XPost: ca.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: zinn@reno.us   
      
   California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed a bill that would have   
   allowed major cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco to set up   
   facilities where people could consume drugs under supervision.   
      
   Explaining his reason, the Democratic governor said the unlimited number   
   of safe injection sites that SB 57 would authorize "could induce a world   
   of unintended consequences."   
      
   Newsom conceded such facilities would be helpful but worried that "if done   
   without a strong plan, they could work against this purpose. ... Worsening   
   drug consumption challenges in these areas is not a risk we can take."   
      
   Proponents wanted to give people who already use drugs a place to inject   
   them while trained staff stand by to help if they suffer accidental   
   overdoses. But opponents argued that the move would in effect have   
   condoned the use of dangerous drugs.   
      
   MOTHERS WHO LOST CHILDREN TO FENTANYL POISONINGS DEMAND ACTION ON DRUG   
   CRISIS: ‘MOST SERIOUS ISSUE' US FACES   
      
   State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco who authored the   
   bill, called Newsom’s veto "tragic" and "a huge lost opportunity."   
      
   "Sad day for CA’s fight against overdose deaths," Wiener said in a   
   statement.   
      
      
   San Francisco Mayor London Breed also called Newsom’s veto "disappointing"   
   but vowed "we aren’t giving up."   
      
   "Overdose prevention programs save lives and help connect people to   
   treatment and services," she tweeted.   
      
   WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCES FUNDING FOR YOUTH SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMS TO TACKLE   
   'OVERDOSE EPIDEMIC'   
      
   The veto left Republican leaders in the Legislature in the rare position   
   of praising Newsom, a Democrat.   
      
   "People struggling with addiction need help, not a legal place to shoot   
   up," said Senate GOP Leader Scott Wilk, whose members had urged a veto in   
   a letter to Newsom.   
      
   "We need to stop enabling criminal acts," added Assembly Republican Leader   
   James Gallagher, who had sent his own letter. "Instead, we should promote   
   policies that will empower people to safely get off the streets and   
   reintegrate into our communities."   
      
   FATHER OF SON LOST TO FENTANYL: 'UNBELIEVABLE' SEIZURES OF ILLICIT DRUGS   
   AT SOUTHERN BORDER   
      
   Tracy McCray, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association,   
   also praised Newsom for blocking what she said would have been "sanctioned   
   drug dens ... creating misery and chaos for the residents and businesses   
   forced to be next to these sites."   
      
   SB 57 was one of the most watched and most controversial measures of this   
   legislative session. The proposal came amid a spike in overdose deaths   
   amid a national opioid crisis.   
      
   Newsom had previously said he was open to the idea. But his decision comes   
   as he faces increased national scrutiny as he is perceived as a possible   
   presidential contender, though he has frequently denied any interest in   
   running.   
      
   Newsom ordered his secretary of Health and Human Services to meet with   
   city and county officials to discuss standards and best practices, and   
   said he remains open to the concept once they come back to lawmakers with   
   recommendations for how the sites could be run safely.   
      
   Nationwide, drug overdose deaths increased 28.5% to more than 100,000   
   during the 12-month period ending in April 2021 over the same period a   
   year earlier, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and   
   Prevention, including about 10,000 Californians.   
      
   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/californias-newsom-vetoes-bill-would-   
   have-allowed-legal-drug-injection-sites   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)