Approve $2 Million for so-called “safe injection” sites.
by Rob Roper
Democrats in the Vermont House voted on Wednesday to spend $2 million to set up a pilot program establishing “safe injection sites” for addicts (H.72) – a misnomer as it turns out as floor testimony revealed there are multiple ways users ingest their drugs at these facilities.
One lawmaker asked, “People are snorting fentanyl and smoking it, and I’m just wondering if that will be allowed at the centers, and also something like smoking methamphetamine.” The answer from lead bill sponsor Rep. Taylor Small (P-Winooski) was, “Yes! The people who would be using such facilities would be able to use pre-obtained drugs in a variety of ways.” Sounds safe. So much for protecting the workers in these places from secondhand meth and fentanyl smoke.
Needless to say, these sites are controversial. But they are on the radical leftist Santa-letter wish list so of course, Vermont needs to be the first kid on the block to have one…. Or two as this initial case may be.
Supporters argue that giving addicts a safe place to get high under the supervision of healthcare professionals who can intervene in the event of an overdose saves lives, can facilitate a path to treatment, keeps this sort of activity off the streets, and saves the public money by reducing emergency ambulance calls. In an ideal world, maybe.
Opponents’ concerns are more practical than ideological.
First of all, these sites are illegal under federal law. A small detail. While H.72 protects users and workers at these facilities from state prosecution, it doesn’t and can’t protect them from federal prosecution. Wouldn’t it make more sense to invest this $2 million, which comes from a legal settlement with five drug makers, in some other program that is not a federal crime to implement? That might even create some synergy with a federal program to get better results? Apparently not.
Moreover, the example of successful safe sites cited by supporters are in New York City and have fully functioning ancillary support systems in place. For example, the benefit of an addict using a safe site as a springboard for getting treatment only works if treatment services outside the site are available. In Vermont, they are not. Without such supports in place these sites are little more than legally sanctioned drug dens. So, would it not make more practical sense to invest this $2 million into expanding availability to treatment services – those with a proven track record of effectiveness — to better meet existing demand? Apparently not.
Similarly, asked about legal liabilities when addicts drive to and from these sites, potentially under the influence of something, Rep. Small stated that the overwhelming majority of addicts who use these sites live within a walkable ten-block radius of the site. That’s in New York City. Where the population density is, shall we say, a little bit more concentrated than it is anywhere in the Green Mountain State. According to Patti McCoy (R-Poultney) the 10 or 20 block area in Manhattan where these sites are contain twice the entire population of our state.
Where in Vermont are there enough addicts who would be willing to go to a safe site to get high within walking distance of their home to make such a facility cost effective? We are talking about two locations serving 0.05 square miles within the 9916 square miles of Vermont. Even if this experiment sees some success in the pilot phase, is it possible or practical to scale the program up to equitably serve our whole population? From a funding and staffing perspective, no. So again, is the best use of this $2 million to help solve our opioid crisis? It is not.
Another significant concern is that these sites will become magnets for crime and drug dealers. The sites themselves do not provide drugs to the users. It’s BYOD! So, users will have to obtain their illegal substances before entering the site. From whom? A drug dealer nearby, probably taking advantage of the site as a marketing tool. And where will users get the money for their drugs? In many cases from theft, probably from someplace nearby. So, who wants one of these in their neighborhood? Bueller…. Bueller….
The counter argument to this concern is that police will be able to focus their attention on the areas surrounding the sites. But, if they do, who’s going to go to them in the first place? It would defeat the ostensible purpose of having the things.
The Democrats and Progressives who supported this bill (not a single Republican voted for it) are going to do their best to spin opposition as some sort of callous disregard for the lives of addicts and a turning of backs on the very real opioid overdose crisis our state is facing. Our biased capitol press corps will probably do the same. This is bull. Don’t fall for it.
Those who voted no on H.72 overwhelmingly demonstrated sympathy for those suffering from addiction, their families, and our communities at large. Many shared their own experiences with family members or friends. This is, however, a question of how best to invest $2 million in settlement money in order to have the most positive impact on helping people in crisis.
As one opponent of H.72 explained, “At this time, the state of Vermont does not have an adequate substance abuse continuum of care infrastructure required to support an overdose prevention consumption site. We need to make the investments in prevention, education, recovery, and treatment. These are the evidence-based, trauma-informed practices that save lives and bring our loved ones home to us safe, stable and healthy. For this reason, I will be voting no on H.72 and urge this body to do the same.” And, I’ll add, the benefit of not being a a federal crime. This is rational, common sense, investment oriented policy making.
To paraphrase Majority Whip Mike McCarthy’s (D-St. Albans) response to this argument, “Who cares? I want an Oompa Loompa NOWWWWW!”
Unfortunately, H.72 is yet another example of how the Democrats and Progressives who control our legislature govern from a philosophical foundation of rainbows and unicorn farts and the belief that if we all we all just clap hard enough and truly believe (and throw enough money) Tinkerbell will come back to life — when the real solution is to pick her up and get her to a hospital as fast as possible.
Here’s a link to the roll call vote if you want to see how your Rep(s) voted.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics including three years service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free market think tank.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Drugs and Crime, Legislation
Just wondering, but what would happen if DEA Agents posted up around these sites and did their job ?
I would also like to know if there will be provisions for “drug free” zones ? Will they not be allowed within 500′ of a school, courthouse, hospital, day care facility, etc as with “gun free” zones ?
Will Phil Scott and the Vermont GOP start recruiting people to run against those voting for drug dens in their communities? Because if not, the opposition is basically for show. And enough of all this care and sympathy talk regarding drug addicts. It’s not helping them or the law-abiding people who have to live around this.
Seriously, the proponents think that these facilities will be conveniently located so that the “clients” will be able to walk to them to avoid any problems with driving while intoxicated? No junkie wants to be told that they can’t leave the place while they appear intoxicated. Will they be located every quarter mile or so throughout Vermont? How far will junkies be willing to walk just to do their thing? In some of the “problem” apartments in Burlington, the junkies barely get out into the hallway before they sit down and shoot up, because how many want to wait until they get home to indulge in a product they have a serious jones for? Even cigarette smokers light one up as soon as they get out of the store, as evidenced by the discarded packaging. And let’s get real, who really wants to hang out in the sterile surroundings of such a facility to get their daily or multiple-daily highs? Will they just hang some tapestries and Hendrix posters to make them more homey and inviting? No person of quality is going to want to live near one of these. Rep. Taylor Small, do you want one nearby in your Winooski neighborhood? This is yet another progressive do-gooder fantasy with many possible repercussions and liabilities for the neighbors and society at large. Pardon my insensitivity but at what point do we re-introduce the concept of personal responsibility to the opioid addict community and stop treating their SELF-INDUCED SITUATION as if it is everyone’s problem?
Yeah it’s pretty comical, the idea that addicts will soberly and responsibly drive or walk to the “safe injection site” like they were going to the grocery store. All this will do is increase the rates of addiction, crime, and overdoses. I guess the only thing to do is call the less-radical Democrat senators (if there are any) and hope for a miracle.
Electing different legislators would turn this overall situation of societal decay around in one election…
A half century ago I moved here from the sicko’s running New Joisey never believing they would eventually take over the logical thinking Vermont. Sadly, they have.
I am truely sorry that your hope that Vermont would stay sane has not panned out. Believe me I get no satisfaction from your being wrong about this state possibly being insulated from the creeping disease of Socialism. But in the defense of Vermont I would ask that you either consult what is called the State of Vermont Face Book, a bio of those under the Golden Dome, or Ballotpedia, and investigate the inhabitants under that “Golden Dome”. You will find information like where they were born, and raised through their “formative” years, if they are not afraid to share this info. You will find that about 2/3 of the self anointed saviors in that building came here from elsewhere. That’s just a fact. My better 3/4 (yes she’s is that much better than I) was not born or raised here. Some of my best friends are not “from” here. One thing that they invariable share with me though is the belief that the infestation of wacky liberals from the not so mountainous liberal states to our south have brought with them their ideals, and have set about transforming the “Green Mountain” state into Northern Massachusetts.Yes they were elected by a majority of voters, and therein lies my biggest disappointment. We (you and I, and other like minded citizens) are seemingly in a minority at this time, buy my hope is that the idiots which presently occupy the State House can not keep infecting, and fleecing the people of Vermont without consequences. This is my hope.
First off, the term “saving lives” is thrown around way too loosely in this country. It’s right up there with “inclusive” and “equitable” – all terms that give clueless people great comfort for supporting.
Second, have these people considered talking to successfully recovered addicts? What helped them recover? What would have been detrimental to their recovery?
Third, in regards to showing sympathy for those suffering. The same straws were pulled when they removed the religious exemption in VT for childhood vaccinations in 2015. They ignored the multiple testimonies of those who’s children suffered life long vaccine injuries and instead rolled out the red carpet for the doctor who’s daughter had cancer and how it’s not safe for her to be around unvaccinated children. So, let’s have sympathy for the drug addicts and continue to harm our community. Can we put that 2 million toward rehabilitation in prisons? Put them in jail and help them recover there…if they even want to recover.
Why worry about bombing in Yemen when we’re being destroyed from within by our own so called government representatives who support a mission of lawlessness and death.
Vermont because of these progressive/ democrats fools is a better name, is a haven for addicts and criminals.
You elect these pathetic fools, first off the drugs they use are “Illegal” per the Federal guidelines and they are now promoting the use under their supervision………….. fools.
Watch when this boondoggle erupts with all the scourge that shows up
Wake up People
WHO is paying $2,000,000!!!????? What the hell? 2M for what???? We have friggen dams that were ready to explode and they are spending this on a bunch of 10c plastic needles? This is disgusting!
So what’s the plan? What are we going to do about this? Stop paying taxes? Maybe we should all quit our jobs so we stop having money they can take. /half-joking We are probably all going to die from a dam collapse anyway so whatever.
This is going to do wonders to the real estate values within “walking” distance around these sites. It is an open invitation to ALL users to move close by. Unbelievable stupidity by elected legislators!
Appears the majority is picking up right where they left off, accelerate the destruction of the State and societal collapse. All via the marching orders of the installed regime in the District of Corruption. The premise, the witchcraft, the spell. being placed is using words such as “safety.” The Truth is all this lawfare warfare is to invite more death and more despair. Get the picture yet? The evil controlling these lawmakers is real and if people don’t wake up to that reality quick, many, many more will die.
Now we will have “opium dens”. What?
I think I can understand how, in desperation to be helpful, one might arrive at the idea to provide clean needles to those who’ve entrapped themselves in addiction…to actually collude with them in their tragic cycle. But it must be clear that no public consensus has been generated on this tactic. Why then are they trying to force the rest of us to jump on board here…turn this into another government program? Those who want to do it…do it…don’t involve us and our tax resources. Government over-reach here.