My two favorite Connecticut politicians are in a dispute with each other. Governor Ned Lamont and Senator Saud Anwar are both outstanding public servants. I like both men very much. Governor Lamont is a moderate, Senator Anwar is to his left.
Senator Anwar has been the leader in the effort to create overdose prevention sites (OPCs) in Connecticut. He has been the bill’s primary sponsor in each of the last two sessions of the legislature. The OPC bill passed the Senate and reportedly had enough votes to clear the house. The bill while controversial and likely adverse to Republican conservatives who represented the majority of votes against it would allow people who use drugs to inject or use by other means illegal drugs such as fentanyl in a regulated space under the eyes of trained staff, who in addition to reviving them should they overdose are there to help them with social service needs, including helping them get into drug treatment should they desire it. The effectiveness of these sites in reducing deaths and getting people into treatment is backed by science. Nevertheless, they involve something of a political risk in today’s times where political ads can target lawmakers using taxpayer money to enabling drug addicts to inject illegal drugs. The end of the world! Have they lost their sanity!
Governor’s aides allegedly told members of legislature, the omnibus health bill which now contained the OPC proposal, would be vetoed if the legislature didn’t remove the provision creating safe injection sites. After the provision was stripped from the bill, the Governor denied he threatened to veto the bill. I am just reporting what I read in the newspaper.
A day later, the Governor told the press he was thinking strongly of running for a third term.
Days later, Senator Anwar said the governor should step aside. In his opinion piece, he mentioned the governor’s apparent opposition to the overdose prevention proposal
On Friday, June 6, The federal High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency’s Overdose Response Strategy issued an advisory warning of increasing strength in the fentanyl supply that has led to overdose spikes in two of the state’s major cities and along the interstate corridor. The release said: Connecticut is experiencing a surge in fatal and non-fatal suspected overdoses across the state. Between May 16 and June 6, 2025, there have been 61 fatal and 817 nonfatal suspected overdoses statewide, with noticeable clustering along the I-91 and I-95 corridors, as well as within the cities of New Haven and Hartford.
The state’s early surveillance systems, SWORD and epicenter had been showing steady increases in overdose since the first of the year, now exceeding most of the months since the previous summer. The state OCME fatal drug statistics, which are always months behind, were also showing an increase in overdoses in the early months of the year comparted to the last six months of 2024.
The state sent the advisory out on Saturday afternoon, June 7.
On Monday, June 9, the governor held a press conference celebrating a 26% reduction in overdoses in 2024, accompanied by his two health commissioners. He said the numbers were going in the right direction. The 2024 numbers have been public for months, but this is the first time the governor commented on them.
Both of his health commissioners had come under fire for not backing the overdose prevention centers citing possible concerns about the legality of the cites. While both New York and Rhode Island have operating centers there is concern that the centers violate the federal crack house laws which prevent someone from operating a building for the purpose of illegal drug consumption. The crack house statute was designed to stop landlords who knowingly ran crack houses and shooting galleries where many people overdosed and died. That said, the justice department under President Biden, who actually wrote the crack house statute as a much younger man, did not enforce this provision. They also did not enforce the federal laws against marijuana possession, which is legal under many state laws. The Trump administration has yet to act on these centers.
Senator Anwar will not let the issue drop, posting regularly on his Facebook page about the rising death count. He writes: On May 29th, 2025, Overdose Prevention Center part was removed from SB 7, because of a veto threat by Governor Ned Lamont. Since that sad moment, There have been 1427 overdoses and 163 precious lives lost. EACH DEATH WAS PREVENTABLE. This was not just a wrong policy decision made by the Governor. It has consequences. It’s pain. It’s people. Its families shattered. 💔 Community will be watching the direct impact of policy decisions, day by day. The question is no longer if people will die without overdose prevention — the question is HOW MANY MORE? We will keep counting.
If Senator Anwar were to challenge Governor Lamont in the democratic primary, who would I vote for? To be clear, Senator Anwar is not running for Governor, but he has backed a challenger to Lamont.
Senator Anwar is a man of deep conviction. Governor Lamont is a realist. Clearly, they both want what they think is best for the state, but go about it in different ways. Lamont tries to walk a more middle line. To do good things, he has to represent a majority of the people. Senator Anwar wants to do what is right.
Some say the Democratic party has gotten out of touch with America because it has become too liberal, too many people wanting to do what they think is right and the rest of the country be damned. There is no question in my mind that overdose prevention centers will save lives, but I also understand that these are the kind of issues that the right wing can jump on. My taxes are going to pay for junkies to shoot up illegal drugs while I can barely afford to pay my rent. Not understanding that money spent on prevention is often more cost effective than just locking people up.
A couple years ago, I attended a forum of politicians in Hartford, Connecticut, including the governor, a US senator, a US representative and the mayor, all good people who truly want to end this crisis. When I stood and told them it was time to consider decriminalization, legalization as well as safe injection sites and safe supply, I could see them grimace. (In fairness, I believe the Governor had left by the time I spoke).
In our democracy, leaders only get to fight for their causes if they have the support of the people. They need their votes. This requires an educated populace. If people are not educated about the opioid epidemic, its causes, and the evidence behind positive solutions like increased medication assisted treatment and harm reduction, they may be more likely to support funding for law enforcement to lock up drug users than pay for a space where “drug addicts” can freely use “illegal” drugs. A politician who advocates for a “safe injection site” is likely to face more voter disapproval than one who demands the “bad guys” be locked up. Come out strong for safe injection sites and picture your opponent running an ad showing a grainy black and white scene of you walking around with zombie junkies, then a quick cut to your opponent in full technicolor with American flags in the background shaking hands forcefully with armed members of a police SWAT team.
It takes political courage to tell voters that harm reduction is a smarter, more humane investment than building more prisons. Unfortunately, I do not think voters are ready for legalization and safe supply, much less safe injection sites. Few will win elections by promising free syringes and a warm place to shoot up, even if those, for some, hard to grasp concepts lead to less disease, fewer deaths and getting more people into treatment so they can return to the lives they once had with their families and communities (including being contributing taxpayers to local, state and federal treasuries).
I applaud both men for their commitment to public service. I hope we can all better educate the public to the importance of harm reduction and the need to treat addiction as a disease and not a crime.
****
Many years ago I worked for United States Senator Lowell Weicker. He was a man who spoke his mind and always did what he thought was right, polls be damned. He lost his bid for a fourth term in office by a mere 10,000 votes to Joseph Lieberman, a man who would and did say anything to get elected. Weicker later ran for Governor as an independent and won. He imposed an unpopular state income tax, along with funding cuts, and led the state out of fiscal disaster. He chose not to run for re-election, Working for him was one of the greatest privileges of my life.