New York City Is Funding America's First Official Safe Injection Site for Drug Users
As the U.S. reaches new terrible milestones in overdose deaths, a harm reduction system that has proven itself elsewhere finally launches where it’s needed most.

New York City is giving its blessing to safe consumption sites where intravenous drug users will be able to inject without fear of arrest and with the knowledge that medical professionals will respond in cases of overdose. These sites will be the first publicly funded facilities of their kind to operate in the United States.
Outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio and the city's Health Department announced the move this morning. The consumption sites will be found at locations where needle exchange services are already provided by nonprofit groups. Sites in East Harlem and Washington Heights are set to open their doors to users as early as today. They will provide clean needles to users while staff will be on hand to administer naloxone, a drug used to reverse opioid overdoses. Users will have to provide their own illegal drugs.
New York City will not be running the consumption centers. Instead, the two nonprofits who currently run the needle injection programs have joined up to form an organization named OnPoint NYC, which will also run the safe consumption sites. These nonprofits receive city funding.
Safe consumption sites (also called safe injection sites) have been operating in Canada and Australia for years. While New York City will be the first U.S. city to offer these services, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia also have plans in the works. All of these cities have seen increasing rates of public use of injected drugs such as heroin, as well as high rates of overdoses and overdose deaths. New York City reported more than 2,000 drug overdose deaths in 2020. The United States as a whole has also seen a record number of overdose deaths—more than 93,000 for 2020.
Given such numbers, safe consumption sites are a necessary and long-overdue harm reduction measure, properly focused on keeping drug users alive rather than on waging a punitive and failed drug war. The American Medical Association supports the use of safe consumption sites, noting earlier this year that not a single overdose death has been reported in the 120 safe consumption sites operating elsewhere in the world. That is precisely because health professionals at those sites are prepared to respond to emergencies.
Unfortunately, U.S. drug laws have made it difficult to open similar sites here. Section 856 of the federal Controlled Substances Act makes it a felony to knowingly allow a space to be used for the purpose of consuming drugs. This law was crafted in 1986 to shut down so-called "crack houses," but when Philadelphia allowed nonprofit Safehouse to open a safe consumption site in that city in 2019, U.S. Attorney William McSwain of the Eastern District of Philadelphia invoked federal law to stop the site from opening. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially took Safehouse's side and said the text of Section 856 did not forbid city-approved, medically monitored consumption sites. But that ruling was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which held that federal law did prohibit sites like the one operated by Safehouse. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case. The Safehouse site has not opened.
So while New York City is now funding safe injection sites (incoming mayor Eric Adams is on the record supporting them) there's still the question of what the federal government might do in response. The New York Times reports that while the Biden administration has taken a position in support of harm reduction methods to prevent drug deaths, it has not endorsed safe injection sites. New York City Health Commissioner Dave Chokshi told the Times that the city has had "productive conversations" with the Biden administration and believes the federal government won't attempt to interfere.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hopefully addicts bring their own reusable syringes. The disposable kind will make it into the ocean and end up in the nose of a sea turtle.
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.HUo Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...
For more info here.........VISIT HERE
Good point. No one ever thinks of the sea turtles.
Absolutely incorrect. There is no such thing as a safe reusable syringe and even reusing once greatly increases the risk of potentially fatal infections.
What a wonderful waste of taxpayer dollars.
It sure looks like a nice place to get high.
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.BVc Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...
For more info here...........Earn-Opportunities
Well, they didn't work in Canada so it's possible they won't work in New York either.
Canada didn't do it hard enough.
Outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio and the city's Health Department announced the move this morning.
Trust me, when you're informing your constituents that a safe injection site is coming, you want to do it on your way out the door.
Will masks and social distancing be required at these facilities? Also, will there be a vaccine mandate to enter? You don't want someone catching the coronavirus while you're shooting black tar heroin with a social worker standing at the ready with a Narcan nasal injector, because they're going to have to give mouth-to-mouth after.
That's what makes them safe.
Dunno about NYC but in Germany they're extra super careful.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/in-germany-you-must-be-fully-vaxxed-before-your-death-by-assisted-suicide/
In Germany, You Must Be Fully Vaxxed before Your Death by Assisted Suicide
As European countries battle to limit the spread of the virus, Verein Sterbehilfe – the German Euthanasia Association – has issued a new directive, declaring it will now only help those who have been vaccinated or recovered from the disease. In a statement, the association said:
“Euthanasia and the preparatory examination of the voluntary responsibility of our members willing to die require human closeness. Human closeness, however, is a prerequisite and breeding ground for coronavirus transmission. As of today, the 2G rule applies in our association, supplemented by situation-related measures, such as quick tests before encounters in closed rooms.”
This is one of those things that's so stupid, it has to be real.
Can't make this shit up.
When I was a kid I remember hearing someone talking about the "End Times".
Lately I'm starting to think that there might be something to it, but I don't think anyone expected it would be so bloody stupid.
Instead of diabolical cunning, it's being perpetrated by retards tricking gullible idiots with sophistry a toddler would see through.
There was a Peter Bagge feature on medical marijuana in which a patient pointed to the shit he had to go thru (and probably other) stuff as evidence of the end times' arrival. He asked Bagge if he could explain it by any other means. Bagge couldn't.
The question I have is where do we draw the line between harm reduction and flat-out enabling? California has had numerous harm-reduction initiatives for years, including free needle dispensaries (and multiple attempts to open safe injection sites). The cumulative result of their policies has been an explosion of the homeless population, enormous expense, and significantly increased total harm to the population at large and the homeless in specific.
How much each policy contributes to the problem and which actually help is endlessly debatable, but this does not seem to be a good model to emulate.
Here's a very... very gentle criticism of the concept. They take time to criticize InSite, (Vancouver's spectacularly failed safe injection site)... but a criticism while giving it a therapeutic massage:
Again, this is about as gentle a criticism you can make about a program that has been... on almost every metric, a flaming, festering failure.
I could post the more forceful criticisms of the concept of SIFs, but they'd just get ignored. So here's a criticism from what essentially amounts to an ally of the concept, who's beginning to ask the difficult questions.
I suspect libertarians like SIFs for one simple reason: They represent a policy that shifts away from law enforcement, thus repudiating the War on Drugs. The problem is it replaces that policy with something that creates a set of problems elsewhere which might end up be worse than those of the old War on Drugs.
Safe injection sites are really only necessary because the Drug War has chased people from otherwise productive lives into the streets. I am unsure what opioid policies look like in Canuckland but in the United States, a mere 15 years ago people hooked on opioids managed that problem with their doctor. Yeah, the doctor would continue prescribing drugs to their patients, despite the fact that they probably didn't "need" them. But they were kept off of the nasty stuff, and the doctor could provide a basic brake on keeping their addiction under control. As soon as the government forced doctors to drop these patients, many of them went to the street to feed the addiction, and in those shadows, no one is interested in healthy patients.
I know folks who are addicted to alcohol and those who are addicted to illegal drugs. The former can get help from friends and family and even their employer- people who will help without fear that they are aiding illegal activity. Those same people are less likely to help with opioids and similar drugs because the tragedy of addiction ALSO carries the stigma of lawbreaking that leads many people to fear being involved.
Don't get me wrong- there will still be people who let drugs or alcohol ruin their lives to the point that they cannot do ANYTHING. I am saying that for the majority of addicts, the time to intervene is not the moment they shoot up, but when their addiction is first setting in. Removing these legal sanctions on drug use would absolutely make the need for SIFs less prevalent.
All good points. Better to have an addict getting drugs from a doctor and working with that doctor than to be getting on the street.
LOL
Safe injection sites are really only necessary because the Drug War
^
Our local mayor tried to relocate a methadone clinic into our neighborhood and even though I oppose the drug war and think all drugs should be legal, I opposed this. Yes, I opposed it for the selfish reason that I don't want a heroin-addict-magnet in my neighborhood.
The 'harm-reduction' mindset is generally a good one, but the lack of safe places to inject your drugs is not primarily because the government doesn't provide enough centralized places for them all to go. It's because selling both needles and heroin is illegal, and landlords can be held liable for murder if someone ODs on their property.
As usual, the actual solution is to remove the government-created harms, not to create new government-created harms to try to compensate for the existing government-created harms.
No, selling the needles is now legal, and has been for some time.
Unfortunately, you presume there is a need for SIFs given the prior failures. I argue that there ISN'T need for SIFs, knowing the prior failures of the system.
I argue that SIFs at BEST do nothing, and at worst, make the problem significantly worse. I suspect the truth is somewhere inbetween. I certainly would not blame the dramatic (and I do mean dramatic) rise in Opiod deaths since the introduction of Insite, but I would be that it has contributed to those overdoses at a rate greater than zero.
Every junkie I’ve ever known was the biggest piece of shit ever. Inherently dishonest, lazy, completely unproductive and worthless at work.
Let's be real Paul, saying even the little you have here is going to make people mad, and then tune out. Anything that might be construed as criticism of any drug or drug-positive policy is bad, because drugs make people feel good. And if you're opposed to them feeling good, you must want them to suffer, you evil, terrible person.
That, plus along with needle exchange it was a way to get law enforcement to look the other way as long as the activity therein was still illegal. But then they legalized OTC syringe sales. Now what do we still need this de facto loophole for?
It's like Dennis Moore, who wound up stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
But then, we're used to reasonable measures going out of bounds of their justification. Like when passing around (or even taking) sexy pix of yourself is criminal because you're under age and the law is to protect you from exploitation by a porn producer.
You pose a good question, but I would point to a remark made by Ron Paul in a debate. When asked about making drugs legal he asked how many would start shooting heroin if it was legal? I think most people would keep a safe distance.
I don't think this is enabling because it makes using the drug safer. The fact is that people would shoot up anyway. I not thinking a first-time user will pick this place to shoot up.
You don’t get it. A lot of money and time is being spent on this, and there has been no improvements in the situation, and it may even be worse.
That is the definition of failure.
Is it any less expensive to have addicts ODing on the streets and using police and rescue services. To have addicts getting infections from dirty needles and then burdening the health care system more than they might already. The money is going to get spent either way.
To be fair, and I know it sounds callous, yes. It is far less expensive to leave these people ODing on the streets.
Just because a person is using these clinics does not mean they won't still OD on the streets or have some other medical problem like transmitted disease- because generally these people don't go to a clinic every time they need to shoot up.
The broad elimination of smoking in the United States didn't actually reduce healthcare costs. Because smoking usually killed people quickly and younger, while living longer lives ended up introducing years of costly expenses.
I don't have answers to the issue of drug usage. Drug addiction always leeches on society in some manner-they run up medical bills that they can't repay, which ends up being a drain on public resources, without meaningfully contributing in other manners.
The best I can come up with is to cut spending, drastically reduce the welfare state, and re-emphasize the importance of private charity so people will get more involved. Then we'd hopefully have more rehab centers, more community involvement, and more social pressure to contribute. The more that community aid is coerced by the government instead of voluntary, the less value it has.
^
Totally agree- And I would also add that it is most important to decriminalize the use of drugs, and instead focus (if we *must* spend money from government) on education and help earlier in the cycle, much as we do with alcohol.
I continue to stress that drugs don't automatically turn you into a street-living hobo giving hand-jobs for cash (mmmkay). Many, many people have the family and social support networks to manage their addiction without becoming a burden on society. Indeed, some end up as board members for Ukrainian Energy Companies.
No, most of the people "down on their luck" using drugs can put at least part of their misery on societal persecution of drug use. It causes them to hide their addiction until it is out of control. It causes them to seek suppliers who have no incentive to help them manage their addiction. It causes them to LOSE the exact friends and family who see drug addiction differently than alcohol addiction.
generally these people don't go to a clinic every time they need to shoot up
I'd wager it's a vanishingly small percentage of addicts that do. Why would you want to? If you've given up your life to heroin, health and hygiene are probably not top priorities for you.
I believe when I was researching Insite several years ago and reading everything I could about the experiment, the people of Insite admitted exactly this which is why Insite started sending out roving teams on the streets with Narcan, to "extend the services" if you will to the greater neighborhood and try to save addicts that couldn't be bothered (or just... physically couldn't) walk the two blocks to Insite.
Also, as an aside, things got so bad, that Insite started to muse publicly about providing "clean" heroin to their "client" base, which has always specifically been a verboten topic.
. The money is going to get spent either way.
I can tell you never ran an organization with a profit motive.
This policy is a failure . Stop doing it, and figure out a different thing that might not be a failure.
Fuck you get out of my pocket, the money is NOT spent either way. It does not grow on trees. It is not endlessly printable without consequence.
To spend fed money somewhere means it cannot be spent on something else, and that money was taken from the citizens already.
Unfortunately, y'all, we have the Hippocratic Oath to consider. If people crash, we do have a duty to care for the indigent, and the government pays in order to protect the doctors' oath.
If you subsidize, you get more of it.
Just as long as drug users suffer the consequences of their bad behavior. That doesn’t happen now.
Homeless population isn't due to drug use, it's due to crazy rent, crazy housing costs, homeless friendly policies, lax enforcement of shitting on the side walk, friendly petty crimes policies, etc.
What's next? Do we buy dope for those who make poor life choices?
Daddy Gov giving people a place to shoot up heroin sounds like Reason style libertopia
At least they will stimulate the afghan economy. Yay?
For the socialists, heroin is the opiate of the masses.
I think you mean; “free money “.
Yeah, same thing.
Sites in East Harlem and Washington Heights are set to open their doors to users as early as today
Odd that they're in majority black areas, and not midtown Manhattan.
Progressive policies work better when they're Implemented far and away from progressive areas.
Odd that they're in majority black areas, and not midtown Manhattan.
I'd say they probably tend to be located in areas with low levels of civic participation.
Some people here at reason would have them put in the suburbs because they think only white people would deserve such conveniences and everyone else should just die.
You sick racist fuck.
I sure hope New York doesn't shut these down when it shuts down everything else.
They should require a vaccine passport to get in. If they don't, they're mendacious fucks.
The upside here are many. If someone overdoses a trained professional is there and it not some cop or paramedic on the street that has to give naloxone. The needles are controlled and not dropped on the street or someplace where people can get accidentally stuck with them.
No. Quit robbing productive people to pay for your defects and prop up your failures.
Let people make choices and live with them. Spend the money to clean the park for the people whose daily work provides the taxes, not endlessly throwing money away on thr unfixable.
not going to watch Intervention if they're just shooting up @Heroin Starbucks
Finally, the promised land is nearly in reach. State-sponsored heroin dens on every corner! Victory!!
Coming up: we get a Celebrate Addiction month and de Blasio leads the Junkie Pride Parade through Times Square. Then we get the anti-discrimination laws prohibiting firing or refusing to hire addicts. Reason then declares Libertarian Moment.
Then we get the anti-discrimination laws prohibiting firing or refusing to hire addicts.
In CA this is already a thing. If I go to my boss and tell him I have a substance abuse problem, they need to offer me a treatment program.
Unpaid meditation time from home. Take a month.
So the ama supports opening up a medical center that has to employ ama personel that they limit by law driving up the cost, and have it funded by tax payers, got it.
Hey reason! pro tip. If an org like the ama has a history of only doing things that benigit themselves (like limiting docs) you may want to check the bias.
Side note:checking biases is literally mentioned In about half of the econ talk episodes
Do whatever you want but stay off the lawn and pay for it yourself.
I don't support being robbed to pay for fuckoffs like Sarc who can't keep their life together.
And we continue on with wonderfully bad governmental ideas.
Seems like this would be a great opportunity to get rid of a lot of drug addicts.
Given the death and destruction caused by dope on a daily basis, I could only stand to see a lethal injection site. I think all the people behind anything otherwise should be brought up on charges.
In fact. I want these people brought up on warcrime charges. Do you have any clue where that crap comes from?
You have any idea how many of these slime bags we could clean out of the New York cesspool by offering lethal doses? ALL OF THEM.
They will literally look for the dealer that killed their best friend but they look for him to get dope, not payback.