There is no quick fix for the ‘Methadone Mile’
In the last couple of weeks, Boston’s so-called “Methadone Mile” has been the backdrop for the ongoing debate on the opioid epidemic. The homelessness, drug abuse and police activity in the area has created an uncomfortable and tragic underworld and concerned residents are searching for answers.
As the Herald’s Hillary Chabot reported, elected officials have seen the carnage first-hand and are rethinking their approach. City Councilor At-Large Annissa Essaibi-George said she’ll reconsider her opposition to controversial safe injection sites.
“This is an explosion of this crisis,” Essaibi-George told Boston Herald Radio about the spike in violence and drug abuse along the area in Boston near the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Melnea Cass Boulevard.
“I think we have to explore every tool in the toolbox,” said Essaibi-George, chairwoman of the City Council’s substance abuse committee. “I think it’s important for me as a city councilor, as an elected official, and as chair of this committee to explore all of these options and these opportunities for potential recovery for people who are dealing with substance use disorders.
“I believe safe injection does save lives,” Essaibi-George said. “If anyone is overdosing in a safe recovery site, their lives are being saved.”
Essaibi-George plans to visit a secure injection site in Toronto later this month in order to better evaluate the impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
There is no doubt that the city councilor is taking a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to the issue and we must hope that such efforts can eventually curb this horrible epidemic, but we must advise caution when it comes to embracing safe injection sites as a primary or even supplemental tool in the mission.
It is reckless to think that state and local government should be sanctioning areas for shooting up where there are no consequences for taking drugs. It would only serve to enable those who are battling addiction.
Also, safe injection sites are illegal. U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling has been consistent on this point.
“‘Supervised injection facilities’ would violate federal laws prohibiting the use of illicit drugs and the operation of sites where illicit drugs are used and distributed,” Lelling wrote in a statement last July. “Employees and users of such a site would be exposed to federal criminal charges regardless of any state law or study.
“I cannot envision any scenario in which sites that normalize intravenous use of heroin and fentanyl would be off limits to federal law enforcement efforts,” he continued.
Indeed, a safe injection site makes shooting up all the more convenient for addicts and removes another obstacle that would, to some degree, serve as a deterrent.
Gov. Charlie Baker has cited such an argument consistently when discussing the efficacy of the sites.
“There is virtually no evidence that they lead people into treatment,” he said. “And I think one of the things is, the goal here is to provide opportunities and pathways to treatment for people.”
It is good and proper for elected officials to aggressively combat public health risks. In this fight, however, the course that has yielded results and will hopefully put an end to the “Methadone Mile,” as it were, is toward treatment and prevention.