San Francisco ‘Opens the Door’ to Supervised Drug Consumption Sites
San Francisco could soon be home to supervised drug consumption centers, despite California Governor. Gavin Newsom’s veto legislation with a similar plan by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) last year and widespread opposition to the idea.
Unanimously, the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors voted voted February 28th to allow non-profit groups to operate supervised injection sites funded by private money. The supervisors will vote their final time on March 7, as ordinances need to be read two times.
London Breed, San Francisco Mayor and Supervisor Hillary Ronen introduced proposal Last month: “a recently identified permitting barrier” The mayor stated that the city will continue to implement an overdose prevention program while it awaits federal guidance.
The legislation “opens the door for non-profits to operate drug overdose prevention sites in San Francisco,” According to the press release.
Since 2020, nearly 2,000 San Franciscans have been killed by the drug crisis. The city’s notorious Tenderloin area is also known for being a hub of crime. hotspot for illicit drug deals.
“This legislation is part of our work to bring down the number of fatal overdoses and tackle the challenges driven by fentanyl head on,” Breed. “We will continue to work with our non-profits partners who are trying to open overdose prevention sites, fully implement our health strategies to help those struggling with addiction in our streets, and work with law enforcement to close the open-air drug markets.”
Ronen stated that San Francisco must have overdose prevention facilities to save lives. “solutions to open-air drug use and chaotic conditions on the streets.”
‘Negative Impacts’
Jacqui Berlinn is co-founder of Mothers Against Drug Addiction and Deaths. Her son is addicted to fentanyl. She said that she opposed the creation of safe injection sites.
Berlinn stated to the Epoch Times via SMS on March 2, that her supervisors had not done sufficient research and visited safe injection sites in New York City, Vancouver and elsewhere to verify this. “the negative impacts” They have had an impact on the surrounding communities.
“It’s also important to talk to community members, as well as those with substance use disorders and the people who love them,” She spoke. “Governor Newsom understood this when he vetoed Senate Bill 57 last year. The [San Francisco Board of Supervisors] incorrectly believes they know better even after witnessing the abject failure of the Linkage Center in [the Tenderloin district].”
Last year, the Tenderloin Linksage Center provided services for the homeless. dropped The word “linkage” Named after very few people connected to drug recovery services or other programs, it was named.
Wiener’s Senate Bill 56 would have allowed the establishment of overdose prevention programs including safe injection sites where addicts can use illegal drugs in supervised facilities in Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.
“The unlimited number of safe injection sites that this bill would authorize—facilities which would authorize well into the later part of this decade—could induce a world of unintended consequences,” Newsom claimed in his veto message August 22,
While “it is possible that these sites would help improve the safety and health of our urban areas,” They could lose and make California’s drug problem even worse “is not a risk we can take,” Newsom made the statement in September’s veto message.
Newsom stated at the time that he was open to discussing with local officials in order to bring back a proposal for a “truly limited pilot program” “comprehensive plans for siting, operations, community partnerships, and fiscal sustainability that demonstrate how these programs will be run safely and effectively.”
City Takes Matter ‘Into Its Own Hands’
Wiener released a statement Aug. 22 stating that the veto had been overruled “tragic.”
“With two successive Governors vetoing this bill, it’s crystal clear the State isn’t going to step up. San Francisco needs to take matters into its own hands & open up safe consumption sites to save lives,” Wiener posted on Twitter.
But, Berlinn disagrees.
“The leaders of the city need to prioritize treatment and recovery before implementing sites like these that only perpetuate the open-air drug markets,” She spoke. “San Francisco can’t even keep the area in front of methadone clinics clear of drug dealers and users. My own son has to walk through this toxic environment every day that he goes to the clinic for his treatment. He is actively trying to get well and free from his addiction, but the city isn’t able to keep the route to these clinics safe.”
Berlinn recently helped to form a new group called North America RecoversThe nonpartisan coalition includes more than 20 American and Canadian community leaders and parents of the homeless. “support addiction recovery—not addiction enablement,” This includes untreated mental illness, homelessness, and other forms of homelessness.
Current federal and state laws prohibit supervised injection sites using government funds for their operations. San Francisco’s 2020 ordinance would allow them, but only with state approval which the city has—so far—failed to achieve.
New York’s 2021 overdose prevention center was privately funded. This allows addicts to buy illegal drugs like heroin and fentanyl, and then use them under the supervision and guidance of trained staff. They offer counseling.
“The opioid epidemic continues to take an immense toll on our City and claim the lives of far too many San Franciscans,” David Chiu, San Francisco City Attorney said this in a statement. “To save lives, I continue to support a non-profit moving forward with New York City’s model of overdose prevention centers. Repealing this ordinance is one step towards that goal.”
From San Francisco ‘Opens the Door’ to Supervised Drug Consumption Sites
Conservative News Daily does not endorse or share the views or opinions expressed in this article.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
