By California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed a bill authorizing a limited number of safe injection sites, in an attempt to curb the number of overdose deaths plaguing the state and nation. Newsom rejected the bill, Senate Bill 57, saying overdose prevention programs authorized by the bill could lead to “a world of unintended consequences.” exercised its rights.
As a five-year pilot program, SB 57 will authorize four local jurisdictions to operate overdose prevention programs, also known as safe consumption sites or safe injection sites. Overdose prevention centers had been approved in Los Angeles County and in the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, where local leaders had requested their inclusion in legislation. Approved by the State Senate on August 1.
“All overdose deaths are preventable” wiener said After the bill passed the state legislature. “We have the tools to end these deaths, make people healthier, and reduce harm to drug users. SB 57 has been postponed for a long time and will have a huge impact on the most vulnerable people in our community.”
Safe injection sites are places where people inject or otherwise consume drugs under the supervision of trained medical professionals who can intervene in the event of a drug overdose or other medical emergency. provide a place where you can Overdose prevention centers also provide other services, such as drug referrals, housing assistance, and HIV prevention services. Switzerland, Canada, and at least 10 other countries have successfully operated safe injection sites for years, with no documented overdose deaths among those using the facilities. Hmm.
Late last year, New York City officials announced that New York City had opened the first officially recognized overdose prevention center in the United States. Since then, A study published by the American Medical Association New York’s Safe Consumption Drugs site reduces the risk of overdose, encourages people not to use illegal drugs in public, and provides ancillary health services to those who use illegal drugs. I found
Veto rights point out the possibility of ‘unintended consequences’
But the success of other safe injection sites couldn’t sway the California governor. Newsom also acknowledged that an overdose prevention program could be beneficial, but rejected SB-57 on Monday and said the law’s potential “unintended consequences”.
“Though these sites can help improve the safety and health of our urban areas, they can defeat this purpose if done without strong planning.” written by the governor in his veto message. “These unintended consequences in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland cannot be taken lightly. Exacerbating the problem of drug consumption in these areas is not a risk we can take.”
Instead of approving the bill, Newsom told the California Department of Health and Human Services secretary “to convene city and county officials to discuss minimum standards and best practices for safe and sustainable overdose prevention programs.” ‘ said.
“When these local government officials bring back to Congress proposals for truly limited pilot programs, I am open to this discussion. is a comprehensive plan for , operations, community partnerships, and financial sustainability,” Newsom wrote.
Supporters disappointed with veto
After Newsom’s veto on the Safe Injection Places bill was announced, Wiener said in a statement that no more research was needed to reach the conclusion that overdose prevention centers save lives.
“Today’s veto is tragic,” Wiener said. “This veto is a huge setback in our efforts to save lives and get people to treatment, but we must not let this movement end. We will continue to fight to focus on use and addiction.”
A coalition of medical organizations, drug treatment experts, policy reform advocates and civil rights groups supported passage of SB 57, saying the bill would save lives and create opportunities for substance abuse interventions. Janet Zanipatin, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance, criticized Newsom’s reasons for refusal, noting that local authorities in jurisdictions slated for safe consumption sites had already signed the law. did.
“We are incredibly disappointed and heartbroken that Governor Newsom has put his political ambitions ahead of saving thousands of lives and vetoed this important legislation. Despite the governor’s remarks, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland have already designated this as a priority by locally endorsing programs and are ready to implement them quickly.” zanipatin he said in a statement from the group. “We have already engaged local stakeholders in a strong process and they are taking positive steps towards implementation to become part of the pilot that SB 57 will conduct. We don’t need a process, we need action, or people will die.”
Shane Pennington, an attorney at cannabis law firm Vicente Sederberg LLP, is also disappointed with the veto.
“Governor. Newsom’s decision to veto this bill is highly disappointing,” Pennington wrote in an email. high times“Research shows that safe consumption sites save lives, plain and simple. I hope that will come to fruition.”
