De Blasio pushing forward with legalized heroin injection sites for New York City

During a news conference Tuesday, de Blasio called the shooting galleries "...an idea whose time has come" and said he was moving forward with the controversial proposal he first promoted in 2018 because he had "the kind of potential cooperation" he needed from President Joe Biden and New York Governor Kathy Hochul. Current front-runner in the New York City race for the mayor's office Eric Adams, has said that he supports the heroin dens even though he opposes other decriminalization efforts.

As a US senator, Joe Biden was one of the authors of a federal law passed in 1986 known as the "crack house" statute, but in recent years Biden has claimed the law's sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine caused racial injustice. This followed revelations regarding his son Hunter Biden's rampant drug use.

July 29, 2021

Politico reported on Monday that the city Health Department was "moving aggressively" to open the first two out of four proposed sites. Earlier this month, Hochul signed a law decriminalizing the possession or sale of hypodermic needles and syringes. The new law led to the NYPD issuing a directive allowing addicts to shoot up in public.

According to The New York Post, "…the lame-duck mayor’s remarks were met with immediate opposition from some pols and business leaders."

City Councilman Joe Borelli (R-Staten Island) told the outlet, "It’s time to put the idea to bed that we should just accept heroin and fentanyl floating around our communities."

Barbara Blair, president of Manhattan’s Garment District Alliance told The Post, "What I do know, from a neighborhood perspective, is when you literally dump all manner of social services in one neighborhood that is already anchored by transportation hubs that bring in activities of their own that aren’t necessarily having to do with transportation, you create a situation where the neighborhood really gets destroyed."

Fatal overdoses in New York City are up 36 percent this year according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which included 2,243 deaths, compared to 1,653 in the previous time period.

According to new studies and data, these sites do the exact opposite of what is commonly refereed to by advocates for the sites as "harm reduction."

A bombshell study by the Alberta government was released in 2020 on the province's Safe Consumption Sites (SCS), their term for heroin injection sites, which disproved the long adhered to talking points of SCS supporters.

Calls to police to report criminal activity increased near safe consumption sites. Local residents complained about lack of response to calls for police service, as well as "de-policing" near the sites.

There was an increase in needle debris on public and private property where SCS sites were located. This was a major concern for those who lived nearby and helped create a perception among community members that the sites both decreased safety and increased crime.

The Alberta study debunked claims that the sites prevent overdose deaths, a falsehood echoed by advocates for the sites. "While there were no deaths recorded among people who used drugs at the SCS sites," the report added, "...death rates in the immediate vicinity of the SCS locations increased. Opioid-related calls for emergency medical services (EMS) also increased in the immediate vicinity following the opening of the sites."

One of the main arguments in support of SCS is that there are no deaths at the sites themselves. While only a doctor or a coroner can declare a person legally dead, there are usually none of these professionals on site.

EMTs can respond to an overdose event at a site and take the person to a hospital where they are declared dead in the emergency room, removing the death event from the location of the site. Alternatively, an overdose victim can be saved by Naloxone on site but refuse further treatment, then leave the facility and die elsewhere. Neither of these deaths would be attributed to the site.

According to the report, "The Committee became concerned with the lack of focus on referrals to detoxification and treatment resources. Where it was suggested that referrals were made, no evidence was found to support action taken to follow up on such referrals."

"Stakeholder feedback predominantly suggested that the SCS have had a negative social and economic impact on the community."

What is immediately evident is that the amount of crime increased substantially in the area immediate to the SCS. This could also be attributed to the fact that "Site users and operators typically believed that the Section 56.1 exemption allowed for a no-go zone for police within the proximity of the site. Evidence suggested a level of 'de-policing' near some sites."

On the matter of policing, "Police officials indicated that having somewhere to take individuals other than cell blocks would be helpful. They noted that, often, jail was not suitable for these individuals, but that they were not unwell enough for hospital urgent care. Concerns were not limited to drug treatment programs, but were also directed toward obtaining mental health programming, other medical treatment and integration with social services, such as housing, employment and life-skill programs."

Another concern cited in the report was that "Needle debris was a substantial issue with many residents complaining about used and unused needles, broken crack pipes and other drug-related paraphernalia being discarded in the vicinity of the sites and in public areas near the sites."

The report also highlighted the link between addiction and homelessness. "While it is likely that most drug users are not homeless, a significant portion of SCS clients fall within that demographic."

"Many proponents as well as opponents of SCS maintained that much of the perceived social malaise associated with SCS was linked, not just to drug consumption, but also to the consequences of homelessness. In the minds of many citizens, the appearance and especially the location of tent cities was linked to the location of SCS."

The report went on to say that "While most drug users are not homeless or economically marginalized, many drug users fall into that category. To support their use, many turn to marginal or criminal activities to pay for their drug supply. Typically, those activities range from panhandling to theft, robbery, fraud, prostitution or the secondary distribution of illicit substances. Persons selling drugs—drug dealers—will also engage in crimes such as assault or intimidation to collect debts incurred by drug users."