My background is that I am a retired state and internationally certified addictions counselor who retired last year after 30 years in the field. Dan Morhaim (“Supervised drug use sites prevent overdose deaths | READER COMMENTARY,” Dec. 19) states that the proposed legislation for supervised drug use sites does not condone drug use. He holds that it encourages people to get into treatment. Really? Many to most of the people who are actively using opioids these days have had numerous prior treatment engagements but have all returned to active use. Those people who do go back to treatment will get no new information there. I maintain that those sites, if opened, would only enable continuing use with the collateral repercussions, which will be implicitly accepted by the harm reduction supporters.

I have some questions about Dan Morhaim’s note to The Baltimore Sun about this topic and some comments. Mr. Morhaim wrote “no taxpayer dollars would be involved in these programs.” Really? Then, where exactly, would the funding be coming from? I say this to say that operations like a supervised drug use site would cost a minimum of $1.5 million dollars per year to operate just one such site. A nurse would have to be on site 24/7/365 because people use dope all day, all night, and all of the time. Nurses cost a minimum of $40/hour and maybe more. That’s roughly $1,000 per day for one nurse alone. All nurses performing medical interventions like NARCAN must be supervised by medical doctors to sign off on such an operation where medication is being dispensed.

The physician signing off on the site would cost about the same as the nurse for about 4 hours per day. We are already up to nearly $700,000 and we haven’t factored in security, which would be a mandatory 24/7/365 as well. This doesn’t even mention the everyday operating expenses like utilities, hospital level sanitation, supplies, etc. With the severity of the opioid crisis as it is, probably 10 sites (minimum) would be required to even scratch the surface of this problem. Do all of the organizations mentioned by Mr. Morhaim in his piece that support the bill will also support these sites with their own dollars? That part seemed ambiguous to this writer. So if the taxpayers aren’t paying for this, who is?

If these sites spring up all over the greater Baltimore area, where would they be located? Most Baltimore City addicts that are IV drug users will not have their own transportation or resources to reach one of these sites, nor will they wait 30 minutes or more to inject drugs in a supervised site. Also, what happens to neighborhoods where these sites are placed? Property crimes, open air drug markets, and violence will most definitely follow. What about the taxpayers in those neighborhoods? They will be harmed big time! Does the harm reduction faction ever even consider the victims of property crimes and worse caused by users for the next $10? I ask Mr. Morhaim and all of the other harm reduction enthusiasts this question: Would you want using addicts and the atmosphere they create shuffling in and out of your neighborhood 24/7/365 as your neighborhood norm?

All of this alleged “harm reduction” will only give using “strung out” addicts the implicit permission to stay “strung out” and to continue on their path to self-destruction. The actual harm will then be meted out on neighborhoods and areas which will be deluged by an avalanche of users who have to steal or rob in order to avoid withdrawal. Opioid withdrawal is never life-threatening!

All of the laymen also must be reminded that all abstinence-based drug treatment programs are merely an introduction to recovery, and are temporary. Recovery programs are day by day for the rest of time and must be permanent.

Treatment is not recovery!

— George Hammerbacher, Baltimore