The City’s Progressive Drug-use Advocates Have Struck Out

Not only is San Francisco Mayor London Breed hell-bent on pushing through opening an unlawful “Safe Injection Site,” she is joined by the majority of the Board of Supervisors (City Council). Call it what you may, a government-sanctioned and subcontracted facility for addicts of illicit drugs is illegal. Safe Injection, Safe Consumption, Overdose Prevention, all are terms dreamed up by the imaginative advocates to generate public support, while concealing violations of federal and state law.

Strike 1: In a January 2021 appellate court decision, the federal court maintained the City of Philadelphia in a “first in the nation” drug usage program would violate the Controlled Substances Act in opening a drug consumption site. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appellate-court-agrees-government-supervised-injection-sites-are-illegal-under-federal-law The decision had national implications, setting precedent, enough to quash aspirations to feed addicts the drugs they craved. Drug Injection Sites are unlawful, federally.

Strike 2: In California, back-to-back governors vetoed legislation to allow experimental drug injection in a supervised facility. In September 2018, then-governor Jerry Brown said no to a carrot-with-no-stick approach, which enabled drug use. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/gov-brown-vetos-san-franciscos-safe-injection-sites-bill/207321/ More recently, Governor Gavin Newsom cited precarious effects of condoning use of drugs in proposed pilot programs for Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco. https://apnews.com/article/covid-health-los-angeles-san-francisco-gavin-newsom-51414d98c6d41caed29373e147ca146f .

Strike 3: San Francisco’s City Attorney David Chiu, himself a staunch leftist-progressive on many of the city’s social and civic matters, exhibited exasperation in knowing San Francisco cannot legally move forward in opening and operating a drug shooting gallery, no matter how hard the mayor, the 11-member city council and drug-use advocates pouted. He, too, quoted the federal and state laws and feared reprise. https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/sf-leaders-to-tour-safe-drug-consumption-sites-in-nyc/article_c1dfca64-b3c3-11ed-9f8b-4f4cd9b51e09.html .

Yet during heated debate this past week, one lone San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Matt Dorsey, bailed on his colleagues who supported the prospect of a drug injection site, instead pushing a different use of the $18.9 million of city funds initially earmarked: He suggested diverting those funds to drug rehabilitation programs for addicts currently in jail. A good approach, in my mind. However, his colleagues at City Hall went ballistic, together with their pro-drug injection site advocates, in a flurry of written letters and statements, demanding there be no deviation from the plan.

Then came Strike 4: The New York Times on Aug. 8 reported the feds may shut the sole Drug Consumption experimental facility, situated in Manhattan, dealing a blow to the San Francisco pro-drug use advocates. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/nyregion/drug-overdoses-supervised-consumption-nyc.html

San Francisco needs to move on from wasting precious time and resources at City Hall in trying to create workarounds to federal and state law. Elected officials and pro-drug use advocates and lobbyists must listen to the signs sent in numerous ways, that illicit drug use should not be condoned and not enabled, especially through city-run (taxpayer funded) programs. The model in use in Manhattan was funded through a nonprofit. Yet even that pilot program is threatened with federal action. Drug injection facilities do not exist in isolation, on a self-sustaining island.

Richie Greenberg is a 21-year resident of San Francisco, a political commentator and former candidate for mayor. For more information, go to Richiegreenberg.org. X/Twitter: @greenbergnation .