I am part of a statewide harm reduction advocacy group, called SHArP (Statewide Harm Reduction Partnership), who have been working to pass legislation in Connecticut to create overdose prevention centers (OPCs) similar to those already established in New York and Rhode Island, where people can use drugs in clean, safe conditions where trained staff are there to revive them if they overdose and talk with them about getting help (into treatment or needed social services) to help improve their lives. This was our second attempt at this project and it was looking good. The bill passed the Senate and we had enough votes lined up to get it passed in the House. The question remained whether Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont would sign it, allow it to pass into law or veto it. Back in April we had what I thought was a great meeting with the Governor’s Chief of Staff to make our case.
The proposal, as it worked its way through the legislative process, got lumped in with some other health measures in an omnibus bill, which can be a good thing. Someone who might not be crazy about one part of the bill may vote for it because of other measures in the bill. Unfortunately, when the bill reached the house floor, an amendment was passed to strip the proposal from the larger bill. The OPC issue is now considered dead for this legislative term.
An article in the Connecticut Mirror suggests that while the Governor is denying that he was going to veto the bill, his staff evidently told house leaders he would veto the larger bill if the overdose prevention centers proposal was included, which prompted the House leaders, many who supported the initiative, to strip it from the bill to ensure the larger bill’s passage.
The proposal’s defeat is a disappointment. The science behind these centers is solid. They save money and lives. They lead to more people getting into treatment and less drug use.
I think Ned Lamont is a great Governor. He is a moderate Democrat, who is very practical. I think he has done a very good job so far in his two terms. Why would he veto this measure?
Three reasons.
One, his Public Health and Mental Health and Addiction Services Commissioners did not fully support the proposal based on their reading of federal law that such establishments violate the federal crack house statutes, which prohibit anyone from running a house for the purpose of letting people use illegal drugs. This reasoning has been disputed. It did not deter New York or Rhode Island from instituting such centers. The commissioners when pressed by advocates did not respond to entreaties.
Two, politics. In this time of Trump and the country turning to the right, supporting such a proposal might have given free ammunition for the right to attack Connecticut and Lamont as bastions of liberal wokeness. (An interesting article I read recently suggests if people didn’t despise Trump so much, the Republicans would have won a massive landslide in November instead of barely taking the house and having a rather modest Presidential win). Given the massive cuts and anti-science talk coming out of Washington, I am surprised Trump hasn’t yet moved against the two states that currently have overdose prevention centers, as well as against other harm reduction programs such as syringe exchange.
Spending tax payer money to help people who use drugs is easy pickings for demagogues. For those who don’t understand that addiction is a disease or have empathy for the lives destroyed by drug use that often began with a simple prescription from a family doctor following an accident and injury, blaming drug use on character flaws is easy. The War on Drugs and calls to lock drug users up is a easier way to get votes than explaining the benefits of overdose prevention centers and syringe exchange, as well as assistance to help the homeless and downtrodden get back on their feet. No matter that the War on Drugs (the War on People) has been a costly and spectacular failure. The country as a whole is probably not enlightened enough to support overdose prevention centers.
If Democrats are going to fight against Trump, they may choose to pick their battles rather than fighting him on everything. Overdose prevention centers just like support for transexual athletes play into Trump’s hands, and distract from other important issues such as fair wages, affordable housing and education, and basic civil rights for working men and women and their families.
I think maybe Lamont is just being practical. To stay in power sometimes you have to occupy the middle ground. Go too far to the left and the right sweeps in, as happened in the last election. Yesterday a few of us talked about what we could have done differently to affect the outcome. Some said we should have marched in the streets, others said, we should have whispered and stayed under the radar to not attract the opposition’s attention. Pass the measure quietly. I don’t know what the right course is. Stand up to wrong wherever it pops up or pick your battles carefully.
Curiously, the same day I wrote this, Lamont told reporters he was seriously considering running for a third term.
Three, with the reports of the overdose deaths dropping rapidly, the matter may seem less urgent. Sadly, I think the deaths are turning up again.
Call us dreamers, but we will be back in two years. The battle isn’t over. Overdose prevention centers are good policy, both from a human and economic perspective. Our country can still be a place where we care about our most vulnerable citizens.