In his first month of office, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie called for an ordinance that declares the fentanyl crisis a state of emergency. The ordinance aims to tackle the issue of drug overdoses, using private sector resources for public safety projects. In an ABC7 Interview, Lurie stated, “We have to treat this emergency like the crisisnthat it is. So we have to treat it with urgency.”
As a San Francisco native who grew up observing this city’s response to the drug crisis, I appreciate Lurie’s dedication and ideas to mitigate this issue. However, the proposed ordinance does not explicitly address what type of public projects that these resources will be funding, which raises the question of how suited the solution is to the problem. When assessing solutions to this issue, Lurie should incorporate safe injection sites into his plan, as they have been proven to effectively reduce addiction and overdose rates.
In 2017, Assemblymember Susan Eggman and Senator Scott Weiner co-sponsored AB 186, a bill that would help combat the opioid crisis, through the installation of safe injection sites. These sites use harm-reduction measures to provide users a safe environment to inject drugs.
AB 186 would allow local governments to set up designated injection sites which help create a safe, monitored environment for intravenous drug injection through medical supervision. Then-Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill. Brown wrote “I do not believe that enabling illegal drug use in government sponsored injection centers […] will reduce drug addiction.”
Drug overdoses are a public health crisis, especially in San Francisco. A 2023 public health study reported more than 800 drug overdose deaths in San Francisco that year. These include overdoses from opioids, cocaine and methamphetamine drugs.
According to the 2022 prevention plan, the city of San Francisco hoped to tackle the crisis by establishing “wellness hubs,” while aiming to reduce overdoses by 15%, and increase medication treatment by 30%. The “wellness hubs” from the San Francisco plan, and the safe injection sites detailed in AB 186 would help address the crisis. While traction for both ideas gained momentum in their respective government levels, both were criticized and were ultimately not implemented.
Brown objected to AB 186 because it did not incentivize treatment for drug users. Brown also voiced concerns that the bill would clash with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a federal law that outlaws maintaining a place using or distributing illegal drugs. Logistical and legal concerns of legislation have their place, but urgent public health concerns must take precedence.
Scientific evidence shows the success of safe injection sites. A 2020 study by the New York Institute of Technology found that New York City’s two new supervised drug injection sites reversed 114 overdoses within two months.
Emphasizing the importance of safe injection sites, Weiner said in a statement, “So many communities in our state are experiencing dramatic rises in public drug use and overdose deaths, and now is the time to implement a proven anti-overdose strategy that helps get people into recovery.”
The purpose of creating legislation is to help uplift and fight for local communities, especially when it comes to combating ongoing health crises. Life-changing legislation, such as AB 186, should be in consideration. It is imperative to focus on changing the current status quo to help others in need.
Graphic by Zoë Carr / Graphics Center
Editor-in-Chief: Jordan Premmer, Chief Copy Editor: Sophia McCrackin, Managing Editor: Jordan DelFiugo, Opinion Editor: Dakota Duran, Scene Editor: Elina Graham
