California’s governor has vetoed a law authorizing safe injection sites

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed a bill that would have authorized a limited number of safe injection sites, ditching harm reduction advocates trying to increase the number of overdose deaths affecting the state and nation plague to deliver a blow. Newsom vetoed the measure, Senate Bill 57, saying the overdose prevention programs authorized by the bill could lead to a “world of unintended consequences.”

SB 57 would have authorized four local jurisdictions to conduct overdose prevention programs, also known as safe sites of consumption or safe sites of injection, as a five-year pilot program. Overdose prevention centers would have been approved for Los Angeles County and the cities of San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles, where local leaders had petitioned to be included in the legislation. The bill was approved by the California State Assembly on June 30 and by the state Senate on August 1.

“Every death from an overdose is preventable,” Wiener said after the law was passed by the state parliament. “We have the tools to end these deaths, make people healthy and reduce the harm to people who use drugs. Right now we are letting people die on our streets for no other reason than an arbitrary legal ban that we need to lift. SB 57 is long overdue and will have a major impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our community.”

Safe injection sites provide places where people can inject or otherwise consume drugs under the supervision of trained healthcare professionals who can intervene in the event of an overdose or other medical emergency. Overdose prevention centers also provide other services, including drug treatment referrals, housing assistance, and HIV prevention services. In Switzerland, Canada and at least ten other countries, safe injection sites have been successfully operated for years without overdose deaths being recorded in people using the facilities.

Late last year, citizen officials in New York City announced that the city had opened the first publicly recognized overdose prevention centers in the United States. Since then, research published by the American Medical Association has found that New York City’s safe drug use venues reduce the risk of overdose, have encouraged people not to use illicit drugs in public, and have provided supplemental health services for people who do not use illicit drugs consume substances.

Veto names possible “unintended consequences”

However, the success of other safer injection sites failed to sway the California governor. While expressing his support for mitigation measures, he said they require “well-documented, audited and thoughtful operational and sustainability plans.” Newsom also acknowledged that overdose prevention programs could be beneficial, but vetoed SB-57 on Monday, citing possible “unintended consequences” of the legislation.

“It is possible that these sites would help improve the safety and health of our urban areas, but if implemented without a strong plan, they could defeat that purpose,” the governor wrote in his veto message. “These unintended consequences in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland are not to be taken lightly. Worsening drug use challenges in these areas is not a risk we can take.”

Rather than approve the law, Newsom said he will direct the secretary of the California Department of Health and Human Services to “convene city and county officials to discuss minimum standards and best practices for safe and sustainable overdose prevention programs.”

“I remain open to that discussion as these local officials return to the Legislature with recommendations for a truly limited pilot program — with comprehensive plans for site, operations, community partnerships and fiscal sustainability that demonstrate how these programs will be carried out safely and effectively,” wrote Newsom.

Supporters disappointed by veto

After Newsom’s veto of the Safe Injection Sites Act was announced, Wiener said in a statement that it didn’t take more research to conclude that overdose prevention centers save lives.

“Today’s veto is tragic,” said Wiener. “While this veto represents a major setback to efforts to save lives and connect people to treatment, we cannot – and will not – allow it to end this movement. We will continue to fight to end the war on drugs and focus on drug use and addiction for the health problems they are.”

A coalition of health organizations, drug treatment specialists, policy reform advocates and civil rights organizations supported the passage of SB 57, saying the law would save lives and create opportunities for drug abuse interventions. Jeannette Zanipatin, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance, criticized Newsom’s reasoning for the veto, noting that local officials in the jurisdictions earmarked for the safe use locations had already signed the legislation.

“We are incredibly disappointed and heartbroken that Governor Newsom has put his own political ambitions ahead of saving thousands of lives and vetoed this important piece of legislation. Despite the governor’s comments, LA, San Francisco and Oakland have already identified this as a priority by approving programs on the ground and stand ready to implement them quickly,” Zanipatin said in a statement from the group. “We already engaged local stakeholders in a robust process and they took active steps towards implementation to be part of the SB 57 pilot that would have been put in place. We don’t need any additional processes. What we need is action. Without action, people will die.”

Shane Pennington, Counsel at cannabis law firm Vicente Sederberg LLP, is also disappointed with the veto.

“Reg. Newsom’s decision to veto this law is very disappointing,” Pennington wrote in an email to the High Times. “Research proves that safe places to consume save lives, plain and simple. I hope that the governor’s call for local leadership to develop thoughtful operational and sustainable plans for the sites bears fruit.”