Small Town - Big Addiction, "I Fell... Again"

 

In the world of addiction, the stories are often both tragic and complex, revealing the depths to which people will go to sustain their dependency. In this interview, we sit down with Jan, a recovering addict, who candidly shares the extreme measures she took to manipulate doctors into prescribing pain medications. Her journey exposes the underbelly of addiction, where deceit becomes a daily tool for survival.

Interviewer: Jan, thank you for agreeing to talk with me today. Can you start by telling us a little about how your addiction began?

Jan: It started the way it does for a lot of people. I was prescribed pain medication after an injury — I’d hurt my back, lifting something heavy. At first, the pills were just for the pain. But then, over time, I started noticing that the pills didn’t just take the pain away; they made everything else disappear, too. The stress, the anxiety — all of it. And soon enough, I wasn’t just taking them for the pain.

Interviewer: When did you realize you were dependent on them?

Jan: Probably when the prescriptions stopped. I would run out early, and the doctors started cutting me off. That’s when I knew I was hooked. The physical withdrawal was unbearable. It felt like I couldn’t function without them. So, I started looking for ways to get more.

Interviewer: Can you explain what you did to keep getting the medication once the doctors stopped prescribing it?

Jan: Sure. I got desperate. After a while, doctors in my state flagged me as a potential drug seeker. They wouldn’t write me prescriptions anymore. That’s when I came up with this plan, which I guess you could call it. I started having my boyfriend hit me. Not just anywhere — I’d tell him where to hit so it would look like I’d had a real accident. Mostly in places that doctors couldn’t easily question — like my arms, legs, or ribs. Then, I’d tell the doctors I fell down the stairs or slipped in the shower.

Interviewer: How often would you do this?

Jan: It became a regular thing. Whenever I needed a refill and couldn’t get one, I’d set it up. I’d plan it out: how I’d “fall,” where I’d land, and how long I’d wait before going to the ER. I had it down to a science. My boyfriend wasn’t a bad guy — he didn’t want to hurt me — but he knew I needed it, or I’d lose it. He’d just do what I asked. The bruises and fractures made it easy to convince the doctors.

Interviewer: Did you ever get caught by the doctors?

Jan: Not at first. I got good at it. I made sure to switch doctors every time. But after a while, even the ERs in my state started to catch on. They’d see my name, and I’d notice the way they’d look at me. You could tell they were suspicious. They’d start asking questions, and I knew it was only a matter of time before I was flagged everywhere.

Interviewer: What did you do when that happened?

Jan: That’s when I crossed state lines. I live near the border, so driving to another state wasn’t too hard. I’d just start the whole process over again. New doctors, new hospitals, new stories. They didn’t know me in a different state, so it worked for a while. But you can only run long before people start figuring things out.

Interviewer: Did you ever feel guilty about deceiving the doctors?

Jan: (Pauses) At the time, no. I didn’t care about anything except getting the pills. The withdrawal made me feel like I was dying, so I would do whatever I had to. I justified it by telling myself that the doctors didn’t care about me anyway, that they were just part of the system. But looking back now, I feel terrible. Those doctors were trying to help people in pain, and I took advantage of that. I wasn’t thinking about the long-term damage I was doing to myself or how I was hurting the people around me.

Interviewer: What finally made you stop?

Jan: I ended up in a car accident, a real one this time. I was high on pain pills and nodded off while driving. I could’ve killed someone, and that was the wake-up call I needed. After that, I went to rehab, and I’ve been clean ever since. It’s been a long road, but I’m doing better now.

Interviewer: What advice would you give someone in a similar situation?

Jan: Get help before it’s too late. The pills might feel like they’re helping, but they’re not. They just numb the pain for a little while, and then the cycle starts all over again. And don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re not hurting anyone else — because you are. Eventually, the lies catch up with you. It’s only a matter of time before it all falls apart.

Interviewer: Thank you, Jan, for sharing your story. I know it’s not easy to talk about something like this.

Jan: It’s important. I just hope my story can help someone else avoid the path I went down.

Jan’s story is a stark reminder of the lengths to which addiction can drive someone. The deception, the manipulation, and the constant need for more highlight the darker side of pain pill addiction. For Jan, her story is one of survival — not just from the pain she sought to numb but from the addiction that nearly destroyed her life.

Tax Breaks and Hobby Businesses

 

The proposal to offer a $50,000 tax break to all new small businesses is an enticing incentive to foster entrepreneurship and stimulate economic growth. However, the potential for significant complications arises if the IRS later determines that a business needs to meet the criteria for a legitimate enterprise. This issue isn't new; under both Presidents Clinton and Obama, companies and individuals faced retroactive tax payments, forcing them to repay benefits initially granted by the government. A similar scenario unfolded during the COVID-19 pandemic, where numerous businesses, particularly LLCs, were required to return relief funds after being deemed ineligible following IRS reviews. The IRS determines whether a business is legitimate or simply a hobby using specific criteria, such as whether the business has a genuine intent to make a profit, the time and resources dedicated to the enterprise, and whether it operates with the regularity and professionalism expected of a viable business.

The potential for retroactive repayment creates a significant financial burden for small businesses, which may have already reinvested their tax break into growth. If required to pay back the $50,000, considering most companies don't make a profit until their fifth year in business, it could cripple a fledgling company, leading to layoffs, closures, and a ripple effect of economic hardship. On a larger scale, forcing many businesses into retroactive repayments can dampen entrepreneurial activity, creating uncertainty and discouraging new ventures. Entrepreneurs may become wary of taking advantage of government incentives, fearing that a later IRS review could render them financially liable.

Additionally, stringent IRS oversight and inconsistent or unclear guidelines on what qualifies as a legitimate business can create widespread confusion and mistrust. This can lead to administrative gridlock, where the IRS and businesses expend excessive time and resources resolving disputes. In the long run, this stifles innovation and investment, undermining the original purpose of the tax break. Retroactive tax collection from businesses struggling to survive could also result in a contraction in local economies, particularly in regions heavily reliant on small businesses for job creation and economic activity. The combination of uncertain IRS oversight, unclear definitions of legitimate businesses, and retroactive repayments could transform an initiative to stimulate growth into a source of economic instability. To mitigate these risks, the government must establish clear, transparent criteria from the outset and provide better support for small business owners navigating the tax break process.

BLS Job Creation Misreporting

 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a federal agency measuring labor market activity, working conditions, and economic price changes. It plays a critical role in shaping public perceptions and policy decisions by providing data on job creation, unemployment rates, and wage growth. However, like any large organization, the BLS is not immune to errors, oversights, or miscalculations. One glaring example is the recent controversy surrounding the BLS's misreporting of 834 million jobs that were purportedly "created" but, in fact, did not exist. This error underscores broader issues within the agency, raising questions about the reliability of its data and the consequences of its miscalculations on public policy.

The misreporting of 834 million jobs is not just a statistical blunder—it reflects a systemic issue within the BLS. While the agency is tasked with providing accurate data, it often relies on outdated models and assumptions that do not fully capture the complexities of the modern economy. Like many government institutions, the BLS is frequently slow to adapt to economic behavior, technological advancements, and shifting labor market dynamics. As a result, its reports can be misleading, causing policymakers to make decisions based on flawed data. This particular instance of misreporting reveals a deeper problem: the over-reliance on bureaucratic processes detached from working Americans' real-world experiences. When the BLS overstates job creation or underestimates unemployment, it creates a false sense of security in the economy. People are led to believe that the labor market is more substantial than it is, which can mask underlying problems such as wage stagnation, declining job quality, and increased economic inequality.

The BLS's errors are not just academic; they have real-world consequences. When government agencies like the BLS fail to provide accurate data, they pave the way for policies that expand government control over the economy. One example is the push toward more centralized economic planning, often through socialism or government-mandated controls. When the government believes the economy is doing well based on faulty data, it may feel justified in expanding its role in managing resources, setting wages, and determining how businesses operate. This creeping control can lead to a loss of individual freedom and economic liberty. Productive people—the entrepreneurs, small business owners, and workers who drive innovation and growth—may become disillusioned with a system that seems increasingly hostile to their efforts. As more and more regulations, taxes, and mandates are imposed, these individuals may decide that the rewards of participating in the formal economy are no longer worth the costs. They may quit or withdraw from the economy, leading to labor shortages, reduced productivity, and a lower standard of living for everyone.

One of the most dangerous aspects of government agencies like the BLS making such errors is that the government rarely admits when it is wrong. The narrative often remains that these institutions are infallible, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This creates a feedback loop where government mistakes are not corrected but perpetuated through policy decisions that exacerbate the problems they should solve. When productive people leave the economy, society as a whole suffers. Shortages of goods and services become more common, and the quality of life deteriorates. Yet, those who support more government control often need to see the link between flawed data, bad policy, and these adverse outcomes. Instead, they double down on the belief that more government intervention is the solution, further expanding socialism and control.

The BLS's misreporting of 834 million jobs is not just a mistake—it is a symptom of a more significant problem within government agencies that fail to provide accurate, reliable data. This issue has far-reaching consequences for public policy, individual freedom, and the economy's overall health. As productive people withdraw from a system that punishes success and rewards inefficiency, society will experience the consequences of shortages, lower quality of life, and increased government control. It is essential to demand accountability from the BLS and other government agencies. Accurate data is critical for making informed government and private decisions. Without it, we risk moving further down the path of socialism and control, where individual liberty and economic prosperity are sacrificed in the name of centralized planning and government intervention. Voting for policies that promote freedom, economic opportunity, and limited government is one way to push back against this trend and ensure that future generations can enjoy the benefits of a thriving, dynamic economy.