Drug sites no safe bet

One of the more problematic responses to the opioid crisis — a way some advocates insist will save lives — is the so-called safe injection site. Problematic because many view the notion as “giving up” on addicts, or even worse, providing official approval of conduct that is injurious.

And, of course, it will inevitably become a siting issue — the ultimate NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) controversy. Does Boston’s “Methadone Mile” need one more “attraction” for those in the throes of a deadly addiction?

Sure, some addicts are choosing their own “safe injection sites” — just check police reports of addicts found unconscious in hospital bathrooms (Boston Medical Center for one).

Safe injection sites are facilities where addicts can bring their own drugs, often get a clean needle and shoot up with a medical professional nearby — armed with narcan — in case those drugs are, say, laced with too much deadly fentanyl. At their best such facilities also have professionals on board who will attempt to get addicts into treatment.

But it presumes that those in suffering from addiction will have the foresight to get themselves and their drugs from the point of sale to the site. Alternatively, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh has raised the horrifying specter of addicts being “preyed upon more by the drug dealers who know exactly where they are, all day long.”

Oh, and such sites, even if approved by the state, would be illegal under federal law.

All of those caveats notwithstanding, the Legislature’s Harm Reduction and Drug Law Reform Caucus had a panel discussion last week to promote the idea.

“We need an organization to step forward and say they are ready, if so authorized, to operate a supervised injection facility and a municipality that will accept them in that operation,” state Sen. William Brownsberger said at the event.

He conceded that a bill he filed to authorize the Department of Public Health to approve such a site was “just a starting point, it’s a talking point. It’s a shell for something that needs to be worked out in collaboration with a municipality and an organization who are ready to make the work happen.”

So, in other words, he’s got nothing.

What such sites would surely be — other than a way of enabling a deadly habit — is a diversion of funds and resources that could be better used for expanding treatment options.