Newsom Snubs Progressives, Vetoes Bill Legalizing Drug-Injection Sites
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
California governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill on Monday that would allow drug users to safely inject or smoke drugs at supervised facilities in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland.
“I have long supported the cutting edge of harm reduction strategies,” Newsom said in a statement. “However, I am acutely concerned about the operations of safe injection sites without strong, engaged local leadership and well-documented, vetted, and thoughtful operational and sustainability plans.”
He said the unlimited number of sites the bill would allow “could induce a world of unintended consequences.”
“It is possible that these sites would help improve the safety and health of our urban areas, but if done without a strong plan, they could work against this purpose,” he said. “These unintended consequences in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland cannot be taken lightly. Worsening drug consumption challenges in these areas is not a risk we can take.”
Senate Republicans all voted “no” on the measure, Senate Bill 57. State senate Republican leader Scott Wilk called the bill “one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation that I’ve seen sent to the governor.”
California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher previously urged Newsom to veto the measure saying, “I am amazed that it needs to be pointed out that enabling the behavior of drug addicts is a bad thing.”
The bill, proposed by Democratic state Senator Scott Weiner, would have allowed the three cities to launch a pilot program to maintain safe-injection sites, where drug users could inject themselves with drugs they bring to the sites, until 2028. The sites would have been staffed by employees trained to monitor drug users and to make referrals to substance-abuse treatment programs.
However, in some cases referral rates out of safe-injection sites are as low as 1 percent.
The sites would offer sanitized supplies and would give those enrolled immunity from professional discipline, civil liability, and criminal laws.
Progressives have proposed the sites as a way to fight a large rise in overdose deaths in California, as the sites are intended to prevent overdoses on drugs including fentanyl, methamphetamine, and heroin, as well as to prevent the transmission of diseases like hepatitis and HIV.
Los Angeles County recorded a 48 percent increase in accidental drug-overdose deaths during the first five months of the Covid pandemic compared to the same time period in 2019. San Francisco had 297 accidental overdose deaths from January to June 2022.
After vetoing the bill, Newsom says he is directing the California secretary of health and human services to talk with city and count officials throughout the state to “discuss minimum standards and best practices for safe and sustainable overdose prevention programs.”
Newsom said he would be open to local officials returning to the state legislature with recommendations for a “truly limited pilot program — with comprehensive plans for siting, operations, community partnerships, and fiscal sustainability that demonstrate how these programs will be run safely and effectively.”
Meanwhile, Wiener, the bill’s author, called the veto “tragic” and said it “sends a powerful negative message that California is not committed to harm reduction.”
“We don’t need additional studies or working groups to determine whether safe consumption sites are effective,” Wiener said. “We know from decades of experience and numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies that they work.”
San Francisco may go ahead with opening a safe injection site even without a state law, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
“To save lives, I fully support a non-profit moving forward now with New York’s model of overdose prevention programs,” San Francisco city attorney David Chiu said in a statement released in response to Newsom’s veto.
Mayor London Breed said last year that she was “determined” to open a site. The paper reports that the city’s decision whether to open a site could ultimately be determined by the outcome of a federal legal case, United States v. Safehouse. The Department of Justice under the Trump administration charged a Philadelphia nonprofit that wanted to open a supervised injection site. However, under the Biden administration the DOJ is in settlement talks with Safehouse.
The result of that case could give San Francisco officials the legal assurances they’re seeking to move forward with the sites, the report says.
