Bill Overview
Title: Stop Injection Sites for Illegal Drugs Act of 2022
Description: This bill generally prohibits federal funds from being made available to a state, local, tribal, or other entity that operates or controls an injection center (i.e., a medically supervised injection site) in violation of the federal statute commonly known as the Crack House Statute. The statute generally prohibits making facilities available for the purpose of unlawfully using a controlled substance. The bill provides an exception for federal funds awarded through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant program or the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. Specifically, federal funds awarded through the COPS grant program or the JAG grant program shall remain available to a state, local, tribal, or other entity that operates or controls an injection center in violation of the Crack House Statute.
Sponsors: Rep. Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R-WA-3]
Target Audience
Population: People who use illegal drugs and would be impacted by loss of supervised injection sites
Estimated Size: 200000
- The bill impacts injection sites that would otherwise provide a controlled environment for drug use with medical supervision, which is intended to reduce harm and improve health outcomes for people who use drugs.
- Preventing the establishment of supervised injection sites potentially affects people who use drugs by removing a safer option for consumption, which might lead to higher rates of overdose and disease transmission.
- The legislation affects local, state, and tribal authorities that might be considering or have implemented supervised injection sites, especially those dependent on federal funding for these services.
- Similar legislation in other countries with operational injection sites has shown that such facilities can decrease public drug use and improve public health outcomes among users, suggesting that a prohibition could reverse these effects.
- The global population that might be impacted includes those in countries considering similar approaches or those in areas where injection sites are being evaluated as a public health strategy.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts a limited but significant portion of the population, primarily those who are involved in or considering supervised injection sites for harm reduction purposes.
- With no funds allocated, the direct impact is on potential or existing supervised injection sites and those who might benefit from them, especially in cities or states interested in implementing such harm reduction measures.
- The population directly affected includes users of illegal substances who rely on or would potentially rely on these sites to reduce risk of overdose and disease transmission.
- Additionally, indirect effects could occur for communities facing impacts of public substance use and related healthcare burdens.
- The commonness factor weights simulate a mix of directly impacted individuals (users of illegal drugs) and those tangentially affected (community members, local policymakers).
Simulated Interviews
Freelance Photographer (New York City, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supervised injection sites provide me a safe space to use without fear of overdosing alone.
- The policy would force people like me back into unsafe environments, increasing health risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Social Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this policy will make my job harder, as it removes critical tools that help keep clients safe.
- Without these sites, I fear we'll see more overdose deaths and illnesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Unemployed (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- When I used a supervised site, I felt more in control and less afraid.
- Blocking these sites increases my fear of harm and decreases my options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 1 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 1 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Portland, OR)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing funding options for injection sites is a step backward for public health.
- Successful harm reduction requires supported, safe environments for users.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Community Health Worker (Columbus, OH)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy ignores the needs of vulnerable populations.
- We need to support, not hinder, the establishment of places where people can use substances safely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supervised sites are crucial for minimizing risks and providing necessary health interventions.
- Policies hindering these sites show a lack of understanding of addiction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 5 |
Nurse (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our emergency room might see more cases if these sites are unsupported.
- Supervised injection sites help reduce the burden on health systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Retired (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen how public use of drugs affects our community negatively.
- Safe sites might keep these activities away from our streets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
City Official (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation complicates our efforts to mitigate local public health crises.
- Without federal support, innovative public health strategies are harder to implement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Street Vendor (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If there were safe places to go, it would help people in my situation stay healthier.
- Policies like this could increase harm if not considered carefully.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 1 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $500000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $550000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $600000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $1000000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy restricts federal funding use rather than introducing new financial obligations, focusing on legal compliance rather than direct fiscal impact.
- Healthcare and public safety dynamics will heavily influence whether the lack of supervised injection sites incurs higher costs elsewhere.
- Potential savings in law enforcement could be offset by increased healthcare costs due to untreated substance use dangers.
- Public health findings from existing international and pilot U.S. sites might suggest further quantitative data for assessing future injection-related health interventions.