by Rep. Gina Galfetti
As the passage of H. 72 looms on the horizon, we must ask ourselves what has gone wrong in the Capital City. Indeed, a bill that takes $2,000,000 away from drug rehabilitation and prevention and allocates it to the establishment of so-called “harm reduction centers” (or, to use the oxymoron preferred by others, “safe injection sites”) lays the groundwork for this commentary on just how dysfunctional the Vermont Legislature has become.
To be clear, we must take bold action to combat the opioid crisis, but investing critical monies in a program that is doomed to fail is not the way forward.
Safe injection sites have no proven record of saving lives in the United States. In fact, facilities such as the ones proposed in H.72 are not among the established vehicles for treatment or prevention that SAMSHA recommends. SAMSHA is the officially recognized body that outlines the best practices for both treating and preventing opioid addiction, but the majority of Vermont’s lawmakers are completely ignoring it. Rather than putting money into proven programs and the expansion of treatment beds, they are taking a chance on a strategy that is illegal under federal law and when established in Vermont will do far more harm than good.
First, even if this program had some merit, we do not have the ancillary services to support these centers. We lack the treatment beds and programming that would help addicts choose an alternative. Second, we have no age limitation on the ability to use the sites, so a 12-year old child could walk in without a parent or guardian and proceed to “shoot up,” no questions asked. And the Department of Children and Families has absolutely no role in reviewing or monitoring use of the sites by minors, despite the fact that those who operate the sites are mandatory reporters of child abuse. Third, but certainly not last among the many objections to these facilities, we have left the Department of Health in charge of writing all of the guidelines for the operation of such centers rather than codifying anything in law. Legislators in favor of this bill are voting for a federally illegal concept that has not been tried by any other state and will be operated under regulations that have yet to be written. “Damn the torpedoes—full steam ahead!”
All those objections aside, assume that these sites come into being. Addicts wishing to use them still need to get to them—most likely at least twice a day! Do we want all of our addicts living in close proximity to these centers so that they can walk to them every time they need a fix? Or would we prefer to have an addict shoot up, get high, and then drive home?
Too often, proponents of this legislation accuse others of being heartless or in some way not caring about saving lives. They are quick to judge, but in reality, they are the ones who are ignoring evidence-based best practices that have a proven record of saving lives and bringing our loved ones home safely to us. Rather than investing money into desperately needed treatment infrastructure that has been proven to be successful, they are wasting money forging ahead regardless of the consequences. These centers will take a considerable amount of time to build, and there is no guarantee that they will remain open and free from federal prosecution.
The bottom line is that the House majority has voted to sink $2,000,000 into a program that not only fails to help addicts get sober, but rather affirmatively enables their continued substance abuse. That is not only irresponsible, but inhumane.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Rep. Gina Galfetti's Floor Report
when they shut down the industrial based economy in this country, that was the beginning of the end of the middle class in this country/// the new economy is taking care of drug addicts/// enjoy///
Maybe these new injection sites could become Vermont’s new place for the death by suicide law?
Would someone from Vermont Daily Chronicle please ask Ms. Galfetti why she pretends to be concerned over this after she voted for H89 ?
The law that criminalizes every Parent and Health Care provider that would protect the child.
The law which provides for abortion up to the moment of Birth.
The Law that allows the ” State ” to take children away from their Parents to sexually, chemically, physically and psychologically destroy them ?
Her claim to be concerned about a 12 year old who would shoot up without a Parents knowledge is astounding. She voted for that 12 year old to decide if they want to have their body mutilated.
Her entire 4th paragraph proves her hypocrisy.
Ask her why she hasn’t spoken out about the $ 2 million Phil Scott stole from the program to protect VT Children at risk from domestic violence and $ 3 million from the Tobacco settlement fund designated to help Vermonters suffering from tobacco use to give to illegal aliens that were not eligible for stimulus checks ?
What about those children Ms. Galfetti ?
If you have time, please ask Ms. Galfetti which if any part of the VTGOP Platform she actually supports ?
How many times have we heard, “nobody is above the law?” Yet the Vermont Legislature wants to create two illegal injection sites where drug addicts can inject illegal drugs. The legislature claims this will reduce harm and be safe. I don’t think drug addicts will travel to an injection site when they need a fix. I know drug addicts need help but safe injection sites are not the answer. This would be a complete waste of money and there are so many other ways to use the money to help people. This is irresponsible, illegal, insane, and inhumane.
It’s only $2,000,000 for needles that cost 10 cents. Why are you such a cheapo!
But seriously they could just create a fund to reimburse drugstores to exchange needles, and give them a “do you need help” pamphlet while they are there, for a FRACTION of the cost.
Not that the constitution authorizes them to steal ANY money from the people for this.
“A 12-year old child could walk in without a parent or guardian and proceed to “shoot up,” no questions asked.”
Or that 12 year old could go shoot up in the woods, or in a deserted baseball dugout, and die alone of an OD. It’s no surprise that the GOP is against any effort to protect that kid. They have a long history of abandoning children to starve, or die from a lack of medical care.
Out of every priority you think the government should be providing right at this very moment, do you think this is an appropriate step to solving that priority, and is $2,000,000 the right amount of money to spend on this issue?
If I were to give you $2,000,000 to spend on helping people, how you you spend it? Is there something that costs $2,000,000 that would provide more help for a 12 year old that is about to go shoot up in the woods?
If their bold claim that it will reduce other costs is correct, that is great, but is $2,000,000 still an appropriate cost? Do you think the same thing could be done much cheaper?
Would you mind if they opened up a place for sick druggies to shoot up right next to where you work? Where you live? A place you visit every day? Would you open up a business right next to one of these lovely helping wonderful places?
What happens if this somehow attracts more gang members to an area previously not saturated with sellers, and then a gun fight breaks out causing a 12 year old walking down the street to get struck by a stray bullet? Will you then, stop supporting spending this $2,000,000 in this specific way?
In my opinion, the only solution is a multi-step process. Make littering bio-hazardous materials/sharps a high felony (which should have went along with this bill). Legalize all drugs, starting with allowing prescriptions and monitoring for dangerous or problematic drugs. Remove all forms of drug user enablement / public “welfare”, and transfer that responsibility to private charities that do strict vetting, and to insurance companies. Disallow any programs that have schools collaborating with big pharma to give drugs to children at a young age who are having trouble paying attention in school, and replace it with drug free solutions. Disqualify anyone in public office who takes medications that have “homicide” listed in the side-effects label. Stop the constant malinvestment schemes that government (all political parties) partake in which causes wealth destruction, divide, and a sick society in the first place. Make love, not politics.
think /// child trafficking/// pedophiles///
Under the current proposal, could someone under 21 go to one of these “harm reduction sites” and consume alcohol? Alcohol is illegal for someone underage, but legality is being overlooked in the interest of “harm reduction”, right?