@1 - We couldn't agree more!

@1 @2 Maybe you missed the part of the piece where it says SCS actually save the public money. Here, i'll make it easy for you: "Proponents also say that I-27 'protects taxpayers by prohibiting public financing of drug consumption sites.' However, the burden of overdoses and deaths, policing, and hospital and clinic costs on a public budget far outweigh the limited costs that SCS have been forced to succeed with. Evaluation of SCS in Europe and Canada show that they save public funds."

@1 & @2 Please submit all of your health records, your diet, a full toxicology screening,and a sworn, legally-binding affidavit that you will never engage in any activity that could cause damage or injury to your person---examples include drinking alcohol, skiing, smoking, skydiving, swimming, taking baths, turning on electrical devices, driving in cars, riding in cars, riding in buses, leaving your house, waking up, being born---to the government today. That's be the only way we can be sure that you too aren't doing anything that could destroy your lives and potentially impose an undue financial burden on others.

@3: Be that as it may, it doesn't factor in the crime surely to befall communities that invite pseudo-state sanctioned heroin use.

But the over arching reason is not financial, it's moral.

How about we spend more money but lock them up for a few months if caught with heroin? Sobriety is probably a better condition than being out on your feet all around my neighborhood. And pooping all over the neighborhood to boot.

@4: You can't prove a false equivalency by pointing to another false equivalency.

@10 - The issue isn't whether or not people should use heroin—I think we universally agree they should not, it's how we mitigate the damage. Perhaps even the most tenuous connection to that effort makes you uncomfortable, or perhaps you don't believe those in the field that find injection sites to be effective, and that is your right.

@13 - I think you're putting the cart before the horse. These sites will not provide heroin, and using them is not an endorsement of the trade. Opioid addiction is stronger than any
proverbial "personal accountability," but you might consider this a small step toward that by a user.
If it's a question of who pays for it, encourage your representative into pressuring big pharma to fund it. (Eyes on the Everette lawsuit, as well as Ohio's.)

@5 We'll be paying for your bad choices in life, probably when you enter a hospital and get hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments for something you could've avoided at some point. We subsidize each other's life choices all over the place. Or maybe you're just a badass who'll be like, "nope, I did this, I don't want Medicare to pay this $600,000 bill." Because you're that goddamn noble.

According to some random Internet article, it costs us $46,897 a year to hold someone in prison, so all of you "tough on crime" types are actually increasing the burden on taxpayers compared to these sites. And when/if those people are released, they will be even less employable and will likely end up back on the street. So good job on making a bad problem worse!

Thank you for bringing this up. So many people are spreading misinformation about this. Drugs are not going away. It's cheaper and safer for everyone involved.

I know people are really stuck on the idea that giving drug addicts anything is bad but, these people are spreading disease by using dirty needles. You don't have to use drugs to get Hep C or AIDS, but if someone you slept with ten years ago did...your screwed.

It's counterintuitive, I get it. Taking care of people in our society instead of sending them to jail. I mean, it costs more to spend a year in jail than it does to go to Princeton. Your hangups are not about money.

@6: Phoebe, heroin use will happen with or without sanctioning or pseudo-sanctioning by anyone. "Just say no" doesn't work. Drug use--some of it dangerous--is happening, and it will continue to happen. The black market nature of the sourcing of most non-pharmaceutical drugs increases the danger of accidental overdose, and we're not likely to regulate and control heroin anytime soon.

People die of accidental overdose in King County at a rate of almost one per day. With supervised consumption spaces, we can keep some of those people alive. We can lessen the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. We can move drug use out of parks, alleys, and public restrooms. We can provide some community for people who've burned all their bridges so that if and when they have an idea of improving their situation, someone is there to help turn that glimmer of hope into reality. And for those who care about none of that: We can spend less public funding on emergency room visits and long-term care for infectious diseases.

We should listen to the health care experts. Public health policy should be guided by science and reason, not by fear. We should say yes to SCS.

@10: Jacckay, the task force recommended (among seven other actions) instituting a pilot program of two SCSs: One in Seattle, and one somewhere else in King County. Ideally, we will eventually have a network of these facilities, with locations near target populations.

@11: Whoa, there. Yes, we should regulate and tax heroin like many other potentially-dangerous substances. But we're not ready for that, and I don't see anyone seriously suggesting it around here at this time. It's going to remain unregulated and un-taxed for the foreseeable future, and we'll continue to accept the additional danger that comes with prohibition.

@16: Exactly. We share the cost of people's dangerous behavior all the time, and many of us do it without batting an eye, even when that behavior is not driven by something like substance use disorder.

We encourage the use of--if not outright provide--seat belts, sober drivers, motorcycle helmets, condoms, clean syringes, and a variety of other items to reduce the risks associated with various behaviors. Harm reduction works. It is a pragmatic approach to human behavior.

Supervised consumption spaces just make sense. They make people safer. Safer is better.

Here's a thought: if you want a safe injection site find a location near YOUR home for such and experiment and not mine

jesus christ the trolls are out of control.

@19: Your arguments remind me of that Star Trek episode where two feuding planets sent their own people into disintegration chambers by computer algorithms to avoid the messiness of war.

You can't "pretty" this stuff up.

Please respond to @24.

@24: Straw man. These are public health amenities intended to improve public health. I've heard nobody assert that they will make your home safer.

If you want to stop crimes of desperation that result from drug prohibition, you should be arguing for an end to drug prohibition, not arguing that we should refrain from trying to keep people alive.

@25: I don't think this is trolling you're seeing here. I think it's genuine expression of fear, misunderstanding, and otherism.

It's unsurprising that some feel that way. Regardless, we should not let it drive public policy. Imagine if we had let people's fears guide public health policy at the height of the AIDS epidemic.

@28 - Public policy is best decided by the democratic process, not by bureaucratic idealogues. The latter often dismisses the unintended consequences.

There's nothing fearful, misunderstood, or otherism about people whom disagree with you on a policy. You're entailed to your dispositions on the matter, but not to your own set of facts.

922 people died overdose deaths in Vancouver BC last year so without doing anything seattle is 2/3's better than that. They haven't shown an improvement and are on a pace to reach 1400 overdose deaths this year. Their "Safe" Consumption Site is anything but. They would improve the numbers by shutting it down.

@30, Jackkay wrote, "you might save a hand full of lives." I think it would be more than that, and more importantly, experts like the American Medical Association recommend creating SCSs, but sure, even if they save only a few lives, those are lives, and they're worth saving. I'm glad to see you recognize some of the value of SCSs.

Regarding your suggestion, "You really want to stop overdoses? Get rid of the heroin." That's a fine fantasy. Similarly, want to stop lung cancer? Get rid of tobacco. Want to stop type II diabetes? Get rid of sugar. Easy as that. STDs? Quit wasting time with so-called "protection," safer sex, and whatnot--just get rid of sex! Automobile accidents? Get rid of cars! And while we're at it, let's talk about seat belts: Man, people drive like crazy when you enable them with seat belts. And designated drivers! Why we help all these people who have all these death wishes is such a mystery!

Back here in the land of reality, we're hoping to make people safer than they otherwise would be. Safer is better.

@29: Phoebe, we do have the facts, and the fact is that SCSs work. I'm not presenting any alternative to that.

If we had let public opinion trump science--had we guided public health policy by "the democratic process, not by bureaucratic ideologues--in the 1990s when 30,000 to 40,000 people were dying from AIDS every year in the United States, the death rate would undoubtedly have continued to climb. How do you suppose a public vote on providing assistance to men who have sex with men would have gone over back then?

We don't need a public referendum on science.

@34: How do you feel about allowing use of alcohol (as with heroin, deadly, depending on time and quantity) in supervised spaces ("helping them die" as you put it), vs. banning such places and leaving people to drink exclusively in other locations?

You wrote, "you might save a few lives by stopping overdoses." Correct. In fact, it's likely, considering the positive outcomes seen at the existing 100 or so SCSs in more progressive nations. Additionally, SCSs will reduce a variety of secondary problems that result not directly from drug use but from problems surrounding public drug use, like spread of infectious disease, abscesses, and infection. And when and if somebody wants assistance, they are not likely to find it in an alley or a public restroom, but they will find it at an SCS.

Alive is better than dead. Safer is better than less safe.