Get Informed

Subscribe to our newsletters for regular updates, analysis and context straight to your email.

Close Newsletter Signup

San Francisco wants safe injection sites. Law enforcement stands in its way.

There are approximately 22,000 intravenous drug users in the city.

San Francisco wants safe injection sites. Law enforcement stands in its way.

There are approximately 22,000 intravenous drug users in the city.

San Francisco has long felt the impact of the country’s growing opioid crisis. The city is home to approximately 22,000 residents who inject heroin and other prescription drugs, and hundreds of people have overdosed in recent years.

Public health officials, lawmakers, and community organizations are working diligently to develop a multi-pronged approach to tackle the problem. Now, these groups are overwhelmingly supporting a state bill that would open safe injection sites in San Francisco County and seven other counties in the California. Similar sites are currently up and running in 66 cities worldwide, and countless lives have been saved. But there is one group that adamantly opposes the idea and has the power to stop it dead in its tracks: law enforcement.

California Assembly Bill 186 is intended to create a “safer drug consumption program” by opening facilities where intravenous drug users can be monitored by health care professionals. While the bill acknowledges existing law that prohibits the use of controlled substances, it aims to reduce overdoses by putting drug users under the watchful eye of doctors and other medical personnel who can provide life-saving treatment on the spot. Drug users would also have access to clean needles and receive referrals for substance abuse treatment elsewhere. The bill would also protect people who shoot up at designated injection sites from criminal charges.

Stockton Assemblywoman Susan Eggman introduced the proposal in January, which was co-authored by California State Senator Scott Wiener. Wiener represents San Francisco and describes himself as “a passionate supporter” of safe injection. “I am a big believer in harm reduction, public health strategies and trying new things,” he told the San Francisco Examiner in April. “The current situation is not working well. You can see that with injection drug use in our streets and syringes.”

The legislation is endorsed by public defenders, drug policy experts, and substance abuse treatment providers. It is also backed by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon, at a time when prosecutors in other parts of the country are eager to ramp up enforcement and enhance criminal penalties for illicit drug use. San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors has yet to take an official stance on the matter, but they have created a task force to study safe injection sites and are expected to review the findings this month.

Despite widespread support from community members, and the willingness of city leaders to at least consider safe injection sites as a viable solution to the epidemic, law enforcement associations are not on board.

“While we appreciate that the intent of the bill is to provide a space where people who use drugs can do so under the watchful eye of healthcare professionals who may also educate and connect them with addiction treatment services, we are concerned about the impact this drug activity would have on crime in the areas surrounding these sites,” the California District Attorneys Association testified during a senate committee hearing on the bill. “Beyond the drug and theft crimes that are often committed by individuals with substance abuse issues, those individuals themselves may become attractive targets for other criminals who would take advantage of these geographic clusters of impaired victims.”

Police organizations also believe that the proposal is merely giving people the green light to use drugs illegally. According to the legislative director of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, Cory Salzillo, the approach “sends the wrong message about drug use.” He says it is hard to gauge what will happen to drug users upon leaving safe injection sites. The California Police Chiefs’ Association argues that such a policy would violate federal law, and that designated injection sites “fall short in supporting long-term healing.”

Altogether, this opposition could be enough to kill the bill.

Law enforcement agencies are historically adept at influencing political decisions. They have the backing of hundreds — if not thousands — of members, which gives them significant lobbying power within political circles. Together, these groups have blocked a wide range of criminal justice proposals that have bipartisan backing; this year alone, efforts to make juvenile sentencing more humaneeliminate civil asset forfeiture, and reform bail have gone up in flames due to law enforcement pressure. In California, police organizations have proven time and time again that they are a force to be reckoned with, blocking legislation that would have reformed body camera policies and made police records more accessible to the public in recent years.

With staunch opposition from police and prosecutors throughout California, Assembly Bill 186 could suffer a similar fate. It may not matter that the district attorney in San Francisco believes in the bill’s potential.

As eager as San Franciscans are for safe injection sites, time is running out. The bill passed the California State Assembly in June, and state senators have sat on the bill ever since. Law enforcement pressure is likely behind this foot-dragging. There is now one week left to vote on the life-saving measure before it dies in the legislature. The longer lawmakers wait, the longer thousands of lives are left hanging in the balance.

Thanks to Josie Duffy Rice.

Congress should leave marijuana to the states

Congress should leave marijuana to the states

While candidate Donald Trump promised to protect medical marijuana on the campaign trail, President Trump’s Justice Department wants to be more aggressive against state-legal marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Attorney General Jeff Sessions personally asked Congress for funds to prosecute medical marijuana cases in states where it is legal. The legal sale of recreational marijuana remains limited to a handful of states, but 29 states plus the District of Columbia allow the prescription and distribution of medical marijuana. National polling shows that more than half of Americans favor marijuana legalization, but an even larger majority want the federal government to leave marijuana alone in states where it is legal. This represents a glaring violation of federalism — the notion that states should generally set their own policies free from federal oversight or interference — and the Republican-controlled Congress should have no part of it.

Since 2014, Congress has prevented the Department of Justice from using funds to prosecute state-legal medical marijuana transactions. What was then called the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment (now known as the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment) is a rider to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill that defunds prosecutions for state-legal medical marijuana offences. Congress has the constitutional authority, colloquially known as “the power of the purse,” to prohibit government agencies from using tax dollars for particular activities, such as prosecuting federal marijuana violations in states that have chosen to legalize it.

Because the Senate included the no-prosecution amendment in its version of this year’s budget while the House did not, it will be up to a conference committee to decide whether the amendment stands or falls. If it does fall, hundreds of businesses will be threatened and countless chronic pain sufferers and other patients will face uncertainty in their quality of life. Moreover, studies suggest that some patients deprived of medical cannabis turn to opioids to ease their pain, putting them in greater risk of dependency or addiction in the so-called opioid epidemic. Attorney General Sessions’s attempts to link medical marijuana to the opioid crisis fly in the face of evidence from the National Institute on Drug Abuse that show places with access to medical marijuana experience fewer opioid overdoses than those without access. A RAND study also found that prescriptions of opioids and reported opioid abuse decline where state-legal marijuana dispensaries operate.

Despite its perceived association with the political left, medical marijuana is not just a blue-state issue. Ten of the 29 states with legal medical marijuana — and 115 electoral votes — went for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. More than 200 million American residents, roughly 62 percent of the population, live in states where medical marijuana is legal. Nationwide, according to a 2017 CBS poll, 71 percent of Americans — including 63 percent of Republicans — oppose federal interference with state-legal marijuana. Perhaps most telling, a 2017 Quinnipiac poll found that 94 percent of American voters approve of adult medical marijuana use if prescribed by a doctor.

Congress doesn’t just decide whether federal tax dollars can be used to enforce particular drugs laws — it also has the power to determine which substances should be under federal control in the first place. All drugs regulated and banned under federal law are “scheduled” — that is, ranked by factors like rates of abuse, potential for chemical dependence, and potential medical uses. Schedule I, which includes heroin, marijuana, and LSD, is the most restrictive and recognizes no legitimate uses, and the scales descends from there to Schedule V, which includes various analgesics and other medicines with lower potential for abuse. As the evidence continues to mount, an increasing number of doctors, patients, and policymakers reject the federal government’s assertion that marijuana has no accepted medical use and must therefore remain a Schedule I drug — particularly when opium and cocaine are classified as less restrictive Schedule II drugs on the premise that they have legitimate medical applications.

The medicinal benefits to individuals have swayed enough doctors, patients, state legislatures, and public opinion that Schedule I designation ceases to make any sense. At least one Republican Congressman has proposed legislation to de-schedule marijuana entirely.

In fact, Rep. Tom Garrett, a Republican former prosecutor from Virginia, introduced H.R. 1227, the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017. The bill would remove marijuana from the list of federal controlled substances while still prohibiting its sale across state lines. This would enable states to decide for themselves whether to legalize marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes. Marijuana would then be subject to the state and local laws like those that apply to tobacco and alcohol.

While legal marijuana may not be for every state or locale, it is clearly popular enough that the federal government should end its attempt to prohibit it where it is state legal, particularly for medicinal purposes. Millions of Americans and their doctors have determined that cannabis has medical benefits, and almost 2/3rds of the states have recognized that. Congress may not take the lead on this issue, but it should at least recognize the political realities and get out of the way.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Fair Punishment Project.

More in Explainers

Former clerk in Pennsylvania district attorney’s office has ties to alt-right

Former clerk in Pennsylvania district attorney’s office has ties to alt-right

A Pennsylvania district attorney has promised to do a better job of vetting potential staff after his office hired a clerk who is active in the alt-right movement.

David Freed, the district attorney in Cumberland County said he didn’t personally know Evan McLaren when he worked in the office as an unpaid clerk in 2016 and 2017.

McLaren is now the executive director of the National Policy Institute, which was founded by white supremacist Richard Spencer.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has called the National Policy Institute “one of the country’s leading white nationalist organizations” and classified it as a hate group.

The Patriot News, the largest newspaper in Harrisburg, quoted McLaren talking about his beliefs last month after the violent protests in Charlottesville over the removal of a Confederate statue. McLaren was one of the people that marched in Charlottesville in opposition to the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue.

In the article, McLaren, a 2017 graduate of the Dickinson School of Law, said he believed white people who trace their ancestors back to Europe like himself were in danger of becoming a minority in America.

“We’re dedicated to the preservation of white heritage and identity,” McLaren said. “We’re talking about European culture and identity.”

McLaren also said Jews did not fit his definition of “white.”

Spencer has said the races shouldn’t mix and has advocated for different races living in different nations.

McLaren’s white nationalism has caused previous co-workers to backpedal from him as quickly as possible. McLaren was briefly the treasurer of the Cumberland County Young Republicans, and Republican leaders in the county said they barely knew him and weren’t aware of his extremist views.

Freed, a Republican, has promised to expand the vetting process to make sure someone like McLaren isn’t hired again. He also said all the cases McLaren worked on are being looked at to make sure nothing improper happened.

“The volunteer clerks prior to McLaren were only vetted to determine whether they are in good standing with the law school that they attend. Now we will at least look at social media and online histories,” Freed said.

Freed is one of several elected prosecutors who has hired employees that have publicly said hateful and racist things.

Last year former Orlando State Attorney Jeff Ashton fired Assistant State Attorney Ken Lewis after he did a Facebook post hours after the Pulse nightclub shooting.

In that post Lewis said all Orlando clubs are “zoos” and said downtown Orlando was a “melting pot of third world miscreants and ghetto thugs.”

Ashton said Lewis violated the office social media policy with the post. He also showed poor judgment and animus towards Orlando citizens.

Washington County District Attorney Bob Herrman also put Deputy District Attorney Zoe Smith on limited duty and ordered a personnel review of her after Smith wrote a Facebook post that appeared to support racial profiling. Smith was later suspended for a week without pay before being allowed to resume her normal duties.

More in Podcasts