facebook-pixel

Letter: Reducing overdose deaths should be a priority, but the Legislature keeps avoiding potential solutions

FILE - This photo provided by the U.S. Attorneys Office for Utah and introduced as evidence in a 2019 trial shows fentanyl-laced fake oxycodone pills collected during an investigation. In a resumption of a brutal trend, nearly 71,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2019 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a new record high that predates the COVID-19 crisis. The numbers were driven by fentanyl and similar synthetic opioids, which accounted for 36,500 overdose deaths. (U.S. Attorneys Office for Utah via AP)

The aim of HB146, Overdose Prevention Sites, was to create a workgroup to “study harm-reduction oriented strategies to reduce overdose injuries and deaths.” This bill was recently struck down and was not passed, which is quite saddening and disappointing.

In 2017, Utah had 650 overdose deaths, and in 2018 we had another 624 overdose deaths. In the United States in 2018, there were a total of 67,367 overdose deaths. According to the CDC, Utah has continued to fall in the highest category possible for percentage of overdose deaths compared to our population since at least 2014. However, despite this staggering problem in our state, our lawmakers refuse to even allow for discussions about how to save lives on a potentially massive scale, and thus have decided not to pass this piece of legislation.

In a 2017 article written by Mary Clare Kennedy, MA, and Thomas Kerr, PhD, titled “Overdose Prevention in the United States: A Call for Supervised Injection Sites,” the authors reference the Supervised Injection Site (SIS) created in Vancouver, Canada in 2003. Following the creation of this SIS, there was a roughly 35% reduction in overdose deaths in the surrounding neighborhood, as well as a reduction in syringe sharing, and an increase in those who sought treatment.

Knowing that there are so many positive aspects to SIS, why would our lawmakers choose not to pass this piece of legislation? This question remains unanswered; however, it may be due to an attitude similar to that of Republican Rep. Brady Brammer. When questioned about why we would limit discussions that could be had after gathering data and information about other procedures that are already out, he indicated that, “it seems too prescriptive” and signaled where they wanted to go with the data. It seems that he is willing to allow for a conversation to happen, but is not allowing for the actions, which have been shown to save lives, to follow the conversation.

Harlee Smith, Tooele

Submit a letter to the editor

By Harlee Smith | The Public Forum