CORRESPONDENCE - 60B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From:Soma Snakeoil <somasnakeoil@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 6:36 PM To:eComment Subject:Syringe Exchange Access Ordinance My name is Natasha Vanderhoof. I work directly on the street with the unhoused community with my organization that has projects in multiple cities, including Santa Ana. I am a former drug user and formerly unhoused. Reading the extensive proposal directed at shutting down syringe service providers in your area all I see is flawed logic. You know you can’t deter people from accessing clean syringes from hospitals and pharmacies, because State law clearly defines that access. There will still be needles. There will be ODs at a higher proportion. If you succeed, there just simply won’t be the resources to keep your public spaces clean, to manage the dead bodies you’ll be picking up in the streets, or the increased budget your hospitals will be spending on managing the spread of HIV and HCV. You mentioned there are 50 SSPs in the State of California. That’s because it works. Why would your community be different? Why would you want to deny your citizens resources? There is funding for SSP initiatives that brings money into your community. You are not cleaning up your community. You are increasing the financial and capacity burden on your morgue, your healthcare workers and your police. Harm reduction services are preventive measures. Harm reduction groups stand in a gap that helps to keep not just drug users, but also the rest of society safe. Why not collaborate with SSPs to find a better way and discuss best practices? Should we stop health care because it’s not perfect? No, we seek to find a better way to make sure the greater good is served. Harm reduction is part of the picture of the greater good. The Trump administration has a plan to combat the HIV epidemic that includes harm reduction programs. Not only is this choice you’re making divergent from government efforts on a State level, it also goes against thinking on a Federal level. What do you think that will mean for funding in your community?  The U.S. government spends $20 billion in annual direct health expenditures for HIV prevention and care.  There is a real risk of an HIV resurgence due to several factors, including trends in injection drug use; HIV-related stigma; homophobia; lack of access to HIV prevention, testing, and treatment; and a lack of awareness that HIV remains a significant public health threat. 1