Letters to the Editor: Would you be OK with a ‘safe injection site’ in your neighborhood?

To the editor: I am not without sympathy for those caught up in addiction. But to say that “safe injection sites” are the answer is ridiculous. (“With Newsom’s veto of safe consumption sites, our ugly war on drugs deepens,” column, Aug. 22)

How will that approach affect urban areas where low-income children catch the bus to school and the hard-working poor have to navigate to get to work? And what about the struggling businesses in these areas?

I agree with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s reasons for vetoing Senate Bill 57, which would have allowed three cities to open such sites. I have long supported harm-reduction strategies and do not advocate a return to the “war on drugs” that did little to fix the problem.

I am, however, very concerned about unintended consequences for urban areas.

Where I live, there are no encampments close by with people openly doing drugs. There are no used needles strewn about. The opinions of the working poor living and navigating these neighborhoods should be the deciding factor. Sacrificing their and their children’s safety should not be on the table.

Barbara Parker, Laguna Hills

..

To the editor: I am surprised that in his message vetoing SB 57, Newsom didn’t merely advise drug abusers to just say no, as Nancy Reagan once did.

Newsom’s shortsighted rejection of legislation to address the steadily growing use of opiates and other dangerous substances flies in the face of evidence that safe sites work. Before using his veto pen, Newsom should have spoken with his counterpart in British Columbia, Canada, or traveled to Vancouver, where supervised injection sites have served as a model in stemming the flow of victims to the local morgue.

I believe the real reason for Newsom’s veto was an irrational fear on his part that it would become a defining issue should he decide to run for president in 2024.

Harold N. Bass, Porter Ranch