In Case You Haven't Heard…

Abstract

Last week's ruling by a federal judge that Safehouse, a proposed supervised injection/consumption site in Philadelphia (see ADAW, Jan. 29, 2018), does not violate the “crack house statute” was celebrated all over the country by harm‐reduction advocates. Leading the way was the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). Lindsay LaSalle, managing director for the DPA's Department of Law and Policy, called the ruling a “victory in the fight to save lives.” While the federal government had argued that the site was meant for drug use, and therefore violated the crack house statute, Safehouse argued that it was meant to save lives, and drug use was just ancillary to that purpose. Opioid overdose deaths could be prevented if someone used opioids in front of a health care professional, who could then provide medical care if needed, preventing an overdose. In fact, no overdose deaths have ever occurred in a supervised consumption site, the DPA noted. “Though legal questions remain, this decision — that the federal ‘crack house’ statute does not apply to supervised consumption sites like Safehouse — sets an important legal precedent in the fight to establish evidence‐based interventions to address drug use and related harms,” said LaSalle. “We hope this decision sends a signal to the Trump administration that criminalization is not the right response to overdose deaths and that the administration will rethink efforts to interfere with state‐level drug policy that prioritizes individual and community health.” There is concern that such facilities would be seen as less expensive alternatives to treatment by municipalities and other payers, and be approved for that reason alone. But there is consensus that saving lives comes first. See next week's issue for a deeper analysis and commentary from the treatment field.