Risks of “Safe Injection” Sites in San Francisco

SF has already attracted thousands of drug users, including our kids, giving false hope of sanctuary

• SF’s permissive culture attracts drug users, as warnings from the DEA and Humboldt county show; by the City’s own count, 30% of SF’s homeless—half of whom have an addiction—are from outside SF

• It would not be surprising if more people migrated to SF after an SCS opened, as they have in Harlem and Vancouver, especially given how close SF’s proposed SCS locations are to major transportation hubs

• With a shortage of addiction treatment already, why would SF risk increasing the “magnet effect” at this time?

It’s almost impossible to keep drug dealers away from SCSs; for neighborhood kids, the risks are particularly high

• SCSs increase open drug use and dealing, based on evidence from Harlem, Vancouver, Portugal, Calgary and San Francisco

• SCSs affect neighborhoods the most since access to drugs is a risk factor of addiction; Al Sharpton called OnPoint’s SCS in Harlem an example of systemic racism

• At a time when youth mental health challenges, substance use and overdose deaths are already on the rise, and SF is already critically short of youth mental heath services, adding an SCS against Federal and State laws is hazardous at best

There’s no evidence that SCSs save lives at the population level

• According to the Stanford–Lancet Commission on the North American Opioid Crisis, “there is no evidence that accessing a site lowers an individual’s risk of fatal overdose over time, or that sites lower community overdose rates.”

• Vancouver’s OD death rate continues to grow rapidly and is now 4x Canada’s even though it was the first to open a supervised consumption site in 2003 and now has 12 sites for a population smaller than SF’s; this 2022 study finds there is no evidence that SCSs have reduced Vancouvers’ OD rate

• Amsterdam’s low OD rate is due in large part to: adequate treatment and housing, 5 year residency required for housing and services, and a ban on public camping

Today’s street drugs make SCSs even more tenuous

• Fentanyl use can affect the brain and organs; Tranq can lead to necrosis and amputation

• Meth can cause debilitating psychosis; 76% of 766 people eligible for care court have meth or stimulant diagnosis

• It’s no longer true that “noone has ever died in an SCS”; Vancouver had 2 deaths in SCSs recently

SCSs are too small to make a dent in SF’s open drug scenes

• 1 SCS would accommodate about 1% of SF’s open drug use: 4,000 unhoused people who use drugs using 6x/day = 24,000 daily uses; SCS capacity ~ 200 uses per day (based on OnPoint data); 200 ÷ 24,000 = 1%

• By creating SCSs with such limited capacity—while threatening to arrest users who have no choice but to use outside them—SF risks a backlash

Other Blue cities are saying “No” to Supervised Consumption Sites – SF can too

• Seattle's efforts to create supervised injection sites blocked by court ruling 1-13-21

• Colorado lawmakers kill bill to allow supervised drug injection sites 4-27-23

• Pennsylvania Senate votes to ban safe injection sites May 1, 2023