Two local lawmakers — state Sen. Adam Hinds and state Rep. John Barrett III — are co-sponsoring legislation that would create at least two supervised consumption sites — designated places where people can use drugs with trained staff on hand in case of an overdose. Other county lawmakers are not opposed to the idea.
Safe consumption sites, also referred to as supervised injection sites, exist in some other countries, but there are none open in the U.S. Some want to see that change.
In July, Rhode Island became the first state to legalize safe-consumption sites when its governor signed legislation into law.
Early this year, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a proposed supervised injection site in Philadelphia violated federal law. It could be the first of its kind in the nation, and the organization's vice president said at the time that it would not be giving up the legal fight, The Associated Press reported.
Massachusetts legislators filed "An Act Relative to Preventing Overdose Deaths and Increasing Access to Treatment," which would create a 10-year pilot program for at least two supervised consumption sites. Similar legislation was debated last year, too. Gov. Charlie Baker has said he is opposed to them.
Under the legislation, the sites would "utilize harm reduction tools, including clinical monitoring of the consumption of pre-obtained controlled substances in the presence of trained staff, for the purpose of reducing the risks of disease transmission and preventing overdose deaths."
In addition to monitoring people for possible overdoes, sites would be required to provide sterile injection supplies, such as hypodermic needles, provide access or referrals to addiction treatment, and educate people about needle disposal and overdose prevention, among other requirements.
Local boards of health would need to approve a city or town's participation in the pilot program.
Community buy-in is important, said state Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier, D-Pittsfield. She is not a co-sponsor, but said, “I support the idea, and I would look at the details of the bill."
"You can't get someone into recovery if they die," she said. "The fact that these safe-injection sites in Canada specifically seem to be having positive impacts, I think it's something that we should try."
Rep. Paul Mark, D-Peru, is not a co-sponsor, but he said if communities are comfortable with hosting a safe consumption site, he has no problem with it.
“I'm definitely not opposed to the bill," he said. He has heard from constituents about the legislation. "I've never heard anyone say to me, 'We think using heroin a great idea we really want to encourage that.' What I've heard is, 'People are doing this. Why not put another tool on the table to make sure it doesn't result in death?'”
State Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox, said he has changed his mind on the topic.
"I've come around on this," he said.
At first, he saw the sites as "just a place to legally inject heroin — that was my initial knee-jerk reaction.” After conversations with Dr. Jennifer Michaels, medical director of The Brien Center in Pittsfield, his view shifted.
"She's got me convinced this is one step closer to getting people to treatment they need, he said.
“It can be one step closer to helping people engage in treatment," Michaels said. "It also helps to keep people alive so they will possibly enter treatment one day. I think both are valuable as we look at this as a disease and people are in different stages of change in that disease."
Pignatelli is not a co-sponsor of the legislation, because he has concerns about accountability.
"I am a strong advocate that we have to have proper oversight of these safe-injection sites. I want to make sure there's professional people there that are well-prepared to talk to these people. To try to get them into treatment. ... I want to have more accountability for these organizations."
The legislation requires health care professionals or trained staff or volunteers to staff the sites.
Barrett signed on to the legislation as a co-sponsor.
"I did it with reservations,” he said.
But, he has heard from constituents in support of it.
"I'm not firmly convinced on this," he said. But because he heard from a number of people working on the opioid-overdose epidemic, he decided to sign on in hopes there would be a hearing on it.
"Do I think it will pass? he asked. "No, not this time around."
But, there is a problem that needs to be addressed, he said.
“There isn't a family out there that hasn’t been impacted by drug use. Every option has to be looked at," he said.
"It's a very difficult situation to handle," he added. "You can't stick your head in the sand and say it doesn’t exist. When ideas come out, they should be at least listened to.”
Hinds said he is open to anything that helps move people toward recovery.
"Once again we’ve seen that in the first six months of 2021, in Massachusetts, we had more than 1,000 opioid-related overdose deaths. And it just screams out for doing more to save lives. And so that’s why I support the initiative," he said.
"What we hear about consistently is the need to do more to support interventions related to addiction and supporting more and more mental health investments.”
"consumption" - Google News
August 14, 2021 at 06:00AM
https://ift.tt/2Xrc84B
Where do Berkshire County legislators stand on supervised consumption legislation? - Berkshire Eagle
"consumption" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2WkKCBC
https://ift.tt/2YCP29R
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Where do Berkshire County legislators stand on supervised consumption legislation? - Berkshire Eagle"
Post a Comment