Letters to the Editor: Drug addicts need help. ‘Safe injection’ sites aren’t it

To the editor: Your misleading editorial supporting “so-called safe drug consumption sites” asks, “Why do Republican lawmakers want drug users to die in the street?”

Wrong. Like others, Senate Republicans believe drug injection centers will not help those struggling with addiction. Thirteen Democrats in the state Legislature joined us in voting against Senate Bill 57.

Former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown also vetoed a similar measure in 2018, saying it’ll “never work,” adding, “I do not believe that enabling illegal drug use in government sponsored injection centers — with no corresponding requirement that the user undergo treatment — will reduce drug addiction.” SB 57 doesn’t require a doctor to be on site — only staff certified in CPR and first aid.

Too much evidence says SB 57 will not work. San Francisco launched a similar effort last year but decided it will shut down the program at the end of this year. The British Daily Mail called the $19-million effort “disastrous,” with roughly 1 out of every 1,000 visitors logged being connected with substance-abuse treatment.

Republicans proposed solutions, including a request for $10 billion for long-overdue mental health and drug treatment infrastructure and workforce development — which Democrats denied.

Real compassion means solutions that provide rehabilitation, treatment and hold dealers who ruin lives accountable. State-endorsed drug abuse centers do not offer anything for an addict other than a momentary high.

State Sen. Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita)

The writer is the Republican leader of the California Senate.

..

To the editor: The concept of providing safe, well-staffed and well-equipped facilities for addicts to self-administer makes a lot of sense. My concern is that this approach may prove to be a Band-Aid applied to the overarching problem posed by the readily available dangerous drugs such as fentanyl.

Reducing the supplies of those drugs and reducing domestic consumer demand remain the harder problems to solve. Well-considered medical, behavioral, educational and housing programs will be required to reduce demand.

“Safe sites” would be part of any solution.

Fred Reimer, Los Angeles