MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Gov. Jerry Brown’s Addiction to the Nanny State Kills Off Safe Injection Site Bill

His argument: If San Francisco lets people shoot up, they won’t be able to order them into drug treatment through the courts.

injection facilityDENIS BALIBOUSE/REUTERS/NewscomIf San Francisco attempts to move forward with supervised injection facilities, where people addicted to drugs can safely shoot up, it will have to do so without the state government's blessing.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill from lawmakers that would authorize the city and county of San Francisco to create supervised injection facilities (SIFs). These sites, found in cities around the world, but not yet in the United States, give drug users a place to get high under the supervision of people who can assist in the event of an overdose, and can also help users access resources to help them transition to maintenance therapy or quit drugs altogether. Injection centers prioritize harm reduction over treatment and punishment, and studies show they save lives and money.

Which is why it's so unfortunate that Brown vetoed a bill to authorize San Francisco's SIF plan. The city has a massive problem with public drug use, and used needles and other drug waste are common in public spaces. City leaders had planned to open SIFs this month, but it hasn't happened. This bill, A.B. 186, was supposed to help the San Francisco get started by guaranteeing that people operating the facilities wouldn't be arrested by police.

To be clear, the bill did not authorize any tax dollars to be spent on these injection facilities. The plan has always been for the sites to be funded and operated by private non-profits. Californians were not being asked to subsidize drug use. This bill simply authorized San Francisco and its concerned citizens to move forward without threat of arrest. The plan has the support of San Francisco's civic leadership and mayor.

Nevertheless, Brown vetoed the bill. Part of the issue, he noted, was that California lacks the ability to protect the facility from the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Agency. It's not just state law these facilities would run afoul of: the feds can come barging in and arrest everybody, something the U.S. Attorney of Vermont has threatened against Burlington leaders. California had a similar problem when it first legalized medical marijuana in the 1990s, and U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recently warned flat-out in a New York Times op-ed piece that the DOJ would absolutely act against any attempt to open such a facility.

Brown makes note of Rosenstein's threats in his veto letter and says that it would be "irresponsible" for him to expose local officials and health-care providers to potential federal prosecution. That's understandable, though it's not like anybody is going to be forced to assume the risk. This bill would've simply provided protection from state and local law enforcement, and made no claims of immunity from the DEA or DOJ.

Besides, that's not the real reason Brown is rejecting the bill. He may see himself as a man of facts and science when it comes to climate change and environmentally friendly policies, but he's an anti-science blockhead when it comes to drugs.

Ultimately, what Brown really, truly wants here is to be able to force people to get drug treatment. It's plain as day in his veto letter: "Residential, outpatient and case management—all are needed, voluntarily undertaken or coercively imposed by our courts," he writes in his veto letter. "[E]nabling illegal and destructive drug use will never work. The community must have the authority and the laws to require compassionate but effective and mandatory treatment. AB 186 is all carrot and no stick."

Our decades-long drug war shows that the stick does not work; never has and—barring the kind of state-sanctioned violence against drug offenders in Southeast Asia—never will. Besides, the point of SIFs is not to make drug use less prevalent, but less deadly. These facilities save lives by preventing overdoses, and money by reducing the costs of emergency services required for enforcement and treatment. There are studies that back this up (a study that questioned the value of safe injection facilities was recently retracted due to flaws in the methodology).

Brown's belief that punishment and coercion are the best strategies for reducing drug use is simply not true. It's like saying we could end reckless driving by getting rid of seatbelts. But the point of seatbelts, like SIFs, is exactly the opposite of that. They are intended to take the sharp edge off unhealthy choices, and the alternative is more deaths.

Photo Credit: DENIS BALIBOUSE/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill from lawmakers that would authorize the city and county of San Francisco to create supervised injection facilities (SIFs).

    So city and county taxpayers should be paying to create centers so people can use drugs responsbily? Could there be anything more nanny state than that? If you want to legalize these thigns and let people set them up with their own money, fine. But how in the hell can a Libetarian publication think it is an appropriate use of taxpayer money? Reason appearently loves drug addicts and wants the taxpayers to pay to save them. That is great, a lot of other people love other things and want the taxpayers to pay for that. How can reason now have any moral gound to object?

    What the hell is wrong with you people?

  • Dan S.||

    Read the article. They would be paid for by private charities, not tax money.

  • John||

    Get your head out of your ass and realize those charities are taxpayer funded.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Can you clarify what you mean by that? Do you mean that charities are donated to by people who also pay taxes, and thus are taxpayers? Or are you saying the government is subsidizing those charities in some way?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Nevermind, reading Paul's stuff now.

  • Agammamon||

    Quangos. 'Charities' that get the majority of their funding from government grants.

  • Nardz||

    I work for a charitable organization.
    95% of our budget is from private sources, through our resale store and donations.
    A fact we emphasize over and over again.
    Of course, we're tiny.
    Any of these "N"GOs that are large, likely to be involved in this project, are full on crony capitalists - without the capitalist pretence.
    The welfare industrial complex

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So, what portion of those private donations translate into tax deductions?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    To be clear, the bill did not authorize any tax dollars to be spent on these injection facilities. The plan has always been for the sites to be funded and operated by private non-profits. Californians were not being asked to subsidize drug use.

    What the hell is wrong with you?

  • John||

    That is a complere fucking lie. That is not how this works as is explained below. Thsoe nonprofits are always government funded. Again, why have the counties and cities involved if not to pay for it?

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

  • Scott S.||

    You can always go somewhere else, John.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    How would moving change the primary assertion thar libertarianism is incompatible with tax funded responsible use drug centers?

    Would tax payer funded bars for alcoholics be OK too?

    How about, especially in CA, tax funded smoking lounges where those addicted to cigarettes can use their drug of choice without harassment?

  • No Longer Amused||

    They think that having junkies take over a neighborhood (not theirs) and turning it into a crime-infested shithole is a good thing because you shouldn't be mean to people that have chosen to be junkies.

  • MSimon||

  • Echospinner||

    Thanks for the links. Interesting stuff there.

    I am not sure that NIDA is saying that addiction is genetic. They have a working group looking at genetic factors that may be involved. It makes sense in that people react to substances differently. It could be that there are genetic variations in neuro receptors or brain function which could account for a susceptibility to addiction.

    PTSD and substance abuse has been known. Half of people with PTSD use alchohol or other things to excess. The theory is that they are self medicating.

  • Scott S.||

    You can always go somewhere else, John.

  • John||

    Sure, but why let you get away with this kind of nonsense without calling you on it? You should do better than this. It is not hard to see what is going on here.

  • Scott S.||

    You can always go somewhere else, John.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So you are not claiming John's criticism of the article is wrong, just that he should take his criticism elsewhere.

    That is an amazing thing to write.

  • Don't look at me!||

    And do it more than once. Pretty smug.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    To be clear, the bill did not authorize any tax dollars to be spent on these injection facilities. The plan has always been for the sites to be funded and operated by private non-profits. Californians were not being asked to subsidize drug use. This bill simply authorized San Francisco and its concerned citizens to move forward without threat of arrest. The plan has the support of San Francisco's civic leadership and mayor.

  • Blake||

    Since you couldn't be bothered to read the article:

    "To be clear, the bill did not authorize any tax dollars to be spent on these injection facilities. The plan has always been for the sites to be funded and operated by private non-profits."

  • Agammamon||

    The thing here is that there is a type of charity/non-profit known as a 'quango' (quasi-NGO). These are organizations that, while nominally private ventures, receive the majority (sometimes all) of their funding from government sources.

    So, no, no public monies will go *directly* to these injection centers. They will, however, go to quangos who will then use that money to fund these projects.

  • ||

    Exactly. Know how to read between the lines.

    They pull the same crap language up here. No tax money will be used, see, it's coming from this 'private non-profit' organization! What they don't tell you is.....that it's subsidized.

    So tax dollars do get used. They're just wormy about it.

    Private investment is for profit generally. Unless there's money to be made here, I'm having a hard time seeing this as altruism.

    Anyway, that's how I read it and surprised some around here take it literal. Unless I'm missing something.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm guessing there is the public reason Brown vetoed the bill and the private reason.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The plan has always been for the sites to be funded and operated by private non-profits.

    Scott, be very, very careful with this off-hand remark. Often, those "private non-profits" are directly funded by the state.

  • ||

    Often, those "private non-profits" are directly funded by the state.

    At the very least, it should be well understood that 'non-profit' and 'free market' are, in many ways, mutually exclusive.

  • John||

    If they are being set up on behalf of the county and city, they are being funded by the state. Otherwise, why bother with having the city involved at all?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In a perfect libertarian world, I could see a situation where the city sanctions the existence of a site, finds a zone and maybe even provides a plot of land or property where the site will exist, then walks away and private non-profits who are ENTIRELY funded through private donations (What, suddenly Amazon or Apple or some other trillion dollar company doesn't have enough resources to run a safe injection site) runs the entire program, with possibly some safety oversight from the state.

    But based on my experience, that isn't what happens. What happens is the state does what I indicate in the first part of my paragraph above, and then a series of 501c3 non-profits are literally given a chunk of cash by the state and then told to go run the program.

    These organizations literally wouldn't exist if the money state money faucet turns off.

  • John||

    That is exactly how this would work. Is Shackford just that dumb or is he being dishonest here and pretending that this is not taxpayer funded?

  • Scott S.||

    You can always go somewhere else, John.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You can always go somewhere else, Scott.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Example.

    SHARE/WHEEL, which runs a shelter network with around 200 beds, will be completely defunded. The organization "run[s] basic, mats-on-floor shelters, and has not exited anyone to permanent housing, which is a priority in this funding round," said Olberding.

    SHARE board president Anita Freeman told Crosscut that it plans to appeal the decision. "We're dealing at the survival level," she said.

    This is one of the most notorious "private non-profits" that runs a huge number of homeless shelters and tent camps in the city. They are glaringly corrupt and pretty much 100% of their funding comes from the city.

    They literally make money on homeless head count and are directly responsible for the homeless crisis in this town.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So, you follow this a lot more than I. Does the Safe Injection site laws being argued in Seattle now allow for anyone at all to set up a site, and thus a charity could in theory do it? Or is it pure cronyism with some select chosen charity that is a funnel for state money to them?

  • Hugh Akston||

    pretty much 100% of their funding comes from the city.

    Do you have any information to support this claim?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Often, those "private non-profits" are directly funded by the state.

    Yes, I provided examples, but I used the word "often" and "careful" when responding to the claim in the article (not supported by facts) that funding will be completely private. Experience tells us that... oh heck ,here's Agammamon's post from above:

    The thing here is that there is a type of charity/non-profit known as a 'quango' (quasi-NGO). These are organizations that, while nominally private ventures, receive the majority (sometimes all) of their funding from government sources.

    At this time, I don't know which organizations have been tapped to run the safe injection sites. If I knew that, I could probably get a better look at their books.

    I used the example of SHARE/WHEEL which is a local non-profit privately funded group which falls into this example of an organization that is nearly 100% funded by the city.

  • Hugh Akston||

    nearly 100% funded by the city.

    Again, do you have evidence to support this claim?

  • ||

    At this time, I don't know which organizations have been tapped to run the safe injection sites. If I knew that, I could probably get a better look at their books.

    Not to mention that libertarians are divided on the notion as to whether even churches should receive disproportionate tax breaks. The wealthiest hospitals in the country aren't wealthy because they treat a lot of patients, but because they sit on desirable property tax free and can license and network in ways the for-profit healthcare providers aren't allowed to. Simply granting them the land tax-free is a pretty big deal, especially in places like SF and LA.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In fact, I've tried hard to dig into who exactly are the non-profits, and every article is frustratingly vague. I've read about a dozen news articles from different sites just trying to see who these non-profits are, and the articles always print:

    achel Kagan, spokeswoman for the San Francisco Department of Public Health, told KTVU on Wednesday that "we are working with several nonprofits and community organizations that already serve this population to expand services to include supervised injections."

    Yes, I know, they're working with non-profits. Which/who/what. If they're 501c3s, then we should be able to look into their books.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Since you cut my quote regarding SHARE/WHEEL.

    Yes, they exist on city funding almost exclusively. SHARE/WHEEL was defunded by the city and without it, they were on the verge of collapse until they were able to get Kshama Sawant to reinstate their funding.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Yes, they exist on city funding almost exclusively.

    Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

  • Scott S.||

    You can always go somewhere else, John.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Scottis upset that people like John point out the deficiencies of Scotts writing and leftyism.

  • Ron||

    you mean like Planned parenthood is private but is funded by the government

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Planned Parenthood's funding is probably far more sourced from private entities than any of these shady municipal 501c3s.

  • Sevo||

    "Often, those "private non-profits" are directly funded by the state."

    The NPs in SF are largely staffed by campaign workers for the Supe in whose district they operate, and, yes, their pay and the operating costs come nearly 100% from the city budget.

  • Hugh Akston||

    their pay and the operating costs come nearly 100% from the city budget.

    Do you have any information to support this claim?

  • Sevo||

    "Do you have any information to support this claim?"

    Well, not the 100%, but how about:
    "San Francisco Launches $2.7 million in Grants To Help Nonprofits Purchase Affordable and Permanent Space as part of Mayor Lee's Nonprofit Sustainability Initiative
    [...]
    Funding for nonprofits has increased by more than $48 million (8%)— the largest increase in more than 10 years
    [...]
    "San Francisco residents rely on nonprofit organizations to provide important services like child care, health care, job training, legal aid, and counseling," said Mayor Edwin M. Lee. "This fund will give them the financial stability to ensure they continue offering these vital resources to City families."
    https://oewd.org/article/san-francisco-launches
    -27-million-grants-help-nonprofits-purchase-
    affordable-and-permanent

    None of the NPs are particularly open about their books; it takes someone blowing the whistle to find out how much comes from the taxpayer, and it does happen from time to time.

  • Sevo||

    More, Hugh:
    "This city is a mecca for people in search of a government handout that they can hand out. According to a 2009 analysis, San Francisco spends around 41 percent of its discretionary budget — about half a billion dollars — on nonprofits, mostly to provide social services for the poor, homeless, elderly, and others.
    [...]
    "In 2007, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) held a seminar for the nonprofits vying for a piece of $78 million in funding. Grant seekers were told that in the next funding cycle, they would be required — for the first time — to provide quantifiable proof their programs were accomplishing something.
    The room exploded with outrage. This wasn't fair. "What if we can bring in a family we've helped?" one nonprofit asked. Another offered: "We can tell you stories about the good work we do!"
    https://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/
    the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-us/Content?
    oid=2175354&storyPage=2

    No, it has not improved in the eleven years since.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So without doing the work to stitch your inexplicably broken links, I'm going to guess that's a 'no', you don't have evidence to support that claim.

  • Sevo||

    Hugh Akston|10.1.18 @ 8:55PM|#
    "So without doing the work to stitch your inexplicably broken links, I'm going to guess that's a 'no', you don't have evidence to support that claim."

    As mentioned, I do not have a link concerning 100%, but as pasted copy shows, there are hundreds of millions of dollars in SF alone supporting NPs, so just continue to imagine that's all spent on 'unicorns'.
    But since you can't be bothered to read the pull quotes, you are welcome to remain an ignoramus.

  • Ron||

    I find it odd that he would claim it doesn't follow federal law when Browns EPA standards and immigrations laws don't follow federal law. The man is unpredictable and we thought Trump was crazy

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Governor Moonbeam's going senile.

  • SIV||

    Vox Science:

    Supervised consumption sites have often drawn not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) criticisms. Essentially, people are worried that if a supervised consumption site opens in their area, it will attract individuals who use drugs to their neighborhood, and that could cause a rise in general crime and social disorder. But those concerns are not supported by the research.

  • JeremyR||

    If Reason were really a journalistic endeavor, and not the propaganda arm of the Libertarian Party, they would do actual research on how much money from the government went to the "charities" who will fund the clinic.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If the city of San Francisco tells you they love you, check it out.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It's far more important for the state to be able to boss people around than it is to make it less likely for drug users to die of overdoses. /Brown derp

  • Aloysious||

    Clean your bathroom, Shackelfart. That's gross.

  • Juice||

    Something tells me that these places would be used AND there would still be needles and shooting up in public everywhere.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Used by drug dealers, looking for a place where he will find lots of people to whom he might sell his wares.

    There's no way drugs/money don't exchange hands dozens of times a day in the bathroom of these facilities.

  • Juice||

    The plan has the support of San Francisco's civic leadership and mayor.

    Are you 100% sure no taxes would be involved?

  • Juice||

    It's like saying we could end reckless driving by getting rid of seatbelts.

    So you're in favor of seatbelt laws now?

  • Hugh Akston||

    ::bangs on Poe detector::

  • HGW xx/7||

    I had this exact reaction, too. I figure Scott could backpeddle and say, "Well, they do reduce severity of injury; I didn't say anything about enforcement through government-approved coercion."

    But we all know what the Woke-folk think. No doubt a lot of the "writers" here often end their internal arguments in favor of "collective rights" with '...but it really is for our own good.'

  • Hugh Akston||

    But we all know what the Woke-folk think.

    We can read their minds so why bother reading their words?

  • HGW xx/7||

    Why bother reading the words of the Woke?

    Well, with Robby, I get valuable hair care advice. With Scott, I learn how to accept my inner gay-dude.

    With you, Hugh, I just love your rapier wit.

  • Hugh Akston||

    My wit isn't that sharp. It's like an hour later and I'm still trying to figure out how Scott could backpeddle on a claim he never made.

  • HGW xx/7||

    ...I'm still trying to figure out how Scott could backpeddle on a claim he never made.

    Hence the "could" in my post. I fully believe that he probably meant it from a purely statistical angle and not a "thank Science for government" stance.

    I was just being a cynical asshole, Hugh; sorry for making you waste an hour.

  • ||

    It's like an hour later and I'm still trying to figure out how Scott could backpeddle on a claim he never made.

    We're months, if not years, into this whole safe injection site discussion and I'm still having trouble seeing how people dying of overdoses isn't a self-limiting problem.

  • Juice||

    Seeing that written that way sounded like the reverse of the argument that mandating safety measures made people behave in a less safe manner because they assume they are safer to do so, ie the moral hazard argument.

    Libertarians making a utilitarian argument use the moral hazard angle all the time. It was just weird to see it reversed here.

  • Agammamon||

    The city has a massive problem with public drug use, and used needles and other drug waste are common in public spaces

    Be fair - the city has a problem with *subsidizing lifestyle choices*.

    If they stopped handing out free needles - paid for by the taxpayers - then the used needles and other drug waste would be greatly reduced. Like it is in every other city in the country. They don't have to go after these people, just stop using public money to subsidize their lifestyle.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Echospinner||

    Eight people in one part of Seattle is a cluster, not an epidemic.

    It does not constitute an argument against providing sterile needles or syringes. You cannot know how many cases were prevented. Nor can you prove how many cases of hepatitis or bacterial infection were prevented. Those all cost if that is the concern.

    So sterile needles and syringes don't reduce the risk of infection? Please.

    No prevention program is going to be 100% effective.

  • Echospinner||

    I checked. You can buy 1cc syringes with a 29g needle for 10 cents each online.

    The government can get them cheaper in a bulk purchase.

    Now talk about what happens when an IV drug user shows up to ED with a spinal infection or HIV. That one person would cost much more than the whole program.

  • Cathy L||

    Lol

    They still have government schools too right? Yep. Lots of subsidized lifestyle choices for sure.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Don't forget the roads and parking that subsidize car ownership.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So let's see. The bill would have authorized safe injection facilities to be run entirely by private organizations. John et al. suspect that the private organizations are really just front organizations for public agencies, and that's why he opposes the bill. Even though there is no proof that this is actually the case. But even assuming that John's suppositions are correct, that is an argument against public funding of the private organizations, not against the facilities themselves.

  • Sevo||

    "Even though there is no proof that this is actually the case"

    Of course not....
    "San Francisco Launches $2.7 million in Grants To Help Nonprofits Purchase Affordable and Permanent Space as part of Mayor Lee's Nonprofit Sustainability Initiative
    [...]
    Funding for nonprofits has increased by more than $48 million (8%)— the largest increase in more than 10 years "
    https://oewd.org/article/san-francisco-
    launches-27-million-grants-help-nonprofits
    -purchase-affordable-and-permanent

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, and?

    I don't see where your link mentions anything about safe injection facilities.

    And even still, that isn't an argument against facilities themselves, it's an argument against the public funding for the NGOs.

  • Sevo||

    Yes, and?
    "I don't see where your link mentions anything about safe injection facilities."

    Yeah, those aren't yet set up.
    BTW, $48m represents an increase in NP funding by 8%, which means funding is roughly $576m. Do you think some of that won't end up funding this city-gov't sponsored program?
    I certainly agree about stopping the funding, but let's not ad another program which is going to scream and shout if we ever manage to do that.

  • Sevo||

    I predict several headquarters moving to new locales:

    "California Law Mandates Women on Corporate Boards"
    [...]
    "Governor Jerry Brown on Sunday signed into law that every California-based corporation should have at least one woman on its board of directors by the end of next year.
    By the end of 2021, a board of directors with five members will be required to have at least two female members and larger boards will require three or more."
    http://kansascityjournalpost.com/index.php/
    2018/10/01/california-law-mandates-
    women-on-corporate-boards/

  • Juice||

    WOW!

    But really though, what's easier and cheaper? Moving your headquarters or putting a token woman on the board?

    Now every woman newly appointed to a corporate board in California will likely feel like a token who didn't get there on her own merits. smh

  • Sevo||

    I wonder if some might eat the expense as opposed to suffering the death of a thousand cuts.

  • Sevo||

    I wonder if some won't eat the expense to avoid the death of a thousand cuts.

  • Sevo||

    I wish I could give the squirrels a thousand cuts.

  • Len Bias||

    "But really though, what's easier and cheaper? Moving your headquarters or putting a token woman on the board?"

    The major tech companies are already moving. I work for a major Silicon Valley tech company and they are quietly building a huge campus in Texas and are moving jobs there as quickly as possible. The HQ are still in CA, but once they get tired of all these laws, they can move the HQ easily enough. The death by a 1,000 paper cuts is already happening.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    It would be most funny if all the boards nominated the same token woman.

  • ||

    But really though, what's easier and cheaper? Moving your headquarters or putting a token woman on the board?

    Actually, marrying or simply finding a woman and gifting her your controlling interest in exchange for power of attorney could probably be done in an afternoon.

  • No Longer Amused||

    The last thing we need to be doing is making it "safe" for junkies so they can convert the locale into Tweakerville.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So being last, that comes after throwing them in prison for life or summarily executing them for possessing drugs?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So, go to SFC for a couple of weeks, get housed in a facility with free drugs and concierge service, plus additonal support to get clean at the end. Sounds like a freaking spa, and would cost thousands per night as a private venture. I bet that would still be cheaper than the Cali-NGO plan.

  • MSimon||

    No mention of this at Reason?

    President Trump just signed on to the Globalist Drug War. At the UN. At a meeting he sponsored. Who else is covering it besides me? The CTH (link at the link)
    The Link

  • MSimon||

    Surprisingly very few libertarians understand the nature of addiction.

    Dr. Lonny Shavelson found that 70% of female heroin addicts were sexually abused in childhood.

    Addiction is a symptom of PTSD. Look it up.

    The NIDA says Addiction Is A Genetic Disease

  • SIV||

    Addiction is physiological dependency. It is preceded by tolerance, resulting in increasing dosage andmanifests with physical withdrawal. Or something like that.

  • Echospinner||

    There are a lot of people who see addiction as a lifestyle choice and moral failing.

    That is why projects like this get killed. It has nothing to do with expense.

    I see it as medical and psychological. Drugs like heroin rewire the brain producing changes that persist long after withdrawal. This includes changes to the lymbic system which is involved in memory and emotion as well as the frontal cortex, the thinking and decision making part.

    https://tinyurl.com/yaz25msm

    I do not know if these centers will alleviate some of the issues with IV drug addiction. There is some evidence that they can. There are public health risks, law enforcement and medical expenses already which taxpayers deal with.

    Libertarians have long been advocates of ending the war on drugs.

  • MSimon||

    "See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel." - Economist Milton Friedman (1991)

  • NoVaNick||

    Perhaps Moonbeam is wary that one day there could be safe injection sites for nicotine once that has been made illegal-can't have that in California.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online