While I can understand the rationale for safe injection sites, I think it is important to consider this in a larger context. By setting up such sites, we are basically saying that our society will contribute to the continued funding of the most vicious criminal cartels in the world. These users are giving money which ultimately ends up in the pockets of people who terrorize the people of many communities in Latin America.
Setting up these sites will make life better for some of our drug addicts and some sectors of our society by reducing disease, etc. However, we are doing so at the expense of people who do not have any choices in the matter--they can be beaten, raped, forced to work in the drug industry, and murdered.
This is a social justice issue. Our tax money should go to helping treat people who are addicted.

Are we gong to set up a head tax to pay for these? And I'm assuming none of the sites will be anywhere near the homes of the City Council members, right?

Hopefully they prevail. The voters should have a say. With so much mismanagement of the street homelessness population, I can’t imagine King County and Seattle would be able to manage this facility. It would destroy any neighborhood business district where it gets dumped. Capitol Hill does not want to be the guinea pig for this well intended but misguided social experiment.

There is also a liability here. If somebody dies while in one of these facilities, their family will sue. If somebody gets shot in front of the facility in a battle between the drug cartels over the prime turf, their family will sue. Adjacent businesses will also likely file lawsuits. Why should taxpayers take on the liability for this?

In addition to heroin addicts, diabetics should be allowed to use these sites to get free injection materials for insulin.

@4:

At what point do we draw the line in terms of "voters having a say"? Are we going to have to put literally every public policy initiative on a ballot? There's a reason we don't operate under a system of direct democracy, and instead have opted for representative democracy - because the electorate has neither the time, the inclination, nor in most cases the knowledge, education, or technical background to be able to cogently make such decisions.

@7
I am generally not a fan of the initiative process for the reasons you describe, but it does provide a check and balance on elected officials that are losing touch with the voters. The public health argument for drug injection sites is a red herring. I have looked at the studies, and the benefits are not nearly as clear cut as proponents suggest (I.e, flawed study design, results interpreted more broadly than intended, too narrowly focused) and the negative consequences are far greater than they acknowledge. It is not a case like climate change where there are thousands of studies that have been completed and replicated. In other words, there is not a scientific consensus on the efficacy of drug injection sites and whether or not public health on a community or regional scale is improved by opening them. There should be an honest debate about the costs and benefits at an individual, neighborhood, community and regional scale of this experiment. Instead we have a group of advocates that waves around a couple of studies like gospel and elected officials (Seattle City Council in particular) that make stupid decisions because they are afraid they will fail the ideological purity test. We appear to be in an unfortunate and perhaps corrupt loop in Seattle where the NGOs set up additional non-profits to push their agenda, increase the funding flowing into their organization, and make it appear like a grassroots campaign. The Seattle City Council is terrified of these groups because they are very effective at organizing voters, so the money continues to flow toward misguided initiatives and the homeless, junkie, mental health crisis continues to exploded. So no I do not believe drug injection sites are a public health issue, and yes I do believe an initiative is necessary to break this corrupt cycle and give the voters a say in an issue that could destroy the unlucky neighborhood business districts that end up with a flaming turf on their doorsteps.

@6 - Wow. I hope to get a good stretch like that at the gym tomorrow morning.

@9:

"The Seattle City Council is terrified of these groups because they are very effective at organizing voters" - that would seem to imply the Council is in fact fulfilling the will of the voters by acceding to their demands, would it not? Otherwise, why would elected officials be "terrified" of non-profit orgs they themselves have some hand in funding in the first place?

And your logic seems faulty: the problem already exists, and according to many of the pearl-clutchers here is already destroying neighborhoods, so clearly doing nothing by maintaining the status quo doesn't seem to have been an effective strategy in dealing with it. And yet, whenever ANY other possible strategy is proposed the knee-jerk reaction is inevitably "oh, noez! We can't do THAT! Think of the children/businesses/property values!" or what-not. And just because YOU personally don't consider this a "public health issue", doesn't mean you're in the majority. Hell, even the Cheeto-In-Chief recognized drug addiction as a public health issue, even if he hasn't actually lifted a finger to address it in terms of policy.

@11
You sure got me! I was referring to underhanded lobbiests like the NRA, which are effective at magnifying their voice and controlling a block of voters with misinformation? Which of these lobbying organizations do you work for COMTE?

I've got 2 years now clean from heroin. Everyday is a struggle, but there are people who need me. So I take it one hour at a time. So many friends have died, and so many more with huge problems because of using. This is a really bad idea. If there is an easy to use location anywhere near me the temptation will be hell. Please don't even think about it.

@10,
Diabetics should get their stuff for free, what's crazy about that?

Really though, everyone should get all their healthcare paid for by taxpayers. Medicare for all.

So logically, you don’t have a home to do your drugs because you can’t afford to rent a home to do your drugs. And you can’t afford rent so you can do your drugs because you don’t have a job to pay for rent to do your drugs. So, if you don’t have a job and can’t pay the basics of rent and necessities, then how does one pay for the drugs they are using in taxpayer-funded safe consumption spaces? Is the city directly funding the habit, or indirectly funding the crime that pays for the habit. Couldn’t we just save money by combining safe consumption space with safe spaces on college campuses so everyone can just feel safe?

@16: Maybe one has a home but prefers to hide the effects of his or her substance use disorder from family or other housemates.