Newsom vetoes SF, Oakland safe injection sites
Photo by Claude Truong-Ngoc / Wikimedia Commons. Safe Injection Sites exist in New York and several Canadian cities.
November 1, 2022
On August 22, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 57.
This law would have legalized drug use in supervised hygienic centers where users could get drug injections using sterile supplies. It pertained to the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland.
In a veto letter, Newsom wrote, “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.”
As drug overdose deaths continued to increase throughout the pandemic, the support of this bill grew. A record total of 1,351 overdose deaths were recorded from 2020-2021 in San Francisco alone.
Additionally, the city is predicted to exceed the previous year’s total this year. Several government leaders acknowledged the need for a solution to this momentous epidemic.
Many are speculating that his decision was influenced by his potential presidential candidacy, despite his insistence on not participating in the future election.
In light of the extensive research and factual evidence presented, notable state and city administrators expressed their disappointment in Governor Newsom’s decision, whereas others expressed their gratitude for Newsom’s recent actions.
James Gallagher, Republican official of Yuba City, stated, “Providing state subsidized drug consumption is a sign that Capitol Democrats have given up on governing.” He continues by adding his opposition to the bill, and concludes: “I am very grateful to the Governor for being the sense of reason in this case.”
However, Mayor London Breed firmly disagrees with Newsom’s veto. She is driven by the unfortunate tragedy of her sister’s death due to an overdose–determined to prevent any future fatalities. The SF Safe Injection Services (SIS) Board of Supervisors President demonstrated her support for the injection site initiative by writing, “…we need to provide a robust continuum of care and a welcoming environment for those struggling with drug abuse.”
Similarly, sophomore Eva Le stated, “Certainly it’s better for individuals to not inject drugs at all, but there’s always going to be some sort of back alley illegal operations.” She adds, “We might as well have facilities where it can be consumed safely and responsibly.” She continues by voicing her hope for a decrease in overdose rates in San Francisco.
In contrast, from a law enforcement perspective, the bill’s potential effect was described as “…creating misery and chaos for the residents and businesses forced to be next to these sites,” by president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, Tracy McCray.
To delineate, SIS sites consist of several stations with sanitized equipment–needles, disposing containers, hygienic wipes, etc.–and a supervisor (as shown). Jose Collado, a user in New York, insinuates that the atmosphere of his local SIS site as caring and attentive through his descriptions.
Despite Gov. Newsom’s concerns, the implementation of SISs in Vancouver have contributed to lower overdose deaths per year, “67% fewer ambulance calls for treating overdoses, and a decrease in HIV infections” according to research by the College of Family Physicians of Canada.
Preceding his veto announcement, he shared hopes for further thoughtfulness from local officials in the planning of these SIS sites to ensure the safe and effective use of them. This planning could potentially reopen the reenactment of Senate Bill 57 in the future.
Regardless of Newsom’s recent efforts, drug overdoses continue to be a grave problem–taking 2 lives per day in San Francisco–that requires legislative action.
Angela Jia • Nov 1, 2022 at 7:44 pm
interesting!