-According to the Southern Nevada Health District from January 2018 to July 2022, fentanyl killed 653 people in Clark County.

In fact, the Drug Enforcement Administration calls the synthetic opioid the greatest threat to Americans today.

Here now to discuss the new legislation aimed at protecting Nevadans from that threat is Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford.

Attorney General, welcome to Nevada Week.

(Aaron Ford) Thank you for having me back.

-So your bill, which Governor Lombardo signed into law, addresses the trafficking of fentanyl.

And prior to it, high-level trafficking was considered the distribution or possession of more than 400 grams of fentanyl.

Now it's if someone has between 42 and 100.

First off I'm thinking, well, what happens if they have over 100 grams?

Is that no longer considered high-level trafficking?

-Well, the laws that were on the books prior to the legislation will kick in.

It certainly will be prosecutable.

No question.

-Okay.

Okay.

So now that that is high-level trafficking, you're significantly lowering the threshold for how much is considered high-level trafficking, punishable by at least 2 to 15 years in prison.

What are your realistic expectations for what that punishment will do when you have groups like the National Institute of Justice saying that more severe penalties do little to deter crime?

-Well, listen, I think the first thing we have to do is to bifurcate the conversation.

We're talking about trafficking in these bills and not mere possession.

Those are two different issues we need to be talking about.

There may be some overlap every once in a while, but possession of any amount of fentanyl in this state is already a felony.

Possession.

We're talking about trafficking, those who do more than possess, who in fact possess with the intent to sell and to distribute.

And so trafficking is the issue that we're talking about here.

And so to the extent we are able to capture those individuals who are more than individuals who are merely possessing for potential personal use, we're able to, in our estimation, cut down on the amount of fentanyl that will be in the streets and capable of distribution.

And we think this is an important step forward to provide law enforcement the tools it will need.

Let me be clear about something else.

This isn't simply a public health-- or public safety issue.

It's also a public health issue, was the reason why my bill has combined efforts to address both of those from that particular paradigm.

And we will continue working to do that in both particular arenas as well.

-How are you addressing the health aspect?

-Well, on the health aspect, if those-- if someone gets arrested, for example, under this trafficking statute and they happen to be a substance use abuser, substance abuser of fentanyl or heroin or some form of opioid, they will now receive medicated assisted treatment in our jails and our prisons as a requirement under this statute to the extent funds are available.

So that's an approach that we take to ensure we are looking at this from both a public health approach and a public safety approach.

Not to mention the work that the funds, I'm sure we'll talk about later, from opiate litigation are bringing in to help on the public health side of things as well.

So we're looking forward to working with people to abate the problem on that side as well.

-So if someone is addicted and is arrested, there will be medication for them to kick that drug?

-Hopefully.

-Okay.

So we talked about high-level trafficking.

But now the definition of simply trafficking.

It used to be called low-level trafficking, and that was the possession/distribution of between 100 and 400 grams of fentanyl.

Now it's just 28 and 42 grams.

The argument against this, which you sort of addressed already, was that you're going to be putting low-level drug dealers and perhaps users of fentanyl who pool their money to buy this amount of fentanyl in jail, overcrowd the system, and not get them maybe the rehabilitation that they need.

How would you respond to that?

-Well, let me first highlight the fact that it's not typical that people are buying fentanyl.

They may be looking to buy an opioid that has been laced with fentanyl.

And therein lies the problem, because fentanyl has adulterated so many drugs at this stage that it was difficult for us to be able to get the first iteration of our bill passed.

The first iteration said that low-level trafficking began at 4 grams-- -Right.

- --which, as some opponents of the bill indicated, was the size of a sugar packet.

And so understanding that that was a real issue, we took that into account--we, as in those of us who were advocating on behalf of this bill--and tried to compromise and found the ways to not pull into those who, into this particular criminal statute, those who may be addicted to opioid use and may be using for personal use.

Instead, direct them toward public health approaches.

But instead, focus on those who are, you know, who have more than personal use amounts and be able to charge them with trafficking.

We think that that's going to be beneficial.

It's a compromise that I think finds the right balance.

And we're proud of that.

-You originally wanted 4 milligrams to be considered low-level trafficking, or simply trafficking.

-That's right.

-And that is a small amount.

-It is.

-But for perspective, it's only 2 milligrams that can be deadly.

-That's right.

-It's hard to imagine the amount when I'm trying to picture it in my head, how much someone is actually in possession of.

-Yeah, and one of the compounding issues is that we in our state don't have the equipment to do what we call quantifiable assessments of what drugs are, what amount of drugs are in a particular compound or substance.

And so even the packet that says 4 milligrams-- or 4 grams may only have 2 milligrams of fentanyl in it, but the entire weight of 4 grams is what will be charged under the statute.

And so we're looking to even modify our criminal statutes more in the going forward basis as we are able to precisely determine what amount of drug is in a particular compound.

-So trafficking is now 28 grams to 42 grams, punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison.

An important aspect of this, I think, for you was that piece of the legislation about substances that are laced with fentanyl and punishments for people who sell it, knowing that there's fentanyl in it but they don't inform the customer.

Why was that so important to you?

-Because those are the individuals that we should certainly be going after, those who are purposefully selling this product that is killing people to those and not informing those of that, of that particular circumstance.

So what we have done is to be able to create a new penalty for exactly that type of circumstance.

And again, that was working with advocates-- stakeholders on both sides of the issue, or rather, on all sides of the issue, frankly, to come to even that particular compromise in the bill as well.

-Stakeholders like?

-You name it.

ACLU, community groups, public defenders, the District Attorney's Office, law enforcement agencies.

You name it.

Across the board.

Anyone who had an interest in this, we welcomed to the table as I do with all of my legislation.

And so we received information from everyone, as many folks as we could, to come to a final resolution on this bill.

And it passed in the form we're talking about now.

-And the punishment for that is 2 to 20 years in prison.

You just want to get these people off the street.

-Absolutely.

-Okay.

I want to move to another topic now and that's somewhat connected, in that opioid addiction can lead to people using fentanyl.

Your office recently reached a $285 million settlement with Walgreens for the role that your office says Walgreens played in the opioid epidemic.

What role do you think Walgreens played?

-Well, part of the role that Walgreens and other defendants in our litigation have played is that they didn't properly monitor the dispensing of opioids into our communities.

They didn't have systems in place to ensure that, that inappropriate amounts of fentanyl--pardon me--of opioids were not being put into our communities.

And they've led to-- and that's what ultimately led to opioid abuse, which has ultimately led to the fentanyl crisis.

Because once we started pulling back on the opioids that people looked-- began looking for alternatives to that, and they went to the street, found heroin.

And heroin oftentimes has been laced with fentanyl as well.

So, you know, there are, there's a cause and effect, we think, that's associated with the opioid crisis with the beginning being these pharmaceutical companies, these distributors, these manufacturers, these pharmacists-- pharmacies rather, that were dispensing this, producing and dispensing this, this opioid.

And we want to hold them accountable.

-What should pharmacies have done?

-Well, they should have had in place what we call systems to ensure that there wasn't a--it's called a suspicious, suspicious order, essentially, suspicious use order--and systems to ensure that we weren't giving out and overprescribing medication or dispensing it and being able to inform appropriate individuals about that so that we could address it.

-With that settlement, it's now up to over $1 billion that you've brought in through the state's opioid litigation to the state.

How is that money going to be spent and divided?

-Yeah, well, 1.1 billion to be a little more precise.

But that money will be coming in over the course of the next 20 years, depending upon the settlements that we've entered into, and distributed pursuant to what we call the One Nevada Agreement.

Some of that money goes to the state.

Some of it goes to the municipalities that are signatories to the One Nevada Agreement.

And each of those recipients has undertaken what's called a, it's-- I can't think of the phraseology they use.

But ensuring that-- a needs assessment.

That's what I was looking for.

They've undertaken a needs assessment to see how they want that money to be spent.

And they will make that determination.

Some of the money has already begun to be spent.

But it has to be used to abate the crisis as opposed to doing other things.

It has to address abating the opioid crisis, and we've been able to bring in money to help do that.

-Congratulations on the $1.1 billion.

-Thank you.

-I want to move on to affirmative action now.

So the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional for universities to consider race when they are doing student admissions.

Now there are Republican attorneys general who have written a letter to Fortune 100 CEOs saying that, as a result of that ruling, the diversity, equity, and inclusion practices of businesses are also now illegal.

You say absolutely not.

Why?

-Yeah, well, you know, people have been attacking diversity in education and in employment environments for a long time now.

I'm disappointed and dismayed, obviously, with the Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in our schooling system.

I went to Texas A&M University on a diversity scholarship.

I am the worst nightmare of those who are opposed to affirmative action, a success story, one who matriculated into an institution, graduated from the institution, and I ultimately have five degrees, including a PhD, two master's degrees, and my law degree.

And now I sit here as Attorney General, and it's because of diversity programs that were intended to help abate and help to redress unlawful discrimination that has existed for generations.

So you know, I support affirmative action programs, always have.

It is about inclusion and diversity and not about exclusion and displacement.

And so reading that opinion did disturb me.

It was no surprise, although I'm saddened by the fact that some of my Republican attorneys general, not all of them, only 13 of them, did sent a letter to some Fortune 100 companies indicating that now they're attacking DE&I efforts, diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, at the corporate level.

We don't believe the decision even applies in a particular end, and so my office penned a letter that was signed on by 20 other Democratic attorneys general, letting Fortune 100 companies know that DE&I programs are absolutely appropriate and legal under the law, and the affirmative action case has nothing to do with it at all.

And so we're gonna stand by that and support those companies who support these efforts.

And hopefully, our letter is going to provide a little bit of consolation to them in that regard.

-Yeah, some relief.

Before you go, there is something I have been wanting to run by you for several months now.

Back in November, after the elections, we had Jon Ralston, CEO of The Nevada Independent, on, the political pundit.

We were talking about the elections.

Former President Donald Trump had just announced he was going to run for the President again.

You sent out an email to your supporters seeking some donations to try and, you know, tame the Trump machine or take it down in some regards.

I asked him about that email.

Here's what he said.

So Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford used Trump's announcement at a third run for Presidency to send an email and ask for campaign donations.

He just got reelected.

What's behind that do you think?

-(Jon Ralston) Shamelessness brazen attempt to raise money off of Trump's announcement as if Aaron Ford can stop Donald Trump in some way.

Ford's one of the most ambitious politicians I've ever met.

He used to tell people way back when he was getting started that he would eventually be Governor and then he would run for President.

I kid you not.

So he has been open about this.

He's nakedly ambitious.

Not necessarily a character flaw.

In fact, it may be good in the business that he is in.

But I do think that he is going to run for Governor in four years.

-And so you think that might have been his, his announcement?

Not announcement, but-- -It kind of was an announcement of sorts.

Although, I said that on Twitter.

I don't think he appreciated it.

-I imagine he didn't.

So Aaron Ford, will you be running for Governor in 2026?

-Listen, Jon Ralston is known for stirring the pot, so to speak, and he's quite frequently wrong.

He has no clue what Aaron Ford's ambitions are, except for me to say this: I enjoy the job I'm doing right now.

I was recently reelected into this position by the largest majority in the state of anyone running statewide.

That to me means that the people in our state appreciate the work that we're doing, and I'm looking forward to continuing that work for the next three years.

-Are you considering running for Governor?

-I will consider doing what we're doing right now, which is ensuring that the people in this state are able to have a person focused on justice in the Office of Attorney General.

-All right.

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, thank you so much for joining Nevada Week.