SIFMA Now! Editorials

Opinion: Hail to the Harm Reduction Commission

Mark Eisenberg, Bill Fried, and Jim Stewart

Commonwealth Magazine, March 26, 2019

THE GOVERNOR’S HARM REDUCTION COMMISSION’S endorsement of supervised drug consumption sites is a game-changing step towards effective drug policy, especially concerning problematic drug use.

Government commissions often serve as convenient burial grounds for controversial approaches such as supervised drug consumption sites, where people who use drugs can do so in relative safety. And with representatives from politics, drug treatment, drug use, and law enforcement thrown together, this commission had the potential to be a divisive, un-productive black hole.

Instead, it was a respectful, informed round table which raised every hard question about these sites and came out with a positive acknowledgment of their life-saving potential.

Letter to the Editor: Monitoring overdoses is not the same as providing safe sites

Jim Stewart

Boston Globe, December 26, 2019

Once again, public officials are attempting to create an illusion of public action (“Mass. plans centers to monitor users after overdose,” Page A1, Dec. 25). Programs like Supportive Place for Observation and Treatment, or SPOT, provide a service, but anyone who works there will tell you it reaches almost none of those most vulnerable to the current (often fatal) overdose crisis.

All across the world, safe consumption facilities are the proven and effective way to engage and bring hope to those struggling with substance use disorder. Volumes of peer-reviewed public health and medical literature demonstrate the efficacy of these facilities, but our elected officials lack the courage to challenge their own (and their constituents’) bigoted ideas about who people who use drugs are and what will help them.

Opinion: SAfe injection sites are another tool on the path to recovery

Cindy F. Friedman and Jeffrey N. Roy

Boston Globe, August 9, 2019

When we were first introduced to the idea of safe injection facilities, we were not immediately on board. In fact, we felt uneasy about it, but vowed to keep an open mind.

After serving on the state’s harm-reduction commission, listening to testimony, studying the effectiveness of safe injection facilities in other countries, visiting clinics in the Boston area, and learning from experts, our perspective changed. The idea of such sites is uncomfortable to many, but it’s not about our comfort level. It’s about keeping people alive long enough to get them into treatment.

Advocates push for safe injection sites in Boston

Liam Martin

CBS, April 30, 2018

Boston advocates for controversial “safe injection sites” made a public push Monday. Along with information, they gave people an up close look at how they say these sites can prevent overdoses and save lives…

editorial: Follow the data, governor: sites for injections work

Boston Globe, May 7, 2017

Last spring, after signing legislation aimed at curbing opioid abuse at a State House ceremony, Governor Charlie Baker broke down in tears.Only after a swell of applause from a large crowd of legislators, law enforcement officials, and families of overdose victims was he able to speak. “May today’s bill passage signal to you that the Commonwealth is listening,” he said, “and we will keep fighting for all of you.”

Editorial board: Let cities open safe injection sites

New York Times, February 24, 2018

An overdose is often a lonely way to die. Overdoses happen when a toxic amount of a drug, or a combination of drugs, overwhelms the body’s basic functions, first slowing and eventually stopping the brain’s drive to breathe. If someone notices the signs of an overdose — lips turning blue, restricted pupils, unresponsiveness, a loss of consciousness, among others — it can generally be reversed with drugs like naloxone, which saves thousands of lives a year. But someone must be there to notice.