Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
Could California be the first state to legalize drug injection sites?

California lawmakers may soon vote to allow for the creation of legal injection sites for IV and other drug users. The bill has passed the Assembly and is awaiting a vote in the Senate before the legislative session ends in a couple of weeks.
The measure, AB 186, would pave the way to set up these drug use sites in certain areas, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. Local government would have to give the OK to private groups that wanted to create them.
Each site would require a clean space supervised by a health care professional. It would have to be equipped with hypodermic needles, the overdose reversal drug naloxone and referrals to drug treatment.
The approach aims to prevent overdoses and the spread of HIV, Hepatitis C and other infections associated with IV drug use.
"If we treat people humanely, if they’re coming in and they’re forming a relationship, we are much more likely to treat those abscesses, much more likely to catch early rates of infection, much more likely to save lives," said Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton), the bill’s author.
"The ultimate goal is to get people off of drugs," she said. "And to have this as one more entry into treatment."
Eggman tried to pass a similar bill last year, but it got little traction. She says more lawmakers are receptive to the idea now because of increased recognition of the national opioid epidemic, which claimed nearly 2,000 lives in California last year.
Bill Remak, CEO of the California Hepatitis C Task Force, says harm reduction programs that get clean syringes into the hands of drug users may not entirely solve addiction, "but it mitigates much of the harm that might occur in the community."
"It’s a baby step, but it’s a very effective one," he said.
In June, the American Medical Association endorsed the idea of supervised injection facilities. It describes the approach as a way to mitigate the dangers posed by drug use.
Mark Casanova, executive director of Homeless Health Care of Los Angeles, says he’s excited about the bill’s potential.
"Legally we can’t do it," he said. "We would do it for sure if legislation passes and it gives us an opportunity to operate programming where my staff isn’t going to get arrested."
Homeless Health Care staff say they have seen first-hand that harm prevention approaches can work. They say the group's needle exchange program has decreased transmission of HIV and hepatitis C, and they’re optimistic that their overdose prevention training will prevent deaths.
Several law enforcement groups oppose Eggman's bill. They argue that it would promote crime, that those participating in the programs would be "attractive targets for other criminals who would take advantage of the clusters of impaired victims," according to a Senate Rules Committee analysis of AB 186.
Critics say the bill "would further create conflict between federal and state law, creating government-sanctioned drug dens with no requirement that participants enter treatment," the analysis says. Opponents also say "the provision prohibiting prosecution of those involved with the safer consumption programs is too broad, which could limit law enforcement’s ability to arrest individuals for drug possession who are nowhere near a program."
Governor Brown has not indicated whether he would sign the bill.
If passed, the measure would expire after five years. It also would require entities that establish supervised drug consumption sites to report data about their usage.
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
After rising for years, the number of residential installations in the city of Los Angeles began to drop in 2023. The city isn’t subject to recent changes in state incentives, but other factors may be contributing to the decline.
-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.