I signed the petition either one or two weeks ago. I think the voters should be able to decide if these sites really do help keep addicts safer and keep our neighborhoods safer. AND the public debate would be good for everyone

@1: yes, a reasoned public debate would be good for everyone. too bad that's not what we'll get.

@1 Here's the problem with that. The side behind this is already lying, right out of the gate. I spoke to a canvasser at a supermarket in Burien and asked her why she was for this. "Because drug use went up when it was done in Vancouver" was the short form of her answer. I didn't feel qualified to challenge her because I hadn't done the research. I got home, and after half an hour with Google Scholar and Sci-Hub and found she was completely full of shit. Meta-analyses of safe consumption sites consistently show they save lives and money while not increasing drug usage. They're running on a lie. To say "the public debate would be good for everyone" is like saying the Brexit debate was good for everyone. Yeah, except that the Leave side ran on lies, which they began disavowing literally the next morning. No one learned anything.

If the anti-safe consumption site folks want to just say, "We don't like drugs and we don't like drug users, and we don't want them anywhere near us, and we think this will do the trick," that would be fairly reprehensible, but at least it would be honest. They won't say that, though. They'll lie, and lie, and then they'll lie some more. And now we're in a post-truth age, when no one can be believed, so if the folks pushing this initiative have "facts" that differ from those in peer-reviewed journals, well, who's to say who's right?

@3, yes to what you said. This is a public health issue and a proven help should not be shut down by people who simply don't want to be around certain other people.

@4:

The government already massively subsidizes the pharmaceutical industry, which is primarily responsible for the rapid escalation of opioid addiction in this country, not to mention the alcohol industry via agricultural subsidies, which constitute precisely the sort of de facto blessings you claim to oppose. Add to that the fact that the GOP wants to increase funding for climate destroying fossil fuels - certainly one of the most blatantly self-destructive behaviors currently in-practice - and I would have to say the government is already well down that path.

@1: really?! You think voters should get to decide on what's good public health? I think that's totally whack. You want anti-vaxxers to have a say in whether vaccines are a good idea?

And as @3: the folks behind this initiative are either ignorant of the scientific and public health evidence supporting the effectiveness of safe consumption sites or are actively lying and distorting data. The research here is conclusive. I pay attention to that, not to some hard core religious nut (e.g. Miloscia) or ultra-rich Trump supporters.

I think Bothell would be a fabulous place for a safe-consumption site

@5: "...people who simply don't want to be around certain other people."

I'm guilty as charged. I confess I'm one of those selfish people who doesn't want extras from The Walking Dead roaming around where I live, breaking into my home and car, stealing my bike, leaving needles in my kid's playground, etc.. Shocking, I know, that someone wouldn't embrace junkies and tweakers as friends and neighbors.

@9
You do understand that with safe, dedicated, monitored sites, they wouldn't be leaving needles around, and there would be less incentive for them to steal, if they didn't have to fund their score, don't you?

@10 - exactly how do you think there would be less incentive for addicts to steal? Since consumption sites don't provide the drugs, they do nothing to reduce addiction-driven theft and other crime.

@3 - take a look at what's going on in Vancouver, B.C. Overdose deaths are at an all-time high and expected to far outpace last year's numbers, and many of those deaths are occurring in the Downtown Eastside, where the supervised consumption site Insite is located. Insite has an abysmal record of getting people into detox - around 4 percent, if I remember correctly. Statements about the site reducing drug use and saving lives are fiction.

@7 you are really full of shit aren't you? This isn't public health, this is about the State setting up places (with tax payer dollars) for addicts to shoot up in a "safe space" while still going out and breaking into homes in the area to feed their habit.

Seriously, how fucking stupid are you? Did your mother keep the afterbirth and raise it as her child when you were born? That certainly would explain the level of stupid you show.

@12: Get real. Overdose deaths are up because overdoses are up, not because some people consume their drugs in a clean, supervised facility. It's worse in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside because that's where a concentration of drug users live. It has been that way since way before InSite opened. The death rate would even higher were InSite not there providing assistance to those who need it.

The science is in: InSite saves lives. Drug use patterns are different in Seattle and in the rest of King County, but supervised consumption sites will save lives here, as well.