On Monday, Governor Gavin Newsom of California used his veto power over a piece of legislation that, if passed, would have authorised some towns in the state to launch supervised drug injection sites as part of a pilot programme designed to stop the rising tide of deadly overdoses.
Mr. Newsom continued by saying that he was concerned about “a world of unexpected consequences” that would be the outcome of allowing an infinite number of sites. He sent instructions to the state’s secretary of health and human services, instructing them to develop statewide operating guidelines for such institutions in collaboration with local authorities.
The most populous state in the country would have become the site of the nation’s largest experiment with supervised injection sites if the proposal had been approved. These sites would have allowed people to inject illegal drugs while being watched by staff members who have been trained to administer antidotes in the event of an overdose.
When the measure was finally passed earlier this month by the state legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, it earned a less number of votes in favour than what would have been required to overcome a veto.
As a potential indicator of the governor’s political aspirations outside of California, the public paid great attention to the choice he made over whether or not to sign or veto the law.
As an ardent advocate of popular progressive issues like abortion rights and gun control, Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, has developed a national presence for himself as a prominent public figure. However, political watchers believed that he would be reluctant to sign the injection-site measure, which, if it had became law, might have provided significant ammunition for his conservative detractors. If the bill had been signed into law, it would have required the president’s signature to make it a law.
The synthetic opioid fentanyl, according to proponents of the measure, including local elected officials, was the driving force behind the worst overdose crisis in the history of the United States, a crisis that has become closely intertwined with the catastrophic housing emergency in the state of California. They said that the measure presented Mr. Newsom with the opportunity to save thousands of lives while simultaneously reducing the financial burden placed on taxpayers by the costs of many trips in ambulances and visits to emergency rooms.
The proposal’s opponents, who included Republican state politicians and several law enforcement agencies, said that the establishment of the sites would promote the use of illegal drugs while not mandating that users seek treatment. Jerry Brown, Mr. Newsom’s predecessor and a fellow Democrat, used his veto power on a measure that was quite similar to this one in 2018, stating that the sites would not decrease drug use if there was no necessity for treatment.
California has been on the sidelines for many years while other sections of the nation took the initiative on the issue. Late in 2017, New York City became the first municipality in the United States to launch supervised drug injection facilities; in April 2018, Rhode Island became the first state in the US to make such facilities lawful throughout the whole state. Cities as diverse as Seattle and Philadelphia are making preparations to launch supervised injection facilities. The nonprofit organisation that was going to build the Philadelphia centre was going to be sued by the Trump administration, but officials from the Biden administration are now contemplating a settlement of the lawsuit, which signals receptivity to the notion on the federal level.
Scott Wiener, the legislator from California who authored the measure that Governor Newsom rejected on Monday, said that it might be unsettling for the governor to watch the Biden administration promote a more progressive drug policy than his very liberal home state of California. After successfully fending off a recall effort in 2021, Mr. Newsom is now seeking re-election this year and is predicted to do quite well in the race. Because of his powerful position, he is able to dedicate a greater amount of time and money to addressing other concerns.
When he ran advertisements in Florida and Texas that were critical of the Republican governors of both states, it sparked rumours that he was considering a run for the presidency. After Roe v. Wade was reversed, Mr. Newsom issued a “wake-up call” to his own party about the eroding of rights at the hands of a more disciplined and better-organized G.O.P. After Roe v. Wade was overruled, Mr. Newsom issued a “wake-up call” to his own party about the eroding of rights
Nearly two-thirds of California voters, according to the survey that was published by the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies the week before last, did not want President Biden to pursue a second term in office. Mr. Newsom and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who came in first place in California’s primary for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, were deadlocked as the leading contenders to replace the president on the ticket in the event that he decided not to run. Third place went to Californian and future Vice President candidate Kamala Harris.
