Thank GOD!! The last thing we want are voters who have to live with this idea to have a say in it's implementation or rejection.

@1:

Why SHOULD they have a say? I don't get to decide whether you receive an opioid prescription from your doctor for pain-relief, do I?

@1: Which idea? The idea that it's better to save lives than have more people die of overdose or infections? Because that's the idea we're talking about.

If we had left public health up to voters in the 1980s, there never would have been any funding for HIV prevention programs for men who have sex with men or who inject drugs. There were many people who were very vocal about just letting "those" people die. Fortunately, public health professionals ignored them

There are people who think vaccines are evil. Should we let idiots like that be able to get a ballot initiative banning public health from doing vaccination campaigns?

The fact is, on some issues ignorant, uninformed people outnumber those who are informed. Just look at how public votes on water fluoridation have gone in Portland.

Fine. All you anti-NIMBY's, NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE!

Imagine if we had put other controversial public health measures to a public vote. Imagine that syringe exchanges, which themselves were unlawful when introduced, had gone to public vote. What if we allowed public initiative to remove vaccination requirements for public school students? Imagine how much worse the HIV/AIDS epidemic would have become if the public had the opportunity to vote against recommendations of public health agencies during the hysteria and homophobia that accompanied the epidemic.

Public health policy should not be driven by fear. We should not have a public referendum on science. We should protect public health.

@6:

Fine. I'm sure many of the Good Citizens of Ballard, myself included, wouldn't mind in the least, because, you know, there's this thing - perhaps you've heard of it, although probably never practiced it yourself - called "compassion".

Of course, you'd have to dislocate some of the Amazon new-hires who just bought all the new $700k hamster boxes that have gone up in our neighborhood over the past 18 months or so in order to make room for the facility, but they're hardly ever home as it is, given their 70-plus hour workweeks, so it's not like they'd be greatly missed.

And frankly, people nodding off on smack are generally a lot quieter than a bunch of tech-bros screaming at the top of their lungs with their windows open at 11:00 p.m. on a Saturday night while they play (or watch themselves play) DOTA 2 or Super Smash Brothers Melee' so that might actually contribute to improving conditions here for some of the rest of us, just sayin'...

@7: How dare you use AIDS as an example. One is a virus. The other is self-injecting poisons into oneself.

Vancouver's experience is now showing that fentanyl is thriving in "safe-injection" sites.

Safe-injection-sites = alt-left insanity.

So much precious taxpayer money being spent on people who are really anxious to kill themselves by injecting drugs into their bodies. Why not let them? It's their choice, their life. So rude to interfere with adults who just want to die their way. No safe sites required, just whatever dingy hole is available. No problem. I've known junkies. They don't care about their lives and neither do I.

@9: You utter dolt. One of the primary arguments for safe consumption sites was their role in HIV prevention. The original European sites were all started in response to HIV. When InSite in Vancouver was being drawn up, Vancouver had among the highest rates of new HIV infections in North America, despite having the 2nd largest syringe exchange in NA. Preventing OD deaths was a side benefit. And, duh, re fentanyl. In case you haven't pretty much all of NA is awash in fentanyl.

@11: you are actually making the argument for more consumption sites. For over 30 years Downtown Eastside has been the epicenter of a raging outdoor drug scene. Even at full capacity, InSite is horrifically insufficient to meet the demand. What Vancouver needs is about 10 more sites. Thankfully, the Trudeau govt recognizes this and is busy opening sites not just in Vancouver, but all over Canada.

@12 ugh: In case you haven't *noticed*

"voters are in no position to weigh" -- say the big-brother fascists on the left. Trump and the alt-right are a massive danger to our country, but that statement by the group supporting the site is absolutely terrifying to everything America is supposed to stand for. In a moment of political unity its always been true that voters are a horrible inconvenience for extreme positions on both sides. If having users continue to shoot up and steal stuff to support their addiction and die from fentanyl is such a good thing then go out and sell it to the voters - show us how rosy everything is in Vancouver and how they've totally got their opiode issues under control now with their massive success rate of actually moving users into successful treatment (cause you're the side with the experts, so there must be great numbers there right?). The idea though that only select experts should be allowed to make public policy because the voters (and their poor simpleton minds) can't be trusted to hear arguments and make a rational decision is just frighteningly undemocratic.

And does anyone really believe that a soda or cigarette tax shouldn't be allowed on the ballot by initiative? Those are public health matters, but I guess we shouldn't be allowed to vote on those now either. Or put differently, should this type of "voters can't be trusted" policy be applied to all health related decisions (which could be construed very broadly) in the many "blue" states that are under GOP legislative control? When the GOP trots out their "experts" in those states I guess voters there shouldn't ever have a right to raise their voice and object.

Your opinion on whether safe injection sites are a good or bad idea is utterly irreverent to whether the matter should be put to a vote. If you believe in the strength of your position, convince 50.1% of Seattle to vote with you. If you can't do that, get fucked.

@12: So exactly how do safe-injection sites alleviate the problems of dangerous IV drug abuse? It doesn't. Nothing you said helps the problem. It just "sanitizes" it.

Safe injection sites are like the old Star Trek episode "Taste of Armageddon" where two warring planets avoided the messiness of war by having computers and algorithms summon unlucky but obedient citizens to disintegration chambers.

There's no demonstrable data showing that "safe-injection" improve public heath other than providing for sanitary environments for more comfortable suicides.

@16: you don't know what you're talking about. There are scores of peer reviewed journal articles evaluating safe consumption spaces. Just do a basic google search. How do they alleviate problems associated with drug use? Hell, try millions of injections at the >100 sites worldwide and not a single fatal OD. Sterile conditions virtually eliminate risk of HIV or hep C transmission and help prevent bacterial infections such as endocarditis (a single case can cost over 750k). They can show users safer ways of using drugs, such as smoking instead of injecting (in some of the European sites up to 90% of users smoke, with the only injectors being the old time users).

And then there are the public safety benefits: instead of having people using outdoors or in public restrooms you have them going to a designated site where the public isn't exposed to their use. In some cities the police are among the biggest supporters.

Yes, imagine if we let voters weigh in on a public health issue...like what happens every six years when King County's voters decide whether or not to continue to fund EMS.

All us kooky liberals and our unworkable policies ruining the city. Encouraging all the druggies and bums and immigrants. At some point you can't take it any more. You have to sell your house and move to some place with sane governance.

And in this market! Why these cockamamie policies have made home prices in Seattle rise at, uh, well, let's see... um, twice the national average. Thanks, liberals! What are you supposed to do with the two or three houses you can afford to buy in Houston or Boise?

You can tell how many fucks Melania gives if he goes and blinds himself.

Well that was weird. Never change, slog.

@19: sigh. Over 100 sites in over 66 cities and in 10 countries and all anyone wants to talk about is InSIte. Why? Because Downtown Eastside is a huge gaping wound and InSite is a small band aid. Opposition from former PM Harper meant that no other sites could open. Thankfully, under PM Trudeau, Canada is trying to redress that situation with plans for at least 38 new sites in 23 cities (including several more for Vancouver). What his govt and health ministry recognized was that a key problem in Vancouver was too little access.

There are sites all over Europe that people walk by every day with no knowledge of what is going on inside -- including one just a block from Amsterdam's Centraal Station that millions of tourists pass by every year.

And right on cue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/…

@27: That's about anti-vaxers. Wrong link?

@28: nope, just an illustration of my earlier point that there are times when public health interventions just need to happen even if there's strong opposition to them.

You're parroting "alt-left" now? Trump tool.

@30: Sorry, are you going Godwin here? The history of the HIV/AIDS prevention movement in the US, shows that sometimes the urgency of action outweighs waiting for public approval. People were getting infected with a deadly disease driven by behaviors that some people (like Jesse Helms, the Mark Miloscia of his time) didn't approve of and they stood in the way of effective interventions. If we had waited for their approval, tens of thousands of new infections would have occurred. Luckily we had people who were willing to do the right thing and their actions were justified in a unanimous decision by the WA Supreme Court.

Gay sex IS NOT comparable to heroin use and liberals comparing gay panic to an understandable revulsion to state sponsored opium dens sound flipping stupid. And for the record, HIV aids research was heavily influenced/controlled by the voters and democratically elected officials of that era.

You don't have to be an antivaccer or a trumpist to object to this new policy. As clean as the needles may be, we'll still be facilitating the use of a drug that drives many people into behaving like insane selfish monsters. At the end of the day, no city has a magic bullet that's fixed the opioid crisis and yes that includes the Canadians. Safe injection sires may be the best choice, but the objections are quite rational and if you can't see that then you probably have less understanding of this issue than you think you do.

So the left now says that gay sex is the same as drug addiction? Fuck, you guys should go work for Liberty University if you're now pushing that shit.

One is a fucking choice the other isn't. Care to take a guess which is which?

A number of the anit-injection site posters here give pretty good examples why this is a public health issue that has to avoid the ballot box. You willfully, gleefully ignore all data, science, or studies with the typical anti-science anecdotes and common-sense. "Of course it increases use, duh!" Well, maybe it does, or maybe it doesn't; if only there existed tools or methods for measuring these kinds of changes! Lord knows you won't fund those studies, because you've put your stake in the ground. Your beliefs are unshakable. You are literally anti-vaxers on this subject.

Anyway, there is a lot of data and analysis floating around about injection sites. Some of it's good, some of it's bad, but there's little consensus beyond, "holy shit, it's getting worse, let's do something." That getting worse has nothing to do with the injection sites, or maybe everything to do with them. Though the biggest increases are in areas without injection sites, so make of that what you will.

They hysterical folks support the "do nothing" approach and apparently let every addict to die, which is... well, it's certainly a way to deal with an issue, at least until it hits your own family (at which point you'll probably fall back to, "our ineffectual government hasn't done a thing!" kind of bullshit). It doesn't actually address the root causes of why people become addicts, but if your goal is to cull the population, cool.

Let's locate all of these safe shooting sites in South Lake Union and across the street from Dan Savage's home!!

@39 you only have to look at how quickly the left attacked anyone who decided that they should participate in taking PreP.

Even here on Slog several commentators (well known regressives) said that PreP was bad because mainly white gay men had access to it because of insurance. As a result they shouldn't be using PreP.

The problem I have with safe injection sites is that they are designed to make life better for first world drug addicts at the expense of poor people of color in second and third world countries. The money that drug users spend to get their drugs goes to criminals and cartels who routinely kidnap, coerce, rape and murder innocent people who just happen to have been born in the wrong place. We need more drug treatment centers to help people stop using drugs, but I don't want my tax dollars going to subside behavior that leads directly to violence.

@41: To end the violence you describe, we need to end drug prohibition and get rid of the black market.

Until and after that happens, some people will use drugs, as people have since they drugs were discovered. Some of them will, out of necessity, do so in locations that are particularly unsafe for drug users and for the rest of the community. Many of those people die as a result. Alternatively, we can provide them with a safer alternative, saving many lives.

The choice, here, is not between providing SCSs and providing more drug treatment centers; it is between providing SCSs and not doing so--providing a safer option or leaving people to use drugs in parks, alleys, restrooms, and other less-safe options.

Local elected officials in Seattle, Baltimore, Ithaca, New York City, San Francisco, and Boston have been presented with a recurring narrative that drug consumption sites will save taxpayer money by reducing blood borne infections such as HIV/HCV. I've read $5-6 Mil/year savings from avoided HIV/HCV infections. The data used (from what I've read) is extrapolated from needle exchanges, which *are* proven to be effective at reducing HIV/HCV.

In Europe there is "insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of drug consumption rooms in reducing HIV infections, 2) insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of drug consumption rooms in reducing HCV infections." Source http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/best-practic… (scan down the right side to "Unknown Effectiveness") I have been chided for using this stat (honestly it's right there in black and white, check it out).

What are the goals of harm reduction? Lessening HIV/HCV infection? Needle distribution accomplishes this--King County has needle distribution. Wound care, counseling such as advice on safer drug use, a place to shower and a bowl of soup, encouragement into treatment can happen in any enhanced care situation. No need for drug consumption sites.

If you want to help a person live to see another day, naloxone distribution will save more lives. As has been stated by #12 and #24 above, there are never enough drug consumption rooms to cover the user population. There are 69,000 injections per day in King County (not counting meth consumption.) Approx usage of a drug consumption site: 500 uses per day. They don't scale. What happens to those people outside the 5-7 block expected radius of use? Nothing, because services and resources are concentrated into a tiny area.

If you look at Seattle/King County planning drafts, you will see the cadillac vs. ford pinto versions of drug consumption sites. The ford pinto version is stripped down with few/no enhanced services. I have concerns over most of their plan regardless of how much money they plow into it.

Who will drug consumption sites serve? According to King County and the City of Seattle, in order to be equitable, they plan to serve pregnant women, first-time injectors/ smokers/snorters, minors, parents arriving with minors, and those who may be overly intoxicated/drug impaired/physically or mentally ill.

There has been no discussion about *introducing* health impacts to fetuses. No discussion about what child protective services would do if an adult came in with minors. No discussion about first time injectors. No discussion about the slow dissolution and brain damage of the chronic user. No discussion about people who use fentanyl and carfentanyl with or without knowledge of these dangerous substances. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency stated on 9-23-2016 that, "Carfentanil, a CII controlled substance, is reportedly 10,000 times more potent than morphine and 100 times more potent than fentanyl, which already is 50 times more potent than heroin... Based on its potency, carfentanil can be lethal to humans at the 2 mg range depending on the route of administration among other factors."

This means health care providers and first responders are at risk. No discussion of that.

Finally drug consumption sites are remarkably poor at getting people to treatment. That would be my bottom line: focus on prevention and treatment.

Why don't we just lock up anyone found with junk? I'm pretty sure it's a crime. And I'd rather spend the extra money on jailing them than inviting them to take over (even more than currently) four square blocks of Capitol Hill. And hey, jail = forced sobriety.

@43: Whether anyone accepts it or not, substance abuse disorder is a real thing, and it's not going to go away.

The recommendations made by Seattle's and King County's heroin and opiate addiction task force included much more than supervised consumption sites:

Primary Prevention:

• Raise awareness and knowledge of the possible adverse effects of opioid use, including overdose and opioid use disorder;


• Promote safe storage and disposal of medications; and


• Leverage and augment existing screening practices in schools and health care settings to prevent and identify opioid use disorder.

Treatment Expansion and Enhancement:

• Create access to buprenorphine in low-barrier modalities close to where individuals live for all people in need of services;


• Develop treatment on demand for all modalities of substance use disorder treatment services; and


• Alleviate barriers placed upon opioid treatment programs, including the number of clients served and siting of clinics.

User Health and Overdose Prevention:

• Expand distribution of naloxone in King County; and


• Establish, on a pilot program basis, at least two Community Health Engagement Locations* (CHEL sites) where supervised consumption occurs for adults with substance use disorders in the Seattle and King County region. Given the distribution of drug use across King County, one of the CHEL sites should be located outside of Seattle.

Here's a couple of questions for you junkie enablers:
1) When the Heroin Injection Sites come online, how soon until we start handing out taxpayer-funded medical grade heroin to prevent OD's from Fentanyl? And, do you think that will result in us having more zombies roaming the streets and parks of Seattle, yes or no?

2) Will Seattle or King Co be indemnified from liability when someone OD's? What if a visibly pregnant woman walks in and damages her fetus in a city sponsored site, who do you think get's sued? Or when the parents of a minor find out the city let their kid shoot up, who do they sue? Are these sites going to have addicts sign a waiver first?

Stop enabling this madness. If you build it, they will come.