track those deaths, Haney said, adding, “maybe I’ll do that bill next year.”

Does housing first work?

The argument against housing first is simple: Since California adopted the policy, the state’s homeless population has grown by more than half. 

But experts say that’s because high housing costs are pushing people onto the streets faster than the state’s overburdened supportive housing system can pull them back inside.

Under immense pressure to do something about the crisis, politicians are pointing to housing first as a scapegoat, said Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. But that’s like blaming the emergency room for the number of COVID patients coming in during the pandemic, she said. 

Multiple studies have shown housing first to be successful. The Department of Veterans Affairs in 2010 found adopting housing first reduced the time it took to place people in housing from 223 days to 35 days. A two-year study in five Canadian cities found housing first participants spent 73% of their time in stable housing, compared with 32% for participants in non-housing first programs. 

People Assisting the Homeless (PATH), which operates housing first programs in Southern California and the Bay Area, reported 94% of people who moved in were still housed a year later. Destination: Home in Santa Clara County, which spearheads the county’s housing first efforts, reported similar results.

“That is as much evidence as I think would be necessary to show that this model works really well,” said CEO Jennifer Loving, “and the problem is we haven’t been able to do enough of it.”

The post Should California be able to require sobriety in homeless housing?sobriety in homeless housingShould California be able to require sobriety in homeless housing? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The Washington state attorney general announced a $149.5 million settlement Wednesday with drugmaker Johnson & Johnson, more than four years after the state sued the company over its role fueling the opioid addiction crisis.

“They knew what the harm was. They did it anyway,” Attorney General Bob Ferguson told reporters Wednesday.

The attorney general’s announcement came as opioid overdose deaths more than doubled from 2019 to 2022, with 2,048 deaths recorded in 2022, according to the most recent numbers from the Washington State Department of Health.

Under the deal, the state and local governments would have to spend $123.3 million to address the opioid crisis, including on substance abuse treatment, expanded access to overdose-reversal drugs and services that support pregnant women on substances. The rest of the money would go toward litigation costs.

The harm is “left now to policymakers to grapple with,” the attorney general said, “or families and individuals who grapple in a very different way with the real tragedy of addiction.”

The settlement agreement still requires approval from a judge. If approved, the deal would send over $20 million more to respond to the opioid crisis than if the state had signed onto a national settlement in 2021 involving Johnson & Johnson, the attorney general’s office said.

Since the 2000s, drugmakers, wholesalers, pharmacy chains and consultants have agreed to pay more than $50 billion to state and local governments to settle claims that they played a part in creating the opioid crisis.

Under the agreements, most of the money is to be used to combat the nation’s addiction and overdose crisis.

Drug overdoses caused more than 1 million deaths in the U.S. from 1999 through 2021, and the majority of those involved opioids. At first, the crisis centered on prescription painkillers that gained more acceptance in the 1990s, and later heroin. Over the past decade, the death toll has reached an all-time high, and the biggest killers have been synthetic opioids such as fentanyl that are in the supply of many street drugs.

Washington state’s Democratic attorney general sued Johnson & Johnson in 2020, alleging that it helped drive the pharmaceutical industry’s expansion of prescription opioids. He also claimed that the company made a distinct mark on Washington’s opioid crisis by deceiving doctors and the public about the effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain and the risk of addiction.

The attorney general’s office noted that in 2015 the company was the largest supplier in the country of the active pharmaceutical ingredients that go into opioid drugs.

Johnson & Johnson said in a written statement Monday that Duragesic, its fentanyl patch, and its Nucynta opioid accounted for less than 1% of opioid prescriptions in the state and the U.S., adding that it has not sold prescription opioid medications in the country in years.

“The Company’s actions relating to the marketing and promotion of important prescription opioid medications were appropriate and responsible,” according to the statement.

Funds will be awarded by the end of this fiscal year, which means that the Legislature can earmark the money during the current legislative session. Half of the money will go to a state account, while the other half will go to an account for local governments, according to the attorney general’s office.

Democratic Sen. June Robinson said Wednesday that her children have lost friends to addiction and that she has known parents who have lost children in similar ways.

“The fact that these lawsuits have played out since then, they can’t unfortunately bring back the lives that we lost,” she said. “But they are bringing resources to our communities and to our state that we are able to invest in ways that will help people recover and hopefully help to prevent future addiction and future crises like the one that we’re seeing right now.”

The deal comes about two years after the nation’s three largest opioid distributors agreed to pay the state $518 million, with the vast majority being directed toward easing the addiction epidemic.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Washington state reaches a nearly $150 million settlement with Johnson & Johnson over opioid crisis appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Dr. Frank Annie sees desperation in his hospital, where 30- and 40-year-olds come in with organ failure after injecting opioids with dirty needles. Joe Solomon finds it in the faces of those who line up in the church gyms and parking lots where he passes out overdose reversal drugs. Sheena Griffith encounters it on the streets she navigates with a car packed with HIV test kits and disinfectant for sanitizing syringes.

Annie is a Republican, Solomon a Democrat and Griffith an independent. All three are running for city council in the capital city of battle-scarred West Virginia, where the devastating toll of the opioid crisis transcends party politics.

“There’s so much unchecked pain, and it’s exhausting,” said Griffith, a recovery coach who’s battled substance use herself. “If we are a God-fearing state, a God-fearing country, where is God in the city of Charleston?”

More than a year after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared Charleston the scene of the country’s “most concerning HIV outbreak” due to IV drug use, the three candidates say not enough has changed. And with millions of dollars from legal settlements with opioid manufacturers and pharmacies on the way specifically for treatment and recovery, they also feel the urgency of getting things right locally, where it matters most.

But people are divided, even if not on party lines. Against CDC guidance, state and local officials voted last year to criminalize programs that give people who inject drugs clean syringes to prevent the spread of HIV and hepatitis C. A proposal for a low-barrier shelter using COVID-19 relief money that would allow residents experiencing homelessness to receive substance use disorder treatment — initially endorsed by the city’s Democratic mayor — was tabled after people complained about the potential impact on nearby schools and businesses.

Charleston, which leans more liberal than the rest of West Virginia, did invest several million dollars in COVID relief funds to support a women’s shelter, a program that helps people get access to permanent housing and a food truck run by a local soup kitchen, but most of the money has gone to economic development initiatives.

Annie said the city is more focused on trying to rebrand and rebuild after the decline of the coal industry and the pain of the opioid epidemic, and has yet to truly address the underlying issues, including the needs of people who have long been exploited.

“We’re going through a very uncomfortable transitional era in West Virginia, basically for the soul of West Virginia,” said the research scientist specializing in cardiovascular health at Charleston Area Medical Center Memorial Hospital. “This level of pain and mistrust is nothing new. The question is, what we do about it now. Do we ignore it continuously, or do we try and be proactive and trust science finally?”

Solomon, a trained social worker, co-runs the nonprofit Solutions Oriented Addiction Response. He said members of his organization felt a sense of urgency in 2020 when they began setting up tents in church parking lots and handing out sterile syringes.

Syringe access programs are CDC-recommended and scientifically proven methods to prevent disease transmission. At SOAR’s health fairs — located in the part of Charleston with the highest percentage of emergency overdose calls — they conducted HIV testing and distributed naloxone, an overdose reversal drug. They also helped connect people with recovery resources.

But some people in the city were wary. They complained about needle litter, and said the program let people who use drugs keep using. They said the health fairs were introducing new challenges, such as homelessness and mental health issues, to residential neighborhoods.

Jennifer Pharr, a fellow Democrat who is running in the same race as Solomon for one of six at-large seats, said SOAR didn’t spend enough time getting community buy-in and explaining what it was doing before it started handing out needles. It didn’t help that the majority-white-run organization also set up health fairs in the Charleston neighborhood with the highest concentration of Black residents, said Pharr, who is Black.

Pharr, who lost her brother to an overdose, said the issue is personal to a lot of people and she understands their fear.

“You really need to go and knock on the neighbors’ doors and let them know what you’re doing,” she said. “There’s always going to be a collateral circumstance that happens from any good intention.”

State lawmakers responded to the situation by passing new regulations requiring syringe providers to be licensed and needle recipients to show a state ID — something many unhoused people lack — and bring back each needle after use.

The city council followed with an ordinance making it a misdemeanor criminal offense to run an exchange program violating the restrictions, adding fines of $500 to $1,000 per offense.

SOAR shut down its syringe exchange; new HIV cases continued to be reported.

Traveling around the city for three days with a backpack, eating at soup kitchens and sleeping under bridges and in parking lots this past summer, Solomon interviewed residents about the changes they’d like to see. He said many people “just need basic dignity and basic services,” something the city has a rare opportunity to provide.

“They’ve never had more money in the history of money in this city, and you could make the case that there’s never been more stigma in the history of stigma,” said Solomon. “How bad does the pain have to get until the city says we need to have a vision for a city of mercy, for a city of solutions?”

Annie said he wishes every city official could spend time in his hospital intensive care unit.

“Sometimes it feels like they live in a very different reality than what’s really going on, or they choose not to acknowledge it,” he said.

As a Republican, he’s tried to stress the financial burden of caring for people when addiction goes unaddressed. From 2008 to 2015, Annie’s hospital lost over $13 million treating patients suffering from infective endocarditis, a life-threatening heart inflammation that’s relatively rare outside IV drug users. Many of them are uninsured and have to remain in hospital beds for weeks at a time.

He wants the city and the hospital system to join forces on a harm reduction program — something hospital leadership previously expressed interest in. He said the debate on the legislation restricting syringe exchanges was rife with “misconceptions” and “antiquated notions” about harm reduction and syringe services.

He said it frustrates him when he hears people say more data is needed on HIV and other opioid-related issues in the city, since he’s been the one collecting it.

“We’ve had the data for years,” he said. “It’s just there’s no will.”

Griffith, who works at the same hospital as Annie, sees the way people live once they leave. Driving around in her Nissan Maxima, she searches for people in tent encampments, in abandoned houses, in alleyways and offers them food, blankets and support.

“Every day I go out, and I try to help save someone, say something that’s going to change their mind and save their life and make them want to be better,” she said. “And every day that I do that, I’m drowning, because it is such a repetitive thing.”

Griffith, now in recovery after years of struggling with substance use and homelessness, said she’d probably be dead if it weren’t for a program that offered clean syringes. When she lost everything, it was a worker she’d met at the syringe exchange who helped her get treatment.

She said people who try to address the problem by criminalizing addiction simply don’t understand it.

“They don’t know about sleeping on the street and wondering where you are going to eat that night,” she said. “Let people who have lived a real life, who come from the streets, try to change things. Our city is dying of drug addiction, so let people who care about what our city is dying from fix the problem.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post West Virginia’s opioid crisis transcends partisan politics appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Even though one judge rejected OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma’s sweeping settlement of thousands of lawsuits over the opioid crisis, another refused Wednesday to allow litigation to move ahead just yet against members of the Sackler family who own the company — but also ordered negotiations for a reworked settlement.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain on Wednesday granted Purdue’s request to extend an injunction until Feb. 1 protecting the company and the Sacklers from litigation. He also ordered Purdue, the Sacklers, the states and other parties to negotiate a new settlement.

In a hearing conducted Wednesday via video conference, the White Plains, New York-based judge warned the family and others that he would end the protections early if there are not serious talks toward a new settlement. “If the parties do not negotiate in good faith,” he said, “they will face the consequences of the injunction unraveling.”

Drain is the same judge who approved the company’s settlement in September.

The deal had been hashed out over two years of negotiations and mediation in bankruptcy court. Eventually, lawyers for the overwhelming majority of local governments and states signed on. The plan called for members of the Sackler family to give up ownership of Purdue, which would be transformed into a new company whose profits would be used to fight the opioid crisis.

Sackler family members would also contribute $4.5 billion in cash and charitable assets, with the money to go to victims of the crisis and efforts to end the crisis, which has been linked to more than 500,000 deaths in the U.S. since 2000, counting overdoses of both prescription opioids and illicit ones, such as heroin and illegally produced fentanyl.

In exchange for the contributions, Sackler family members were also granted protections from lawsuits over opioids.

But eight states and one office in the U.S. Department of Justice objected. They said it was improper for them to be forced to give up their right to sue members of the Sackler family, who themselves were not seeking bankruptcy protection. The holdout states argued that the $4.5 billion does not properly hold the family members accountable.

In December, U.S District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled in favor of those states, finding that judges do not have authority to grant third-party releases as Drain did.

Purdue said it would appeal that ruling while also trying again to strike a settlement deal that all the states would be willing to join. The Stamford, Connecticut-based company also asked Drain to protect it and the family from lawsuits while that’s sorted out. A injunction previously in place was to expire Thursday.

Two states — Connecticut and Washington — argued that suits against the Sacklers should be allowed to move ahead immediately. Those states said they would not move ahead now with litigation against the company.

Irve Goldman, a lawyer for Connecticut, said in court Wednesday that their suits against the Sacklers won’t be resumed immediately if the family members are in good-faith settlement negotiations. He also said that the Sacklers have not been in such talks so far since the settlement was dissolved on Dec. 16.

Lawyers for Sackler family did not speak at Wednesday’s hearing. Representatives of the family did not immediately respond to questions from The Associated Press.

Connecticut and Washington said in a filing that the Sacklers would agree to an appropriate settlement only if lawsuits can move ahead and they “are then forced to come to grips with the prospect of continued litigation against them.”

But Benjamin Kaminetzky, a lawyer for Purdue, told Drain in court that the opposite was true. “If the stay is lifted, everyone will be scrambling to get their claims on file as quickly as possible,” he said. “In this environment, negotiations would be an afterthought at best, likely a no-thought.”

Still, he said that if the Sackler family does not negotiate in January, Purdue would not seek further injunctions to protect the family from lawsuits.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Suits against OxyContin owners on hold; negotiations ordered appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.