House Democrats Pass BYOD State Supported Drug Dens

Approve $2 Million for so-called “safe injection” sites.

Democrats in the Vermont House voted on Wednesday to spend $2 million to set up a pilot program establishing “safe injection sites” for addicts (H.72) – a misnomer as it turns out as floor testimony revealed there are multiple ways users ingest their drugs at these facilities.

One lawmaker asked, “People are snorting fentanyl and smoking it, and I’m just wondering if that will be allowed at the centers, and also something like smoking methamphetamine.” The answer from lead bill sponsor Rep. Taylor Small (P-Winooski) was, “Yes! The people who would be using such facilities would be able to use pre-obtained drugs in a variety of ways.” Sounds safe. So much for protecting the workers in these places from secondhand meth and fentanyl smoke.

Needless to say, these sites are controversial. But they are on the radical leftist Santa-letter wish list so of course, Vermont needs to be the first kid on the block to have one…. Or two as this initial case may be.

Supporters argue that giving addicts a safe place to get high under the supervision of healthcare professionals who can intervene in the event of an overdose saves lives, can facilitate a path to treatment, keeps this sort of activity off the streets, and saves the public money by reducing emergency ambulance calls. In an ideal world, maybe.

Opponents’ concerns are more practical than ideological.

First of all, these sites are illegal under federal law. A small detail. While H.72 protects users and workers at these facilities from state prosecution, it doesn’t and can’t protect them from federal prosecution. Wouldn’t it make more sense to invest this $2 million, which comes from a legal settlement with five drug makers, in some other program that is not a federal crime to implement? That might even create some synergy with a federal program to get better results? Apparently not.   

Moreover, the example of successful safe sites cited by supporters are in New York City and have fully functioning ancillary support systems in place. For example, the benefit of an addict using a safe site as a springboard for getting treatment only works if treatment services outside the site are available. In Vermont, they are not. Without such supports in place these sites are little more than legally sanctioned drug dens. So, would it not make more practical sense to invest this $2 million into expanding availability to treatment services – those with a proven track record of effectiveness -- to better meet existing demand? Apparently not.

Similarly, asked about legal liabilities when addicts drive to and from these sites, potentially under the influence of something, Rep. Small stated that the overwhelming majority of addicts who use these sites live within a walkable ten-block radius of the site. That’s in New York City. Where the population density is, shall we say, a little bit more concentrated than it is anywhere in the Green Mountain State. According to Patti McCoy (R-Poultney) the 10 or 20 block area in Manhattan where these sites are contain twice the entire population of our state.

Where in Vermont are there enough addicts who would be willing to go to a safe site to get high within walking distance of their home to make such a facility cost effective? We are talking about two locations serving 0.05 square miles within the 9916 square miles of Vermont. Even if this experiment sees some success in the pilot phase, is it possible or practical to scale the program up to equitably serve our whole population? From a funding and staffing perspective, no. So again, is the best use of this $2 million to help solve our opioid crisis? It is not.

Another significant concern is that these sites will become magnets for crime and drug dealers. The sites themselves do not provide drugs to the users. It’s BYOD! So, users will have to obtain their illegal substances before entering the site. From whom? A drug dealer nearby, probably taking advantage of the site as a marketing tool. And where will users get the money for their drugs? In many cases from theft, probably from someplace nearby. So, who wants one of these in their neighborhood? Bueller…. Bueller….

The counter argument to this concern is that police will be able to focus their attention on the areas surrounding the sites. But, if they do, who’s going to go to them in the first place? It would defeat the ostensible purpose of having the things.

The Democrats and Progressives who supported this bill (not a single Republican voted for it) are going to do their best to spin opposition as some sort of callous disregard for the lives of addicts and a turning of backs on the very real opioid overdose crisis our state is facing. Our biased capitol press corps will probably do the same. This is bull. Don’t fall for it.

---

Strong arguments in opposition to this use of opioid settlement money.

---

Those who voted no on H.72 overwhelmingly demonstrated sympathy for those suffering from addiction, their families, and our communities at large. Many shared their own experiences with family members or friends. This is, however, a question of how best to invest $2 million in settlement money in order to have the most positive impact on helping people in crisis.

As one opponent of H.72 explained, “At this time, the state of Vermont does not have an adequate substance abuse continuum of care infrastructure required to support an overdose prevention consumption site. We need to make the investments in prevention, education, recovery, and treatment. These are the evidence-based, trauma-informed practices that save lives and bring our loved ones home to us safe, stable and healthy. For this reason, I will be voting no on H.72 and urge this body to do the same.” And, I’ll add, the benefit of not being a a federal crime. This is rational, common sense, investment oriented policy making.

To paraphrase Majority Whip Mike McCarthy’s (D-St. Albans) response to this argument, “Who cares? I want an Oompa Loompa NOWWWWW!”

Unfortunately, H.72 is yet another example of how the Democrats and Progressives who control our legislature govern from a philosophical foundation of rainbows and unicorn farts and the belief that if we all we all just clap hard enough and truly  believe (and throw enough money) Tinkerbell will come back to life -- when the real solution is to pick her up and get her to a hospital as fast as possible.

Here’s a link to the roll call vote if you want to see how your Rep(s) voted.

• Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics including three years service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free market think tank.

---

Click that ♡ button, please. And don’t forget to subscribe and share. I’m grateful for your help with growing the BTL audience! Thanks.

---

Event Notice: Rob Roper will be speaking Milton Library on Saturday, Jan 13, from 10 am to noon about the issues we will be facing in the 2024 legislative session. Free and open to the public!