California Lawmakers Approve Drug Injection Sites for Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco
Supervised facilities aim to make a dent in the dramatic increase in overdose deaths.

Aiming to prevent overdose deaths, California lawmakers have again given approval for its major cities to experiment with supervised injection facilities that would provide users a place to inject drugs under the supervision of health workers.
California's state Senate passed S.B. 57 on Monday, joining the Assembly (which passed it in June) in allowing San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland to approve organizations to operate these injection sites, following a lengthy approval process that includes public meetings.
Lawmakers attempted to launch these injection facilities in San Francisco back in 2018, but then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, partly because he worried that he couldn't protect operators from federal prosecution (which everybody involved already knew was a risk) but really because his nanny state–style approach to addiction was to use government force to mandate people into drug treatment.
Since then, amid the COVID-19 epidemic, we've seen a dramatic, record-setting increase in drug overdose deaths. This increase and the open use of drugs in cities like San Francisco and Seattle have prompted a revival of the attitude that we can prosecute our way out of a crisis, even though we have decades of history showing that this just isn't true.
Safe injection sites aren't intended to be some sort of magic solution to a chronic drug addiction crisis; they are intended to reduce the likelihood of users dying. The sites provide safe needles and oversight for users while connecting people who want to get help to necessary services. There are more than 100 of these sites in other countries that haven't had any overdose deaths within their facilities. Studies show they don't appear to increase crime or drug use in the nearby area. But whether they have a larger impact on reducing overall overdose deaths is still unclear.
S.B. 57 accounts for this current thinness of research by requiring that jurisdictions that approve supervised injection sites choose an independent organization to conduct a peer-reviewed study to analyze both the effectiveness of the facilities and the impact on the nearby communities. Studies will be funded with private donations, grants, and local funds. The bill does not appropriate any state money to fund the potential sites.
The bill has the support of many drug policy organizations, civil liberties groups, public health organizations, and government bodies in both Los Angeles and San Francisco. The Drug Policy Alliance, which helped sponsor the bill, is urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign the bill into law.
"By passing SB 57 and embracing this cost-effective evidence-based public health intervention, the Legislature is making it abundantly clear that saving lives is its top priority," said Jeannette Zanipatin, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance, in a prepared statement. "With countless lives hanging in the balance, we urge Governor Newsom to sign the bill without delay, so that we can adequately confront this crisis through the implementation of Overdose Prevention Programs and begin providing people the support they need."
New York City opened the country's first official supervised injection site in 2021, and last year, Rhode Island became the first state to legalize them with a two-year pilot program. Attempts to open sites prior to 2021 in places like Philadelphia have hit snags as some resistant U.S. attorneys have used a section of the federal Controlled Substances Act to argue that these sites are illegal under a 1986 law designed to shut down "crack houses."
But the Department of Justice under President Joe Biden (who supported such laws as a senator) may be close to reversing its position and supporting these operations. The White House's 2022 National Drug Control Strategy encourages the use of harm-reduction tools like naloxone (which reverses the effects of opioid overdoses) but stops short of recommending injection facilities. There is a heavy emphasis on getting people treatment and the typical, doomed efforts to disrupt drug trafficking.
"The Department is evaluating supervised consumption sites, including discussions with state and local regulators about appropriate guardrails for such sites, as part of an overall approach to harm reduction and public safety," a Justice Department spokeswoman said in a statement to The New York Times in July.
Newsom has said he is "open" to the idea of these injection sites but stopped short of fully endorsing them. It's not clear whether he's going to sign S.B. 57 into law, but advocates are hopeful.
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
Awesome. 🙂
They should also establish public bathhouses and give out free bandages so cis gay men can cover their monkeypox sores before engaging in orgies.
#LibertariansFor50Californias
Your bandage protects my monkey pox, my bandage protects your monkey pox.
I made $17k in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money on-line by:-
Reading this article:>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Bandages? Fuck you! I should be allowed to spread my disease as I please. Making me cover them up makes me a pariah, a second class citizen. Discrimination!
I'm curious what the liability is for this. They mention concerns about federal prosecution, which is fair. I also wonder what happens if someone does OD and die in a clinic advertising itself as a place to safely do drugs.
That seems to be a liability issue for these clinics, but I don't know. Can they write the law in such a way as to entirely prevent it? This has been done in other cities, so I wonder how it goes.
Though, there's also the concern I can see people having about their neighborhoods becoming a place specifically designed to attract needle drug users. I could see pushback on that.
Overall, I think I'm for this, though not the government funding it. I think these articles really should discuss the trade-offs here. There's a strong tendency in discussion of drug usage to focus on death as the main drawback, but an actual long-term opium user has a lot of issues as well. I think they have that right as humans to make that decision and go down that path, but we should not sugar coat it. It's a pretty horrific existence.
Yeah, if these sites were managed by charities I wouldn't care, but government aiding addiction is a different story...
I too wondered about how to keep the feds from investigating such a target-rich environment. Hadn't thought about kith and kin suing for OD deaths, that's a good one. I doubt neighbors will appreciate these places either, especially when there's no associated free ride back to where they came from.
It's an interesting way of faking legalization, a cleverer-than-usual government solution to a government problem.
This part got my attention:
So much room for corruption and collusion! The grifters coming out of the woodwork will probably provide a plethora of corruptible choices.
One of the biggest problems with federal largesse is all the subsidized science attracting "scientists" who want the glory and prestige of being scientists without having to do any hard work; it's where gender fluidentity studies come from, same as all the subsidized student loans attracting marginal students who want those diplomas without all the hard work they used to certify. This particular requirement is just more of the same.
Though, there's also the concern I can see people having about their neighborhoods becoming a place specifically designed to attract needle drug users.
They will be installed behind the four plex that nobody wants as well.
I think part of this is to waive the liability. It's private and semi-private (I think) orgs running this, and the state is allowing this to happen. I'm hoping any tax funding comes from existing treatment funding.
Safe injection sites are a good thing, even if it makes grandma uncomfortable to know it's happening in her state. A nice clean place for junkies is better than dead bodies on the street. And getting rid of the dead bodies on the street makes it easier for actual narcotics legalization to proceed beyond just safe-as-fuck marijuana.
I have no particular concern for those worried about it in their state, though if enough people do then obviously it becomes an election issue. I do have concerns for grandmas who are worried about it happening next door though. I'd probably say it shouldn't block it, but that's a valid concern. Legal junkies are not necessarily better to have around than illegal ones.
Which is why I keep requesting there is discussion of consequences to these types of moves. Like, Reason (and to be fair, popular culture) paints prohibition as if there was no change in drinking and all that happened was organized crime grew around it, but the amount of drinking DID go down during those years, and prohibition grew out of a temperance movement centrally driven by the belief that this was a solution to men getting drunk and beating their wives.
Was it the correct solution? I would say no, but it has origin in reasonable concerns and the results are not black and white. Drinking has real consequences, and I agree it's not the realm of the government, but it IS something that needs to be discussed. Heroin/Coke/Meth/Jenkum usage also has consequences and it is worth discussing.
the amount of drinking DID go down during those years
What went down was casual drinking, and what largely disappeared from the market was beer and wine.
The problem drinkers did not go away, and lost their access to anything but highly questionable liquor.
This has long been pointed to as one of the central problems of opium prohibition, as well - prohibition pushes the traffic towards smaller, more potent and easily smuggled things. You get moonshine instead of beer and wine, you get heroin instead of opium, and while yes, you lose the casual users, you make the addicts and the problems that come along with them much, much worse.
Yes, I'm aware of this argument, as it's the default pragmatic libertarian argument on everything. And I'm sympathetic to it, even if my reason for drug legalization (and my libertarianism in general) derives from a moral stance on the importance of allowing people to make their own decisions and accept the consequence of those decisions.
My point is, there really are consequences to things like this. It may be overall better, I kind of expect drug legalization would in-general be better based on what we've seen in Portugal. But you have to seriously discuss trade-offs and Reason tends to basically paint the results of their arguments as being all upside with no downsides every time. That does not match reality and I think hurts the force of their arguments.
My point is, there really are consequences to things like this. It may be overall better, I kind of expect drug legalization would in-general be better based on what we've seen in Portugal.
This is not legalization - it's "harm reduction," and I completely agree that Reason tends to fall into the common trap of thinking "this looks like legalization, therefore it must be libertarian," which is why I relate my anecdote about my personal opposition to the injection site that was proposed for my area - this was not a site that was arising voluntarily in an area in which it was needed, this was an attempt by the city to pied piper the junkies into my area (an unincorporated area just outside the city limits) and away from an area they sought to redevelop and make some money off of.
My response to you was tempered more by your pivot from safe injection sites to full blown prohibition. Without prohibition, there's simply no need for safe injection sites.
The Netherlands had a great program for a long time, I'm not sure whether they still do it, but rather than have designated injection sites, they had public drug testing centers - you could take your stuff in, no matter what it was, and they would test it and tell you what it really was.
We couldn't pull that off here, because you know the DEA would turn it into a sting operation, but it seems to me to be consistently the case that the workable "solutions" involve not trying to force people into things, and that whenever the "solutions" involve force, they simply make the problem worse in addition to causing second-order problems.
Ah, got it. Yes, I didn't intend to pivot and that's likely my issue of speaking too generally most of the time. Combine that with the fact that I ended up talking about a few different topics and it becomes very clear that I'm not a clear thinker. I am trying to improve.
Harm reduction I tend to have some concerns with because I question their efficacy, and I think they tend to evolve more towards additional government programs and regulation. But, we will see. I think I'm pretty consistent about this being why we have states. We'll see how the experiment goes.
Harm reduction I tend to have some concerns with because I question their efficacy, and I think they tend to evolve more towards additional government programs and regulation.
Agreed. Some programs seem good, like the drug testing one I mentioned, but it's dangerous to just assume that "harm reduction" - "net good" if you haven't actually considered all the potential consequences.
In the end, it's someone else's life, and if they want to shoot up peacefully it's none of my business to be calling the cops to come and pop their ass.
but if they refuse a vaccine your story changes. If only you followed the science and did not push your morality nor your religion.
read carefully:
All that we can do, is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio; that each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for life, and to suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.
— Charles Darwin
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1861), 76.
TL;DR: you do drugs, you die, that's on you
"A nice clean place for junkies is better than dead bodies on the street"
Is it though?
Why not both! It's not like junkies are the most considerate and law abiding group out there.
Yeah dude. It's better. Dead bodies are a public health issue and if Grandma doesn't like live junkies, she'll really dislike dead ones.
Besides, who's going to pay for their burial/cremation? Who's going to cart them away to the disposal site? Junkies spent all their money already, so it's not like you can raid their coffers and you can't just let them rot in the sun.
A nice clean place for junkies is better than dead bodies on the street.
No, the dead bodies get taken away after a short while.
Dead junkies means one less junkie. Keep it up and the number of junkies overall decreases over time. Isn't that a good goal?
Same liability as for the Communist Chinese Virus vaccines.
By the stroke of a pen, no liability at all.
Though, there's also the concern I can see people having about their neighborhoods becoming a place specifically designed to attract needle drug users. I could see pushback on that.
That's why they tend to put them in shitty neighborhoods. The question then becomes, does the existence of the site force the neighborhood into permanent-shit status as long as the site exists?
Yes.
there's also the concern I can see people having about their neighborhoods becoming a place specifically designed to attract needle drug users.
This was a recent issue in my area, and I was definitely on the "don't put that in my neighborhood" side, but this was to relocate one from a blighted area of the city that the mayor wanted to redevelop into our area simply because our area was literally the furthest place from downtown they could put it.
It's yet another example of how you can't really solve the negative impacts of one government fiat with another government fiat.
I think it's also just a feature of rampant drug-usage in any situation. I don't know enough about how things were pre-drug prophibition. If I recall correctly it rose about during the Progressive era or perhaps during the late Temperance movement. I think before that though we already had stereotypes of dens of ill-repute and certain parts of town where vice took hold being more dangerous. So, that the consolidation of squalor might just be an inherent part of drug usage at scale.
In practical matters though, was it worse than what we have now? That I do not know, but I doubt it.
It's a complicated history, since even before outright prohibition, you tended to have localized prohibitions where these slums formed not necessarily as voluntary clumps but because those were the only areas where those activities were allowed.
Southwerk, for example, across the Thames from the City of London, originated as the place where all of the brothels and theaters were because both things were forbidden in London itself. I believe the Red Light District in Amsterdam arose in a similar way, oddly enough based in the disused confessionals of the old cathedral.
But yes, the temperance movement in this country really came hand-in-hand with Progressivism, and was focused on "saloon culture" and opium dens, and to their credit the prohibitionists of the time recognized with great clarity that the real problem is alcohol, which is the one thing that stayed prohibited for the shortest amount of time.
But the problems we have acquired in the meantime are demonstrably worse, largely to do with what I mentioned above about prohibition pushing markets into providing more potent and dangerous things. For example, from our perspective there was never a very significant problem with people overdosing on opium, but vanishingly few people continued using opium after it was outlawed and the market turned to morphine.
Once morphine and heroin were outlawed, that's when you really started seeing ODs (although still on nowhere near the scale at which alcohol kills people).
vanishingly few people continued using opium after it was outlawed
Actually, more accurately - and I find this interesting - opium use went into steep decline when the law was passed requiring products containing opium to be labelled "Caution - May be Habit Forming."
And oddly enough, once morphine was isolated from opium, it became the first of many opiates to be marketed as "just as good as opium, but without being as addictive!"
Once it was no longer deniable that morphine was in fact more addictive, they rolled out heroin. Rinse, repeat until you get Oxy and Fentanyl.
You're not addicted, that's just phantom pain! Double the dose!
Taxpayer pays for wrongful death.
I hope they put one of these sites in your neighborhood, Scott.
Will it make a dent in the dramatic increase of pooping on the sidewalk and breaking car windows? Asking for a friend.
Need safe pooping sites. (Actually San Francisco has them, but no one uses them).
San Francisco is a safe pooping site.
If you think it's safe you haven't been here recently.
Must be all those MAGA hat wearing lunatics who are responsible for that.
Let's hope they're way more successful than Canada's Insite was. And I mean successful-successful, not the cynical definition of successful in that Vancouver's overdose deaths skyrocketed.
but really because his nanny state–style approach to addiction was to use government force to mandate people into drug treatment.
If we can mandate a vaccine, we damn sure as shit mandate drug treatment.
But whether they have a larger impact on reducing overall overdose deaths is still unclear.
Well, I guess I have to hand it to Reason, they've backed off the Mike Riggs "science is settled" mantra on this one.
You defame him. Mike Riggs' stance has always been "Give all the drugs to me, and I will take them and no one else will ever be harmed by them again."
The experiments with this led to him falling asleep from the Heroin before he ripped a tiger in half due to the PCP. he was last seen somewhere in Oaxaca and since then Reason has shown some contemplation that his solutions may have faults.
"Studies show they don't appear to increase crime or drug use in the nearby area."
Studies by the same folks who said masks worked, vaccines were safe, vaccines were effective, well second doses were effective, well second doses were effective after a booster, well second doses were effective after a second booster?
Those studies?
“Studies show they don’t appear….” Do journalists have to take classes to learn such nebulous phrasing?
I would advise Shackford, who lives in Colorado, actually visit California to see this in practice. Nancy Rommelmann actually visited a version of these safe injection centers in San Francisco and found that it is absolutely nothing for self described libertarians or liberals to be happy with.
https://nancyrommelmann.substack.com/p/another-step-backward-the-chesa-boudin?s=w
I thought he was in L.A. now.
Good article. Shackford is a new style journalist. Digesting anything more than 140 letter Twitter feeds is way beyond him, especially without pictures.
Ugh, Nancy's on substack? How right-wing of her.
Ug. Getting paid directly from your willing readers. Reason thinks that's gross. Who tells you what to write about (and what to ignore)?
Minor nitpick, she said "major newspapers, Democratic players, and a well-known radical or two". Not sure why she's subdividing one thing into three, but kay.
I am neither a San Francisco voter nor, contrary to what Boudin may have assumed, do I take issue with the his stated objective, that citizens "do not have to choose between ending mass incarceration and protecting public safety. We can do both."
This is apparently as far as Reason got in deciding he was the best DA for San Francisco.
Nancy, doin' old-school journalism.
That was the part I was referring to when I criticized Shackford. Good on him, I guess, that he is at least living in the place he is arguing for. But I wish the Party of Reason would show just the slightest amount of skepticism towards the loony panaceas of Proggies. From vaccines to socialist governments to drug dens (er safe spaces), proggies have an enormous record of bringing misery under the cheap makeup of hopium.
These 3 cities ARE supervised injection sites!
No, they're the most libertarian of all: Unsupervised injection sites.
So are they going to test the drugs for fentanyl, or just have lots of Naloxone on hand?
White House has now officially declared monkeypox, an incredibly easy to avoid virus that affects less than 1% of the population, a public health emergency.
Fuck you, Reason.
It is good to try out these experiments. We do need a different approach for drug use/drug abuse other than incarceration.
You should build one next to your house. Or your grandmother’s house.
One thing I'd like these "studies" to address is the mindset of an addict when they're given the option of "safe" injection.
If they're on the street, presumably they still have some amount of self-preservation in mind. They can't shoot too much or they'll die in an alley, have to show at least some restraint or have some foresight about what will happen after using. Granted a lot of them are too stupid or addicted to think like this, but at least some of them seem to have an understanding of risk vs. reward.
But at a "safe" site? Well they can get a little more aggressive chasing that dragon. All these wonderful people are there to save them if they go too far. The advertising is basically "shoot as much as you want, nothing bad can happen to you".
While that might save people in the short term, it encourages long term opioid use. People are free to do what they like, if they want to kill themselves with fentanyl tainted heroin it's no skin off my back. Just because it should be legal doesn't mean it's a good idea to encourage people to do it. Drinking a gallon of bourbon every day is legal, I'd discourage people from doing it because it will eventually kill them.
Exactly - you have a right to shoot heroin. You don't have a right to have a medical team on standby while you do so.
As long as it's entirely privately funded I'm not super mad about it, people wanna spend their money coddling junkies that's their business. I just think it's kind of a scummy thing to do to enable addicts to engage in their worst impulses.
Well, maybe, but I think we ought to have a fairly strict definition of "encourage" here. Does the presence of a hospital "encourage" people to break their arms?
My understanding of experiments like this in places like Switzerland is that at these clinics, the staff themselves provide the heroin. So the addict doesn't shoot up more because there's a safe spot, it is the same regulated dose.
Well, maybe, but I think we ought to have a fairly strict definition of "encourage" here. Does the presence of a hospital "encourage" people to break their arms?
That's a poor analogy. A better analogy is, you have diabetes, you go to your doctor and say, "You know, I see these diet recommendations and what not, but how about this, how about you set up a safe consumption site where I can do whatever I want and you have to revive me if anything goes wrong."
No sane physician or hospital would ever agree to such a system or set of conditions.
Your hospital analogy doesn't line up, we need hospitals because people have accidents. People get sick through no fault of their own actions. Those things are not analogous to voluntary drug usage. Also breaking your arm is extremely unpleasant, being "encouraged" by the presence of a hospital isn't going to make you break your arm.
This site though? It greatly reduces the risk side of the risk vs. reward of using IV drugs. That's the only thing that actually gets people to stop, when the risk becomes so great that the reward is no longer worth it. Shooting heroin is supposedly very pleasant, unlike breaking your arm, so there's an incentive to do it that needs counterbalance if you want the usage to stop. That counterbalance is jail, or getting robbed while you're too high to defend yourself, or death. If we take that away, we prevent addicts from having the "rock bottom" moment that ultimately gets them to quit.
I'm not necessarily opposed to these sites, our current approach doesn't work and so trying new things is necessary. I just think there are aspects of these sites that haven't been addressed in anything I've read.
And for the record, I don't think getting put in jail or getting robbed or dying fixes anything. Addicts are free to stop before those things happen to them, they just tend not to.
It sounds cruel, but you do have to let them reach rock bottom for them to change their mind about continuing their habit.
While I want drugs to be legal, I do not want to live in a community of addicts. I do not want people to be addicted to drugs that will kill them. I will defend their right to make that choice, but I refuse to enable them. These sites seem like enabling them to continue their habit, but maybe they don't really have that effect. That's what I want studied.
Vancouver BC has had “safe” injection sites for years. Go visit some time, like I have twice, then tell me that they have not severely impacted the surrounding neighborhoods. Businesses have closed, people are shooting up on the sidewalk outside the center, crime is high, homeless camps in the parks. And the users can’t be kept in the center once they “safely” inject so they go back to the streets or where they live to die. Go talk to the users on the streets, they will freely talk to you. Oh, yeah, you can meet the cartel members who run the rampant drug trade on the sidewalks outside the center. It’s like hell on earth and not the answer. Go see it for yourself.
Oh, yeah, you can meet the cartel members who run the rampant drug trade on the sidewalks outside the center.
This is one of the most pointed complaints I've seen - a gathering place for barely-functional addicts to get a maintenance dose of something is a pretty golden spot to hang around out back with wares for sale.
The government shouldn't be enabling the self-destruction of the people this aims to serve, but if SF is going to do this just stick it in the park beside city hall. That place is already overrun with junkies so it won't make a difference and the revolving door taking out the junkies that OD'd just once too often will be a memorial to what they accomplish here.
This isn't a good idea in the long run, and relies the leftist logic that says no one would ever sick if healthcare was free, since everyone would get tested early and treated for everything.
The objective makes no logical sense to me. Why should the government spend money to incentivize inherently dangerous AND criminal behavior? Sure, if I was shooting up heroin, I wouldn't mind a trained medical personnel rushing to my aid once I blacked out. I also wouldn't mind them jumping to my rescue if I caught fire playing with illegal fireworks. Should there be safe firework display sites?
A foreseeable unintended consequence is that more future addicts will take advantage of this feature. And it seems to be happening already in some location. We may save some lives in the short term, but addicts will eventually use drugs at home or in the streets. They'll die or get sick just the same, but perhaps in larger numbers. And blight upon the community won't be pretty.
Gee wally what about all those people who are on insulin? Where are their free shots?
Do you know what a cure for addiction is? It's called cold turkey. Your money is better spent else where. QUIT ENABLING THE MENTAL MADNESS!
Since then, amid the COVID-19 epidemic, we've seen a dramatic, record-setting increase in drug overdose deaths.
Am I the only one who thinks this is scary as fuck? Like scarier than marching Jews into ovens? Enacting lockdowns that push people out of jobs and induce depression and then using the depression as a premise to set up
death campssafe injection sites to deal with all the fallout. Like, it's a real-life version of the running plot line of The Purge except with drugs in place of violence and the DNC in place of the NFF.So if I'm too shaky to give myself the shot, will the medical professional do it for me?
Ah yes, the libertarian case for taxpayer funded drug use.
Sure makes opening that LA office look like a smart move, doesn't it?