{"id":74113,"date":"2024-04-12T12:48:52","date_gmt":"2024-04-12T20:48:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2024\/04\/12\/vermont-senate-panel-previews-amendment-narrowing-house-passed-safe-drug-consumption-site-bill-to-single-facility\/"},"modified":"2024-04-13T00:45:22","modified_gmt":"2024-04-13T08:45:22","slug":"vermont-senate-panel-previews-amendment-narrowing-house-passed-safe-drug-consumption-site-bill-to-single-facility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2024\/04\/12\/vermont-senate-panel-previews-amendment-narrowing-house-passed-safe-drug-consumption-site-bill-to-single-facility\/","title":{"rendered":"Vermont Senate Panel Previews Amendment Narrowing House-Passed Safe Drug Consumption Site Bill To Single Facility"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

A Vermont Senate panel this week discussed planned changes to a House-passed bill that would, in its current form, create and fund two overdose prevention centers in the state, where people could use currently prohibited substances in a medically supervised environment<\/a>\u2014part of a pilot program aimed at quelling the ongoing epidemic of drug-related deaths.<\/p>\n

The Senate Health and Welfare Committee plans to vote next week on an amendment that would make broad adjustments to the proposal, including narrowing the pilot program to a single site in the city of Burlington, where officials have expressed interest in hosting a facility. As passed by the House, the legislation would create and fund two over dose prevention centers (OPCs) in yet-undeclared parts of the state.<\/p>\n

State grant funding for the would also be cut under the revised language to $1.1 million for the single-site program, down from $2 million in the earlier version of the bill.<\/p>\n

Provisions in the committee\u2019s striking amendment came at the request of various stakeholders, including Burlington\u2019s mayor and fire department and the Vermont Medical Society, as well as the Senate panel\u2019s chair, Sen. Ginny Lyons (D), whose district lies south of Burlington.<\/p>\n

Another change would add that the OPC would need to provide drug-testing services\u2014a request from Lyons\u2014which presumably refers to positively identifying drugs and testing for adulterants.<\/p>\n

A revision added at the request of the Burlington Fire Department, meanwhile, would require on-site professionals with training in CPR, overdose interventions, first aid and wound care, as well as the performance of medical assessments to determine the need for further emergency care.<\/p>\n

The amendment retains the full $300,000 that was in the House-passed bill to study the impact of the pilot project. That money would come from the state\u2019s opioid abatement special fund.<\/p>\n

Panel revisions would also restructure the bill\u2019s language to separate its OPC provisions into one section and provisions around the bill\u2019s proposed syringe services expansion into another.<\/p>\n

At a hearing on Wednesday, Lyons pointed out that the proposed amendment lacked language conceiving of more OPCs in the future.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn a way we\u2019re limiting it to one site in Burlington,\u201d she said. \u201cGoing forward\u2026there\u2019s nothing in here that allows for expansion, should there be funds available.\u201d<\/p>\n

As the committee returned to the bill on Friday, however, Lyons also noted that the new language \u201cdoesn\u2019t preclude\u201d other OPCs from being authorized later on.<\/p>\n

The revised bill also includes adjusted language on criminal immunity for OPC staff, property holders and others, to ensure they aren\u2019t subject to arrest or prosecution as the result of good-faith overdose prevention efforts.<\/p>\n

Lyons initially said at Friday\u2019s hearing that she\u2019d like to act the bill and others by the end of the day, although the panel ultimately decided to push action into next week.<\/p>\n

\n

One issue raised during the latest discussion on the proposal was how OPCs would deal with possible smoking of opioids at facilities, which could create more problems for those nearby than injecting drugs does. Members seemed to agree, however, that the matter is one that the state Health Department could address when creating program guidelines.<\/p>\n

Other areas of discussion among lawmakers during the roughly 40-minute debate on Friday included whether municipal approval would be necessary to OK an overdose prevention center, whether people would have their drugs tested and then sell them to others, the state\u2013federal conflict on controlled substances and whether Vermont itself could be liable if it\u2019s seen as condoning drug use.<\/p>\n

Lyons urged the panel not to endlessly debate those issues, which she said previously came up during invited testimony and public comment in several hearings this week and last week. \u201cWe\u2019ve looked at all of that,\u201d she said. \u201cWe had the answers in our testimony.\u201d<\/p>\n

Before concluding the Friday\u2019s hearing, Lyons said the panel would return to discuss remaining issues, such as questions about state liability.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have to solidify this thing,\u201d she said. \u201cWe\u2019re gonna finish the bill on Wednesday\u2026but we may vote on Thursday.\u201d<\/p>\n

If it becomes law, Vermont would join Rhode Island<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Minnesota<\/a> in authorizing the facilities, where people can use illicit drugs with medical professionals present and be connected to various support services, including treatment.<\/p>\n

Sponsored by Rep. Taylor Small (P\/D) and 28 House colleagues, the bill is another attempt by lawmakers to allow overdose prevention centers following Gov. Phil Scott\u2019s (R) veto of a 2022 measure that would have established a task force to create a plan to open the sites<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Even if the overdose prevention center legislation passes the Senate this session it still faces a possible veto from the governor.<\/p>\n

\u201cI just don\u2019t think that a government entity should be in the business of enabling those who are addicted to these drugs that are illegal,\u201d the governor said of the current measure at the time it passed the House earlier this year.<\/p>\n

\n

Scott wrote in his 2022 veto message on the earlier legislation that \u201cit seems counterintuitive to divert resources from proven harm reduction strategies to plan injection sites without clear data on the effectiveness of this approach.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ahead of the Senate committee vote, members took testimony and received written comments from a number of officials and organizations over the course of multiple hearings.<\/p>\n

At one of the most recent meetings, the new mayor of Burlington, Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, who took office earlier this month, said that\u2014like outgoing mayor, Miro Weinberger\u2014\u201dI also strongly support H. 72 and the pathway it provides our city of Burlington to pilot an overdose prevention center in our community.\u201d<\/p>\n

Weinberger, who himself addressed the panel at an earlier hearing, said addressing the opioid crisis has been a top priority in the city since 2015.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have long supported overdose prevention sites as a strategy,\u201d he said. \u201cI have become increasingly focused and increasingly believe that this is something that we urgently need to pursue.\u201d<\/p>\n

The proposal has support from advocacy groups such as the Drug Policy Alliance, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, National Harm Reduction Coalition, the American Diabetes Association, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Johnson Health Center, Broken No More, Recovery Vermont, the Vermont Association for Mental Health Addiction and Recovery as well as various individual public commenters.<\/p>\n

The National Harm Reduction Center, for example, called overdose prevention centers \u201ca vital part of a comprehensive public health approach to reducing the harms of drug use.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThey cannot prevent all risky drug use or related harms,\u201d the group said in its testimony. \u201cHowever, evidence demonstrates that they can be remarkably effective and cost-saving and improve the lives of people who use drugs and the safety and health of our communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some state officials, however, told the committee that overdose prevention centers (OPCs) aren\u2019t the right fit for Vermont.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy position is that while I acknowledge OPCs can have many potential benefits and be part of a multipronged approach to the opioid epidemic, they ultimately may not represent the best option for a state such as Vermont at this time,\u201d Mark Levine, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Health, said in submitted testimony, arguing that the facilities work best \u201cwhere people who need these centers can access them easily and quickly\u2014typically these tend to be larger population areas, neighborhoods where injection drug use is more prevalent.\u201d<\/p>\n

New York City, he pointed out, has located its two overdose prevention sites in areas that fit that description.<\/p>\n

\n

Levine also pointed out that people shouldn\u2019t drive to and from overdose prevention sites, which they may have to do in many rural Vermont locations.<\/p>\n

\u201cVT doesn\u2019t have the population density of people who use drugs and sufficient public transportation to facilitate people consistently using the sites,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThat gives people who don\u2019t live within walking distance the option of lingering near or in the site, having a designated driver, driving after use (completely unacceptable), setting up shuttles to transport people (apparently RI is planning to do this) or not using the OPC.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf people attend a site and then drive,\u201d he added, \u201cwho has liability?\u201d<\/p>\n

Rep. Eric Maguire (R), who also opposed the bill<\/a>, argued that while OPCs might be an acceptable option for Vermont in the future, the state currently lacks the infrastructure to make the project worthwhile. He also emphasized that the sites could violate federal law.<\/p>\n

\u201cCurrently at this time, the state of Vermont does not have the infrastructure or continuum of care to support this harm reduction model,\u201d he told the panel. \u201cIt\u2019s not sanctioned by SAMHSA\u2026 It\u2019s against the law under the Controlled Substances Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThere may come a time when they are sanctioned by our national health organizations and sanctioned within the harm-reduction model laws,\u201d he added, \u201cand then we can look at crossing that bridge.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Weinberger, the former Burlington mayor, told panel members that not only do OPCs prevent overdose deaths, they also connect drug users with treatment and other services, often reaching individuals who are missed by other outreach.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne often under-appreciated in the discussion is that studies are showing that these facilities reduce\u2014not only do they not increase, they reduce<\/em>\u2014crime and disorder in the area immediately around the facilities,\u201d he said. \u201cI think that surprises many people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Weinberger acknowledged that the sites may not work in every part of Vermont, especially more rural areas, but said that wasn\u2019t a reason to deny facilities in denser areas such as Burlington.<\/p>\n

Scott Pavek, meanwhile\u2014a substance use policy analyst for the city of Burlington and a member of the state\u2019s Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee and Substance Misuse Prevention Council\u2014urged lawmakers not to be complacent about the ongoing overdose crisis.<\/p>\n

\u201cRecently, this committee heard testimony that suggested the state\u2019s overdose deaths have plateaued,\u201d he said, warning against the \u201ceagerness to point to a still unacceptable number of Vermonters lost to preventable overdose deaths as proof that our harm reduction and treatment strategies are sufficient.\u201d<\/p>\n

A saying he often heard during his own recovery, Pavek added, is that \u201chalf measures avail us nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI encourage the legislature to consider that proverb when assessing our state\u2019s system of harm reduction and treatment services,\u201d he said. \u201cYou have heard about new, promising approaches to address the overdose crisis that seem to me to be half-measures relative to the utility of overdose prevention centers.\u201d<\/p>\n

Separately this month, Vermont\u2019s Senate passed a measure that would establish a\u00a0working group to study whether and how to allow therapeutic access to psychedelics<\/a> in the state. If the bill is enacted, a report from the working group would be due to the legislature in November with recommendations on how to regulate the substances. As originally introduced, that bill would have also legalized use and possession of psilocybin<\/a>, but lawmakers on the Senate Health and Welfare Committee nixed that section last week to focus instead on the working group.<\/p>\n

Though Rhode Island and Minnesota have state laws on the books allowing safe drug consumption sites, New York City became the first U.S. jurisdiction to open locally sanctioned harm reduction centers<\/a>\u00a0in November 2021, and officials have reported positive results saving lives.<\/p>\n

An early study published by the American Medical Association (AMA) found that the\u00a0facilities had decreased the risk of overdose<\/a>, steered people away from using drugs in public and provided other ancillary health services to people who use illicit substances. And separate research published by AMA late last year found that the centers\u00a0have not led to increased crime despite a significant decrease in arrests<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile the federal government has fought an effort to open an overdose prevention center in Philadelphia<\/a>, with the Biden administration arguing that the facilities violate federal law. Earlier this month, the court in that case granted the Justice Department\u2019s motion to dismiss a challenge from organizers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u00a0rejected a request to that hear that case<\/a>\u00a0in October 2021.<\/p>\n

DOJ first blocked the Philadelphia nonprofit from opening the overdose prevention center under the Trump administration. Supporters hoped the department would cede the issue under President Joe Biden, who has promoted harm reduction policies as an alternative to criminalization, but the parties could not reach an agreement to allow the facility to open despite months of \u201cgood faith\u201d negotiations.<\/p>\n

Congressional researchers have highlighted\u00a0the \u201cuncertainty\u201d of the federal government\u2019s position<\/a>\u00a0on such facilities, pointing out last November that lawmakers could temporarily resolve the issue by advancing an amendment modeled after the one that has allowed medical marijuana laws to be implemented without Justice Department interference.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Director Nora Volkow has\u00a0tacitly endorsed the idea of authorizing safe consumption sites<\/a>, arguing that evidence has effectively demonstrated that the facilities can prevent overdose deaths.<\/p>\n

Volkow declined to say specifically what she believes should happen with the ongoing lawsuit, but she said safe consumption sites that have been the subject of research \u201chave shown that it has saved a significant [percentage of] patients from overdosing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rahul Gupta, the White House drug czar, has said the Biden administration is\u00a0reviewing broader drug policy harm reduction proposals<\/a>, including the authorization of supervised consumption sites, and he went so far as to suggest possible decriminalization.<\/p>\n

The National Institutes of Health (NIH)\u00a0put out a pair of requests for applications<\/a>\u00a0in December 2021 to investigate how safe consumption sites and other harm reduction policies could help address the drug crisis.<\/p>\n

Gupta, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), has said it\u2019s critical to explore \u201cany and every option\u201d to reduce overdose deaths, which\u00a0could include allowing safe consumption sites<\/a>\u00a0for illegal substances if the evidence supports their efficacy.<\/p>\n

\n

Justice Department Is Investigating Marijuana-Related Businesses Over COVID Relief Loans, Industry Sources Say<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Image courtesy of Dima Solomin<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

The post Vermont Senate Panel Previews Amendment Narrowing House-Passed Safe Drug Consumption Site Bill To Single Facility<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: Vermont Senate Panel Previews Amendment Narrowing House-Passed Safe Drug Consumption Site Bill To Single Facility<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Vermont Senate panel this week discussed planned changes to a House-passed bill that would, in its current form, create and fund two overdose prevention centers in the state, where people could use currently prohibited substances in a medically supervised environment\u2014part of a pilot program aimed at quelling the ongoingContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[81,126],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74113"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74113"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74113\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":74114,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74113\/revisions\/74114"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74113"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74113"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74113"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}