Philadelphia Could Become the First US City With a Safe Injection Site. Finally.

“No one here condones or supports illegal drug use in any way. We want people saddled with drug addiction to get help.”

Richard Chenery injects heroin he bought on the street at the Insite safe injection clinic in Vancouver.Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Tuesday, Philadelphia took a step towards becoming the first city in the country with a supervised injection facility—a controversial but evidence-based initiative that many say could be key to stemming the rising tide of opioid overdoses.

City officials announced that it would allow the sites, also known as “safe consumption facilities,” within the city limits, allowing drug users a clean, safe space to inject illicit drugs. The decision is not without controversy. While drug policy researchers point to studies showing that existing safe injection facilities (SIFs)—there are more than 100 in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and elsewhere—reduce drug overdoses, critics say the sites will enable drug use.

“No one here condones or supports illegal drug use in any way,” assured Philadelphia public health commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley, adding that SIFs are just one of many components of the city’s overdose prevention strategy. “We want people saddled with drug addiction to get help.”

SIFs are a prime example of what’s called harm reduction, or the idea of making drug use safer so that eventually, users seek treatment. (Needle exchanges, which provide clean injection supplies, and the distribution of naloxone, the overdose reversal drug, are others.) Each SIF looks different, but a typical facility is located in a neighborhood with concentrated drug use and consists of hygienic space for users to shoot up, clean needles and other injection supplies, access to naloxone, and supervision from nurses or others with medical training. Some sites also have a place for users to spend time as they’re coming down from the drug’s effects. 

There have been hundreds of studies on the efficacy of SIFs, many of them on Vancouver’s Insite facility—the first such site in North America, where roughly 5,000 overdoses have been reversed since the clinic was founded in 2003. They’ve found that not only do SIFs reduce overdose deaths, but they reduce the transmission of infectious diseases like HIV and hepatitis C, increase access to addiction treatment, and save cities money in hospital and prison costs. 

SIF proponents also argue that they reduce the publicity of drug use and its ripple effects. “There’s a terrific public nuisance benefit,” says Dan Ciccarone, an epidemiologist at University of California-San Francisco who studies the opioid epidemic. “You don’t have folks injecting on the streets or overdosed in front of businesses. It decreases defecation, it decreases discarded syringes, it decreases public sleeping and slumping and stuff like that.”

No US city has a SIF yet, but support is moving mainstream: Last year, the American Medical Association came out in favor of piloting the facilities in the United States. Seattle’s city council allocated $1.3 million for a site in November, and policymakers in many other cities—including San Francisco, Denver, and New York—have expressed support, but none have concrete plans to open facilities. That’s partly because SIFs aren’t particularly intuitive: San Francisco’s late mayor Ed Lee described a similar proposal as a “city-funded shelter” for residents to “literally destroy their bodies and their minds.” And then there’s the fear of law enforcement, particularly under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has taken a tough-on-crime approach to the epidemic so far. As Ciccarone put it, “The question is, ‘Will the feds come in and bust it?'” (For more on SIFs, check out my colleague Amy Thomson’s explainer.)

Philadelphia has an estimated 70,000 heroin users and one of the highest overdose rates of any city in the country. The city itself won’t operate the facilities, but rather it is soliciting operators interested in setting up the sites. A recent report conducted on behalf of the city’s health commissioner estimates that a SIF could prevent more than 70 overdose deaths a year, and could save millions of dollars.

“There’s a race going on and Philly just got to the front,” said Ciccarone. “As soon as one happens, you’re going to see a dozen.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate