Nebraska seemed poised last month to become an unlikely counterpoint to the national trend of tightening drug laws. A coalition of liberal and conservative legislators in the state passed, by a wide margin, a bill to allow local governments to establish needle exchanges.
But Gov. Jim Pillen vetoed the bill, warning against bringing “the failed policies of drug-infested cities like San Francisco here,” and on Tuesday, Nebraska lawmakers changed course and narrowly sustained his veto.
The demise of the needle exchange bill reflected rising skepticism among Republicans and some Democrats about the harm reduction approach to illicit drug use. Oregon has moved this year toward re-criminalizing hard drugs, Idaho lawmakers advanced a bill that would ban needle exchanges and San Francisco voters approved a ballot measure that will require drug screening for many welfare recipients.
The debate in Nebraska, a reliably conservative state, mirrored the national conversation about how to approach drug use. Supporters of the bill spoke of the chance the bill offers to limit disease transmission and help drug users secure treatment, while Mr. Pillen, a Republican, asked lawmakers to “sustain my veto to prevent our government from aiding and abetting the use of dangerous, illicit and dehumanizing drugs.”
@JurisdictionFalconGreen2mos2MO
There is a mountain of research demonstrating that free syringes prevent transmission of infectious disease and bring people who use drugs into contact with the health care system. Denying free access to clean syringes will not discourage drug use. People will continue to inject, but with dirty and/or shared needles, and a lot of people will get sick, including children. Even a politician should be able to understand this.
But it also doesn't discourage the use of the drugs in the first place. This is one of the reasons that similar programs in other places haven't had any positive effect on the overall drub abuse rate. Yes, people might be able to inject safer, but they are still injecting. In some ways its even a message of condoning the behavior. We should not be enabling drug use. We should be working to help people find their way out of it.
@9KTPWLZ2mos2MO
This is true, it doesn't necessarily discourage use, but it's a start on a path for many of these people that can lead them to get better help.
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
Can a government's refusal to support needle exchanges be seen as prioritizing public morality over public health, or is it a necessary stance to combat drug abuse?
@ArdentCowTranshumanist2mos2MO
Something that is done at the county level in at least some counties in Nebraska is a really in-depth drug court for non-violent offenders. Instead of just sending people to jail it gives addicts the opportunity to complete a rehab program in place of a prison sentence. This is likely one of the reasons that Nebraska has such a low rate of overdose deaths as compared to other states. My father played a huge role in developing the drug rehab program in one of the largest counties and that program saved so many lives. It was amazing being out in public with him throughout my teen years. People… Read more
Oregon and California have shown that permissive legislation only leads to more harm, not only to the addicted and the homeless, but to the communities and businesses around them. Commit these poor people, and treat them. They have clearly lost any ability or willingness to consent to treatment themselves and we all end up paying for their bad life choices otherwise.
As a psychologist I believe that harm reduction may have some benefits when coupled with appropriate medical and psychological treatment, along with other forms of care and assistance.
However, an unfortunate consequence of some harm reduction efforts is that they aid, abet and support ongoing addiction and can even lead to increased addiction.
The goal ought to be to end drug consumption, not to condone, encourage, assist and prolong it.
Harm reduction makes no sense unless it is accompanied by treatment and extensive efforts to end addiction, all of which will cost many billions of dollars per year to implement on a nation-wide scale.
The cost of not eliminating drug use and addiction will be even greater.
@R3gulationFrogMountain2mos2MO
I doubt any of these people know much about addiction, or have witnessed firsthand the pain of addiction for both the person who is addicted and their family.
That’s the only explanation I can come up with to justify this result. And the person who sponsored the bill, claiming this is an “opportunity for those addicted to get help” doesn’t have a clue.
So sad.
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
