Newsom vetoes bill for safe drug injection sites in three California cities

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a closely-watched bill Monday that would have allowed San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles to open supervised drug use sites in an effort to curb the state’s rising opioid overdose rate.

Instead, the governor called for Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly to join with with city and county officials to study minimum standards and best practices for overdose prevention programs.

Newsom’s decision against Senate Bill 57, announced just hours ahead of the legal deadline for a veto, will almost certainly be seen by supporters as a retreat from his commitment to progressive California policies. It is also likely to heighten speculation that his possible aspirations as a Democratic presidential candidate might have compelled him to row back support for an idea he was “very, very open” to when he ran for governor in 2018.

Approval of the five-year pilot program would almost certainly have been used by Republicans against Newsom, who is up for re-election in November.

It would also have provided fresh material for national GOP attacks on Newsom — an outspoken critic of governance in red states such as Texas, Florida and Alabama — as an enabler of legally sanctioned “drug dens.” The term is intentionally used to conjure images of 19th-century “opium dens” or more contemporary “crack houses” where drugs are sold or made.

The bill received broad support from public health groups like the Drug Policy Alliance and California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, both of which co-sponsored it with Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco. All but a handful of Democrats favored it and pushed Newsom to sign amid heavy opposition from conservatives.

In a letter to Newsom on August 1, members of the Senate Republican Caucus called the bill “a distraction” from the real need for state-funded and operated effective drug treatment programs..

“Fueling the drug epidemic with drug dens and needle supplies is like pouring gasoline on a forest fire,” they wrote. “It merely worsens the problem.”

Why did Newsom veto?

In his veto message, Newsom said he is “concerned about the operations of safe injection sites without strong, engaged local leadership and well-documented, vetted, and thoughtful operational and sustainability plans.”

“The unlimited number of safe injection sites that this bill would authorize — facilities which could exist well into the later part of this decade — could induce a world of unintended consequences,” Newsom said in the message. “It is possible that these sites would help improve the safety and health of our urban areas, but if done without a strong plan, they could work against this purpose.”

Following the HHS study, Newsom said he is open to a “truly limited pilot program — with comprehensive plans for siting, operations, community partnerships, and fiscal sustainability that demonstrate how these programs will be run safely and effectively.”

Democrats, Republicans react

Wiener, the bill’s author, called the veto “tragic and a huge lost opportunity” on Twitter.

“We don’t need additional studies or working groups to determine whether safe consumption sites are effective,” Wiener said in a statement. “We know from decades of experience and numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies that they work.”

“Safe consumption sites have been in operation around the world for approximately 30 years, with great success and literally zero overdose deaths,” he added. “These sites are a proven strategy to reduce overdose deaths, pressure on emergency rooms, and public drug use, while expanding access to drug treatment.”

Senate Republican Leader Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, and Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, cheered the veto.

“Glad to see the governor veto this,” Wilk said in a statement. “People struggling with addiction need help, not a legal place to shoot up. I look forward to working with the governor to convince Democrats in the legislature that a compassionate approach to addiction is better done through medical and mental health treatments.”

“Providing state subsidized and supervised drug consumption is a sign that Capitol Democrats have given up on governing,” Gallagher said in a statement. “This bill should have never made it to the governor’s desk in the first place. I am very grateful to the governor for being the sense of reason in this case.”

Arguments for and against safe injection sites

Newsom’s veto comes nearly four years after his Democratic predecessor, Gov. Jerry Brown, vetoed a bill that would have allowed San Francisco to launch a pilot program.

“Enabling illegal and destructive drug use will never work,” Brown wrote. “The community must have the authority and the laws to require compassionate but effective and mandatory treatment.”

Brown said he was also concerned about Trump administration warnings that local officials could be subject to civil and criminal action. The Biden administration has signaled a willingness to allow safe consumption sites.

Two Democratic Senators voted against this latest measure. One of them, Senator Melissa Hurtado, D-Sanger, said that Wiener is taking the wrong approach.

“I know that (he) means well, he’s very knowledgeable and I respect him so much for the work that he does in thinking outside the box,” Hurtado said in a recent interview. “But I really see this adding to the challenges that we already have with drugs in general.”

Hurtado, who has loved ones who’ve struggled with drug addiction, said that making drug use more accessible is “the last thing” she would want for them. She also echoed her Republican colleagues by referring to the centers as “drug dens.”

Outside of the U.S., such sites are not a new phenomenon. Research shows that they are a cost-effective method for reducing overdoses and other related public health issues.

Proponents say they do not promote drug abuse but are places where people can safely use illicit drugs under medically trained staff, rather than on their own in dangerous public settings far away from medical care. These centers also assist people in obtaining addiction support services.

California would have been the third state to authorize these sites, also called overdose prevention projects. Rhode Island was the first to legalize them in 2021, but a center has yet to open. New York state opened two in 2021. Officials reported that within the first few months of operation, staff prevented more than 150 overdoses.

This story was originally published August 22, 2022 at 3:31 PM.