Law enforcement official isn't insensitive to reality and community impact of actions. Film at 11.

This seems relevant:

Nixon aide: War on drugs was for targeting "black people" and anti-war protesters

NEW YORK, March 22 (UPI) -- A top aide to President Richard Nixon said the "War on Drugs" was created to punish anti-war protesters and African-Americans, according to a report in Harper's Magazine.

Journalist Dan Baum says John Ehrlichman, Nixon's domestic policy chief, made the admission in a 1994 interview, recently revisited for Baum's piece on the War on Drugs in Harper's.

Baum says Ehrlichman told him the two groups were seen as Nixon's biggest enemies.

"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news," Ehrlichman said.

"Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did," he said.

Sadly, Juarez is so right. At least nationally, we only seem to care now that white people of middle class suburban backgrounds are affected.

Anyway, whatever works, but it's never going to be "safe" to inject heroin. Needle exchanges might stop pathogens, and Narcan might stop an overdose, but the drug itself kills ya one way or another. Why on earth are there hundreds of people on a waiting list for methadone treatment? What's the holdup for them accessing treatment if over 3000 other people are getting it? What about other kinds of treatment, like Suboxone? If it's not enough doctors, is there a way for Seattle to incentivize local doctors to get the right training, or for the right specialists to relocate here? Do we not have enough inpatient facilities for those that need that kind of supervision, or is it an issue of not compelling enough people to enter those facilities?

@3: "Safe" is relative, and we're discussing harm reduction, not harm elimination.

People always have chosen and always will choose to engage in risky behavior. We cannot force any form of treatment upon people, but we can help them stay alive and we can be there for them if and when they decide that they want help.

I hate to burst Ms. Gonzalez's bubble but on the streets of Seattle, heroin is and has been for the last 30 years, mainly a white person's drug. Sure, Hispanics, Asians and African Americans struggle with addiction, but white folks abusing opioids in this region is not new. So no, its not in focus now because some white people are endangered. As far as providing space for people to safely inject heroin, fine, if it makes you feel better. First of all, it doesn't deal with the problem. Addicts will go there to get high, not to listen to a drug counselor. Even so, only a small percentage of users will use the facilities. Most will be suspicious and will continue doing what has worked well for them for years. Keep in mind, most of these people will probably arrive and leave in a car. Any concerns there? Oh, I heard you, they will be sure to bring a designated driver.

@3: Phil M in @4 is spot on in his reply so I won't repeat. You make one comment, however, that needs correcting: "but the drug itself kills ya one way or another".

Actually, this is not true. Aside from the very real physical dependency and overdose possibilities opioids like morphine or heroin are actually quite safe and can be taken for prolonged periods of time without adverse effects. The vast majority of harm associated with these drugs comes from their legal status. The harm is sociological, not pharmacological.