Commentary: Responding to H.72 and overdose prevention centers

February  9, 2024  |  By Steven Martin

Let me start by disclosing that I am a lifelong Vermonter and consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. (In years past I would have thought that description to be a somewhat typical Vermonter.) 

I have waited for over two weeks now to see if there were any responses to state Rep. Theresa Wood's Jan. 18 opinion piece (“Rep. Wood: Times call for overdose prevention centers”) regarding authorization of overdose prevention centers (a.k.a. safe injection sites) in Vermont. 

To begin with, it is interesting to see that Wood indicates that bill  H.72 was previously awaiting action in the Appropriations Committee, and later indicates that no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund the sites. Instead, the “pilot programs” are to be paid for by a special fund from pharmaceutical companies. I guess that means that after the pilot, taxpayers might possibly be on the hook for the funding should the program be deemed a success (as state programs almost always are) and continue? 

In the meantime, the program is at no cost to taxpayers. Except that taxpayers are people, and many of them pay for pharmaceuticals in addition to taxes. So, given that there is no free lunch, the cost to the pharmaceutical companies is almost by definition passed on through higher drug prices to... people (a.k.a. taxpayers). Let's face a reality: people pay for it all in the end.

While I truly sympathize with the people and families that are affected by overdoses, I at the same time believe that the increasing burdens imposed by illicit drug use should not be borne by the general population. To me, this is yet another example of absolving people of a responsibility that rests squarely on their shoulders. We should not be fearing for our safety, avoiding public places, providing meals, shelter and free services at public expense, and ceding public infrastructure to people who demonstrably refuse to help themselves. 

Wood says that by not taking this step, “the people who are providing and profiting from these illicit drugs win and more Vermonters die.” I instead believe that by making this activity less dangerous to participants – and in some respects more sympathetic – we are actually helping to support those profiting from illicit drugs, and in the process, making the lives of ordinary citizens more expensive, less safe, and less free.

The issue is complex, solutions have been elusive, and the costs to freedom and finances are ever increasing.  Sometimes tough love is the most beneficial and the most efficient – it either works, or it speeds up the inevitable. If an individual is having difficulties due to addiction to illicit drugs, and is imposing significant societal costs (financial assistance programs for food and shelter, deteriorating public spaces, safety concerns from drug dealers and the need for many addicts to resort to crime to fund their addictions, etc), then their choices should be limited – prison (if you commit crimes or your choices put others in danger), voluntary but irrevocable admission into a treatment program if you really want to be helped (until you are deemed cured), or you make the best life for yourself possible (without public assistance) until one of the first two choices is initiated, or you otherwise run out of choices.

I find it difficult to believe there have been no comments on this issue either in support of or in opposition to Wood's opinion piece. Perhaps people, much like myself, have been reluctant to speak up for fear that they appear selfish or uncaring. But I think that on this subject, and on a variety of others, it is time to wonder how much more we need to put up with as a society before we say “no more” and start to recognize in our policy choices that personal responsibility is the flip side of the freedom coin.

I hold no ill will towards anyone who totally disagrees with my thinking. I still believe we can respect, live peacefully with, and foster friendships with others, even when we disagree on some, even many, topics. 

Though I disagree with Theresa Wood on this topic, I also allow that she probably has had different life experiences and may well see things differently. And it is totally possible that, regarding my personal opinion of safe injection sites... I could be wrong. 

And perhaps Theresa Wood and I are the only two people with opinions on the subject?

Steven Martin lives in Waterbury.