There I was on the laboratory floor, painstakingly searching for a tiny round black ball. Crouched down, trying not to move as I felt around centimeter by centimeter, hoping to feel it even if I couldn’t see it. Searching next to me, a renowned scientist — at that moment, a panicked, renowned scientist — who would have hell to pay if we couldn’t find the minuscule ball. We did. Moments earlier, I’d been interviewing him for ABC News 2020 about his important experiment trying to synthesize THC, the naturally occurring component in marijuana plants. This was about 20 years ago, and the little black ball was a pill — lab-produced THC. Under the federal grant for his study, he had to account for every one of those marijuana pills because even though they were manufactured, marijuana was an illegal substance.
I’ve been thinking a lot about my experience with the scientist in that lab in light of the widening local and national debate about safe injection sites. Also known as safe consumption sites, these spaces would employ medical personnel to watch, and intervene if necessary, while users inject drugs. In other countries like Australia, Denmark, Spain and Canada, safe consumption sites have been successful in drastically reducing — sometimes eliminating — overdoses. But many summarily reject this approach to substance abuse, saying it encourages usage, contributes to addiction and also violates federal law. Back when I interviewed the scientist, it was also illegal for sick people to buy the marijuana plants which they used in mostly self-treatment regimens for conditions like glaucoma, pain, cancer, and epilepsy. And many scientists and others dismissed the idea of marijuana as medicine despite the growing number of patients who found relief or remission from their illnesses. Times change.
A recent decision may lift the legal barrier for the US cities proposing to set up pilot programs for safe consumption sites. U.S. District Judge Gerald McHugh ruled that a Philadelphia nonprofit’s proposal for a safe consumption site is not against federal law. His ruling is in direct opposition to the U.S. Justice Department and U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Andrew Lelling, who has promised federal enforcement if one is opened in the state. But on a popular podcast, Suffolk County District Attorney Rachel Rollins declared she’ll fight Lelling on this, saying, “If we ... don’t try different things, we’re going to be stagnant.” Gov. Charlie Baker remains opposed to a supervised site, even though state commission recommended at least one pilot program. Despite the official opposition, Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone is moving ahead with plans to open a site in his city next year, saying, “We need to be bold to take on an epidemic.” Indeed, we do. And as I’ve seen, what was once considered fringe therapy is now accepted treatment.
The opioid epidemic continues to ravage families and communities. Sure, more treatment facilities and programs for opioid users are paramount in the fight against the epidemic. But it is not enough for all who need care now, and it is too little too late for the thousands who’ve died. If there is a way to change that — even for a few — isn’t it worth a try?
