Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240903213748/https://www.guelphtoday.com/letters-to-the-editor/letter-shutting-down-supervised-consumption-sites-will-solve-nothing-9466227

LETTER: Shutting down supervised consumption sites will solve nothing

'There will be more needles on the ground that haven’t been properly disposed of. There will be more incidents of people being under the influence of drugs in public places,' a reader writes

GuelphToday received the following letter about our article, Province orders Guelph's supervised consumption site closed by March.

Guelph Today readers might know me from my articles in the Then and Now column about Guelph’s history. However, after seeing a protest that took place downtown concerning the provincial government’s ban on supervised drug consumption sites, I feel compelled to say something about a present-day issue that will certainly have future implications.

A few years ago, someone very close to my family died because of drugs. For privacy reasons I won’t use his real name, so let’s just call him John. The street drug that killed him was fentanyl. It was not injected, but John was nonetheless a victim of the opioid epidemic that has taken so many other lives. Personal problems had led to John’s drug use and eventual addiction. He tried to get free of it, but couldn’t. He needed professional help and he tried to get it.

Unfortunately for him, there was a waiting list of more than a year for the government sponsored program. Treatment at a private clinic was very expensive and beyond his financial means. And so one night, when he was alone in his room, the fentanyl took him away, forever. The pain of that loss is still with us, though.

At the time of John’s very untimely death, and quite often since, I have wondered if he might have been saved if only professional help had been more accessible. What if he’d been able to get into a program as readily as people access care for other health problems?

Some politicians – and many of their supporters – will say, well, there just isn’t any money for those programs. And yet, there are people who have argued that such programs not only save lives, but also taxpayers’ money because, among other financial benefits, over time they reduce the enormous costs of law enforcement by reducing drug-related crime. Meanwhile, governments apparently can afford to spend millions of dollars on populist policies like putting alcohol in corner stores.

One cannot help but wonder if the decision to ban supervised drug consumption sites has more to do with populist politics than anything else, because it seems to follow a pattern. During the Covid pandemic we saw politicians pander to anti-vaxxers in what was a flagrant abandonment of responsibility. That was a dangerous and disgraceful move that is still causing problems; note the resurgence of such vaccine-preventable illnesses as polio, measles and whooping cough. The same politicians now denounce the supervised consumption sites in rants that include such terms as “drug dens”, “woke” and “whacko,” as well as derogatory names for medical experts – a reckless and irresponsible use of loaded rhetoric that has come to be associated with the tactic called rage-farming. One would suspect that those politicians are more interested in saying whatever they think will resonate with their voter base than in doing the actual difficult job of dealing with a major health problem.

Shutting down the supervised consumption sites will solve nothing. There will be more needles on the ground that haven’t been properly disposed of. There will be more incidents of people being under the influence of drugs in public places. There will be fewer places where people in the grip of addiction can get help. And for those who overdose or fall victim to a lethal batch, there will be no help at hand, and they will die. Like John.

Goods Exchange Weekend runs Friday at 5 p.m. to Monday at 7 p.m.

Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240830135608/https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/what-guelph-council-said-before-voting-on-public-space-use-bylaw-9452677

What Guelph council said before voting on public space use bylaw

Three were against, 10 in favour during this 'soup of confusion' debate

At the end of an hours-long session on Wednesday night, city council voted in favour of passing the public space use bylaw.

The bylaw has been highly controversial since it was first presented to council in February, and would dictate where encampments and temporary structures can and can’t be to address public spaces with competing use – the general public and those living in encampments.

Throughout the meeting, hours worth of delegates argued the bylaw was essential due to environmental degredation, open drug use, feeling unsafe in public spaces, and business loss, while others argued the bylaw would carry negative implications for those unhoused.

Here is what city council members had to say. Mayor Cam Guthrie

Mayor Cam Guthrie, who called the special meeting to vote on the bylaw, voted in favour.

He said stories from the delegates “completely validated” his reasoning to do so, and that he doesn’t need to justify his intentions and desire to help people – “I’m comfortable in myself.”

“I think that the bylaw, the way it’s been crafted with our professional staff, has been laid out in a way that actually does give some regulation.”

He said it should come as no surprise that he supports the bylaw.

“I want to have everyone healthy and safe in our community, and I think my job as the mayor is to try to bring things forward and try to gather as much unity around these types of issues for our society, for our city to thrive.” Coun. Erin Caton

Coun. Erin Caton voted against the bylaw, saying policing the location of encampments “is a waste of taxpayer money and tax resources.”

“Segregating the living spaces of the unhoused doesn’t address the issue of open drug use, waste, mental health episodes,” they said, adding that a better use of resources would be for accessible public toilets, encampment waste pick up and safe drug waste disposal, and to add more funds to supportive housing.

“We are in a strong mayor-mandated budget crunch for the next year, we need to think logically and consider the real value and implications of enforcing this bylaw.

“It’s easy to see why this bylaw feels like an attack on homelessness with moving people farther from services, which is the opposite of what our consultants chose to do for our unhoused neighbours.”

Caton also highlighted the lack of lived experience and accessibility consultation, saying it doesn’t speak well to the intention of the bylaw, and urged other councillors to vote against it.

“We need to put our energy into supportive services which alleviate stress, rather than restrictions that breed resentment.” Coun. Dan Gibson

Coun. Dan Gibson said he came into the meeting with an open mind, wanting to listen to what the delegates had to say.

He said he sympathizes with downtown business owners and patrons, as well as those living rough who want to stay close to essential services, and said the community did a good job at covering both sides of the argument.

He personally decided it was time to regulate public space over the summer, after being sent a picture of a tent next to a children’s baseball bench. The field had been rented by the team; he called the bylaw office and police in advance of the game but was told they couldn’t do anything because there was no bylaw saying a tent couldn’t be erected there.

“There was no judgement that day. The parents who came put on their best face; there was no back and forth between the patrons who had set up the tent.”

But they had speakers blaring, people cheering, children around, “and then right in the middle of the entire environment was a tent, and it wasn’t moving.”

“It’s not an appropriate occurrence to have children trying to play a baseball game with a tent next door to their bench.”

He emphasized he feels council isn’t saying encampments can’t or shouldn’t exist, but that they need to be “in an appropriate location.”

“We’re not saying no, we’re saying where. And I think that’s important context.” Coun. Rodrigo Goller

Besides asking social services administrator Luisa Artuso about the number of shelter beds and if people are people turned away, Goller did not comment on the bylaw. He voted in favour. Coun. Carly Klassen

Coun. Carly Klassen did not speak much either, but brought forward a motion for the bylaw to specifically cover the entirety of St. George’s Square and Market Square as sensitive public areas.

At the end, she thanked the delegates, and noted that “Just because you may not have had a negative experience with encampments, doesn’t mean that it’s not very real for others.”

Klassen voted in favour. Coun. Phil Allt

Coun. Phil Allt, who voted against, said the bylaw is ultimately a zoning bylaw that “fails on a fundamental level.”

“It zones where and when tents can be erected, and because of that, I cannot support it.”

“It will disappoint those wanting downtown cleanup and tent dwellers to get out of dodge. It does not even address people sleeping on the streets in sleeping bags, only in tents.”

He said come Oct. 1, when the bylaw is set to come into force, we will not see any changes of real significance.

“We won’t see the crowds of homeless or poor people leaving downtown. Little has been stated as well about the permissiveness of this bylaw (that) allows everyone to tent in zoned areas in Guelph parks, on city land.”

“We’re establishing an expectation that cannot be delivered, that we’re going to solve the problems downtown and within the community. This doesn’t solve people hanging around downtown, it doesn’t solve IV drug use. It doesn’t address downtown decay,” he said. “We cannot arrest ourselves out of poverty.” Coun. Michele Richardson

During the meeting Coun. Michele Richardson questioned how the 10-metre distance from schools and childcare centres, when some delegates indicated the distance wasn’t far enough. Besides that, she didn’t speak much, but voted in favour. Coun. Christine Billings

Coun. Christine Billings voted in favour of the bylaw.

She didn’t comment besides noting she would appreciate seeing the map of permissible and non-permissible areas by the Sept. 10 meeting, which is when the bylaw to put Wednesday's decision into force will be voted on. Coun. Linda Busuttil

Coun. Linda Busuttil said passing the bylaw was a bitter pill to swallow, and that the bylaw places undue pressure and risk to vulnerable community members when it comes to their safety and security.

“As a councillor, I have the authority to have a vote and a say in a bylaw, but I also have a responsibility around human rights, and considering all members of the community as a whole equally, including whether there is a bigger impact on one part of the community versus another. And in my view, there is.”

Voting against the bylaw, she said it’s simply rearranging people, and questioned how those living encampments would know when a space is booked, and whether the bylaw takes a human rights-based approach that “doesn’t further contribute to stigma or isolation of individuals.”

“We are rearranging people. And I bet you a silver dollar that we will be back here again with the same issue around public spaces. It’s going to be a revolving door around this issue. I will not be supporting this.”

Busuttil also questioned whether there would be arrests or charges down the line if people don’t comply, and said it’s unrealistic that service agencies will be able to support people in all the permissible areas. Coun. Leanne Caron

Coun. Leanne Caron said this is the one of the hardest decisions she’s ever had to make in her nearly two decades on city council, “because the regulation of the use of public space is so deeply personal for so many.”

“But tonight it’s clear to me that everyone in the gallery, everyone who spoke… that we care very deeply about all citizens.”

She said everyone deserves to live in dignity and that unhoused people need direct access to resources and facilities.

“I think we can all agree that our provincial and federal governments have failed us miserably” in terms of low-income and supportive housing, mental health and addiction supports.

“Until recently, my compassion, my history and humanity, would have led me to reject the proposed bylaw. But it is so much more complex than that.”

Even while she was speaking near the end of the meeting, she said she was unsure.

“No matter what happens, whatever the outcome of the vote is tonight, we still have a lot more work to do. We need to make sure that basic needs are met wherever people are living.

“I’m trying to stick to the stated purpose of the bylaw, but it’s very difficult to remove it from the context of those who are going to be impacted the most by the decision to make tonight.”

But ultimately, she voted in favour.

“We as a council, we regulate all kinds of things. Parking, running of dogs at large without leashes… the regulation of the use of public space to me is something that every city would normally have,” she said. Coun. Cathy Downer

Coun. Cathy Downer, likewise, said the decision was also one of the most difficult she’s had to make.

“I think we are a lot of passionate voices tonight. I have to agree that this is not going to solve homelessness.”

“The bylaw, from my perspective, it doesn’t solve those things, but it can address some of the conflicting uses that we have around programmable space.”

“If you’re in a place that’s not permissible, we will help you,” and she hopes it doesn’t lead to anything beyond trespass notices for the unhoused.

“I am supportive of it. It does deal with the temporary structures in the downtown.”

She did express interest in ensuring people living in prohibited areas are helped – given assistance with moving to areas they’re allowed in and connected to necessary services. Coun. Ken Yee Chew

For Coun. Ken Yee Chew, the evening made it clear everyone was confused.

Yee Chew said he got a sense from the delegations and discussion “that we’re all coming from various advocacy viewpoints where we’re stressing different needs that are culminating to this point in time,” he said. “It just seems like we’re in a soup of confusion.”

“Really, at the heart of what we’re trying to discuss today is implementing a bylaw that can help us … better interact and engage with folks on the ground. We are not criminalizing individuals.”

He feels council wasn't criminalizing individuals, and that the community needs to be unified on this, “even though the convictions that we hold are so true in our hearts.”

“This is not a solution whatsoever, but it is a way in which we can better aid the situation… while we wait on the province and federal government.”

While he voted in favour of the bylaw, he wanted to make it clear the regulations aren't a solution to the many concerns delegates brought up, like violence, open drug use, loss of business and more. Dominique O’Rourke

Coun. Dominique O’Rourke believes the bylaw will help “guide people to place where they will be less stigmatized,” and that it is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to addressing homelessness and other related issues.

“I’m concerned that people believe the public use bylaw will magically (solve) the issues we’re facing,” she said, agreeing with Gibson that it’s not perfect.

“But it does help to ensure public spaces can be enjoyed by all residents. It does create more safety with distances from train tracks and rivers. It does protect environmentally sensitive areas. It does allow us as a city to guide unsheltered people to a place where they can be and to be clear with members of the public that those folks are allowed to be there.”

She, too, said they are not criminalizing unhoused people, and the city is actively exploring solutions like tiny homes and incentives for affordable housing.

“The city and its partners through the health and housing symposium are breaking down silos between health and housing that we’ve never done before. Every meeting is a housing meeting right now.

“So many letters that we received are calling for better funding for community health services and increasing affordable housing. We absolutely echo that. Tonight is one piece, but there are many other pieces that have to come before and that are coming now.”

Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240830134111/https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/city-to-kick-off-safe-semester-with-road-closures-and-more-9441542

City to kick off Safe Semester with road closures and more

Temporary downtown road closures ahead as university students return to school

The City of Guelph is kicking off its annual Safe Semester next week as thousands of university students are expected to return.

From Sept. 5 to Sept. 7, Macdonell and Wyndham streets will be closed from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. After that, the closures will continue each Friday and Saturday night throughout September.

Since the school year brings a higher volume of pedestrians downtown, the goal of closing the streets during evening hours on weekends "allows everyone to enjoy Guelph's downtown nightlife safely," a notice on the city's website states.

Macdonell Street will be closed between the Macdonell parking lot and the West Parkade, and Wyndham Street will be closed between Carden Street and Cork Street.

No on-street parking is allowed in those areas during the closures between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. Drivers are encouraged to park in available parking lots, as any cars parked on closed streets during this time will be towed at the owner's expense.

Accessible washrooms will also be set up at the parking lot on 28 Macdonell St.

Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240829145650/https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/council-approves-controversial-public-space-use-draft-bylaw-9449602

Council approves controversial public space use draft bylaw

Bylaw, which will dictate where encampments can and cannot be, will return for final approval in September

Guelph city council is moving forward with a controversial bylaw that would restrict homeless encampments on city property.

After a seven-and-a-half-hour meeting with an hour-long in-camera legal discussion, five hours' of hearing from 45 delegations, and a protest beforehand, council voted 10-3 in favour of the draft bylaw.

The bylaw would ban encampments in spaces with competing public use during daytime hours, establish separation distances between encampments and school properties, childcare centres, railways, waterways and cemeteries. This also includes spaces used by pets, children, sidewalks, pathways and recreational trails for instance.

Building supplies, water or refuse could not be gathered and stored on city property unless kept inside a permissible temporary structure.

In areas where encampments are permitted, up to five structures or shelters would be allowed, though they must be distanced from other encampment groupings and school or childcare centres.

Staff noted there would be no set fines associated with the bylaw, though if people don’t comply, a trespass could follow, after which it could progress further.

This is the second time the bylaw has been presented to council. The first time was in February, with protesters storming city hall and tensions high throughout. It was deferred until after the appeal court ruling was released and analyzed regarding a challenge of a similar bylaw in Kingston that was ruled unconstitutional.

But the Kingston appeal was withdrawn without being heard in the spring, and the proposed bylaw was removed from Guelph’s to-do list, stopping all engagement.

In mid-August, Mayor Cam Guthrie requested the unchanged draft bylaw be presented once again to council at the special council meeting held Wednesday night.

Councillors Erin Caton, Phil Allt and Linda Busuttil voted against.

An amendment brought forward by Counc. Carly Klassen was also passed, with Caton, Allt and Busuttil voting against, for the bylaw to specifically cover the entirety of St. George’s Square and Market Square as sensitive public areas.

While tensions perhaps weren't as high this time, with no security intervention needed, the sentiments shared among both sides remained the same.

Of the 45 delegates who spoke, those against the bylaw voiced concerns the bylaw would only exacerbate the homelessness, mental health and drug poisoning crises that Guelph is currently facing by moving those living rough away from essential services downtown.

Council was repeatedly told the bylaw is discriminatory, had next to no public consultation and will bring the city expensive legal action.

Several times it was said by delegates, as well as Caton, the bylaw is criminalizing homelessness, though several councillors tried to assure the public that's not the case.

“We’re not saying no, we’re saying where. And I think that’s important context,” Coun. Dan Gibson said.

Those in favour largely cited safety concerns around issues like open drug use and physical altercations.

Michael Kennedy said he and his family avoid downtown and trails, and that his young daughter was “attacked by a homeless person” with things thrown at her; he mentioned encampments regularly engulfed in flames, and discarded used drug paraphernalia.

“Our downtown is now embarrassing,” he said.

Delegate Julio Rodriguez said the encampments downtown are repulsive monstrosities, and that doing hard drugs in a public space should never be the norm.

However, many delegates, including some councillors, noted the bylaw is merely a type of zoning bylaw and will not solve those issues.

Ella Elliot shared a story of her mother finding the decomposed remains of 24-year-old Cody Thompson while kayaking.

“The encampment that Cody’s body was found near was in what is going to be a fully permissible space, which means that he was not near any community resources at the time of his passing. As a direct result of that, we lost a young life, and that is going to continue if we let this pass.”

Every single dollar spent discussing the bylaw “could be spent actually solving the root causes… but we are choosing to prioritize the comfort of the people that shop downtown over the lives of people on the street, and that is despicable to me.”

Stephanie Clendenning, executive director of the Legal Clinic of Guelph and Wellington, also pointed to other cities that have faced and are facing litigation for similar bylaws, and said that if council think theirs is permissible, “you would be wrong.”

Hamilton, for instance, is just weeks away from a second round of litigation for charter violations from a similar bylaw. The decision, she said, will be binding on other municipalities including Guelph.

“So what are we doing here? Guelph is not above the law. You cannot legislate your way around it,” she said.

“(These delegations) completely validated the reasons why I wanted to bring this forward and call a special meeting,” said Mayor Cam Guthrie. “The bylaw, the way its been crafted with our professional staff has it laid out in a way that actually gives some regulation.”

Passed in the end, the remaining delegates shouted “shame” and “see you in court” as council left the chambers.

If the bylaw is approved for final adoption on Sept. 10, it will come into effect Oct. 1.

Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240827203406/https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/guelph-resident-terrified-of-looming-cts-site-closure-9402009

Guelph resident ‘terrified’ of looming CTS site closure

Province announced last week nine provincially funded consumption sites and one self-funded site will have to stop providing safe consumption, safe supply and needle exchange services by the end of March

Guelph resident Aaron Samuel is ‘terrified’ of what his future holds after the province announced last week it would be shuttering most safe consumption sites around Ontario, including Guelph’s.

Samuel, 34, has been using the safe supply program since just after it launched in 2019.

“My fear is going back to the street, because I don’t want to anymore. I’ve taken myself out of that environment,” he said.

Before the program, he overdosed again and again. His relationship with his parents was “horrific,” his mental health atrocious. Every moment revolved around getting a fix. It’s not something he wants to return to.

But it might be, if he doesn’t figure something out before the program ends in March.

His decade-long addiction to opiates started when he was 18 and given a Percocet prescription.

As life unfolded, and Percocet became difficult to access, this eventually turned into a reliance on “the stronger stuff.”

“My tolerance kept going higher and higher.

“I feel like if I could (have just gone) somewhere to get exactly what I wanted, it wouldn’t have progressed as fast as it did,” he said.

He would sometimes shoplift, although mostly play guitar or panhandle to make enough money to buy drugs.

“I had no friends. All my old friends, I basically stopped talking to them. I didn’t want them to think I was a bad person.”

All that changed when he started the safe supply program.

He had tried numerous times to get clean, using methadone, detoxing, but nothing stuck.

Methadone helped, but he feels there was a lack of wraparound services to continue support.

Trying to get into rehab for long-term recovery is challenging. After detoxing, he was told it was an eight month wait, and to call every month to hold his position there. But it’s easy for the cycle to start back up in the interim.

Eventually he landed in a treatment facility in Ottawa, getting clean after a few months.

“I went to a completely new city; I didn’t know anyone, so I had no connections,” he said. “And then my dad died, so I came back to Guelph to help my mom and the cycle started again.”

He overdosed five times before landing in the program, where he said a nurse will ask what you use, how much you use, what your risk factors are, and go from there. The goal is to find the right amount of safe supply to avoid withdrawal symptoms and keep you stable.

He injects Dilaudid – a synthetic opioid called hydromorphone – seven times a day. The amount he gets is controlled, and is generally safer than street opioids because he knows the amount and its contents.

For Samuel, the medication gets dropped off every morning, “and you can go about your day,” he said.

Though he injects several times a day, besides a couple track marks, there are no obvious signs of his drug use. In fact, besides a spike-laden punk vest with a patch depicting a swastika thrown in the trash, there is nothing visibly differentiating him from anyone else, and you would probably never know unless he told you.

“When I tell people that, (they say) you don’t look like a junkie. Because other people have gaping sores and all these very serious health issues,” he said. But those issues often stem from “the unclean additives” in the drugs, whereas the pharmaceuticals accessed through safe supply are pure and by definition, safer.

Since starting the program, he’s repaired his relationship and trust with his mom, has maintained relationships, has joined a band and can keep a schedule.

“Before, I’d wake up, I’d be sick. I’d have to panhandle for five or six hours to get money to buy.”

By then it would be nighttime, he’d get high and start the process all over again.

“Now I wake up, I medicate, and I have the ability to do anything I want to do.”

He also gets Vyvanse – like Ritalin for ADHD – which he can’t get elsewhere due to his history of substance abuse.

“That’s the main benefit of the program – I’m properly medicated.”

But the province announced last week that nine provincially funded consumption sites and one self-funded site will have to stop providing safe consumption, safe supply and needle exchange services by the end of March.

The Guelph Community Health Centre’s Consumption and Treatment Services (CTS) site at 176 Wyndham St. is one of those affected because it is within 200 metres of a daycare or school.

A spokesperson for Ontario Minister of Health Sylvia Jones said community members across the province “have made it clear that the presence of drug consumption sites near schools and daycares is leading to serious safety problems,” and that the government agrees.

In place of the CTS sites, the government is investing in 19 Homelessness and Addiction Recovery (HART) hubs, which aim to provide primary care, mental health and addictions care, employment support, as well as other supplies and services like Naloxone, showers and food. They will also aim to add up to 375 supportive housing units, as well as addiction and recovery beds.

Countless experts have spoken out against the decision, saying it will lead to more deaths. Samuel agrees.

Samuel said the changes will only make things worse. Drug users won’t have a centralized location anymore, and will be spread out around downtown, where Samuel said they are anyway.

“Crime is never going to go away unless they address the causes of the crime – living wages, cost of living, rent, access to housing,” he said – not safe supply.

However, he said there is definitely a need for in-house trained security who can properly diffuse conflicts that arise in and outside of the facilities, something recent expert reports suggested as well.

Further wraparound supports are also needed.

Samuel himself has struggled to maintain a job for what he believes is stigma regarding his past, and said the expectation that they are supposed to use the program and then “suddenly rise up to the occasion and be the best person you can be” isn’t realistic; there needs to be more wraparound support, especially when it comes to securing and maintaining employment and housing.

“Wraparound is (more) than just going to a therapist,” he said. “A lot of these people don’t have the life experience to feel comfortable doing these things, and that’s what pushes them towards (drug use), and then they fail and get more depressed.”

Rehab isn’t the solution either.

“You go to rehab, you get off dope, and your tolerance goes down to zero. You try using (at your previous dosage) again with zero tolerance, ok you’re dead,” he said.

People have endless potential, he said, and deserve the chance to meet it.

“You have no idea of their potential, what they’re going to grow up and become. I could theoretically find the cure for cancer, but one day I get high and die. There’s the life potential of the individual that you’re saving, but then you have the expanding factor of it: the trauma that the death causes (for the) brother, sister, parent, child.

He hopes by the time the program closes, his life will be more stable with a job – “the thing I need to fill that void for the supply,” he said. “I don't know. I'm just gonna try and make sure I'm good by then.

“I'm stable now, and once it closes, my ultimate fear is it all goes back to square one, and then I can't play in the band anymore, I can't maintain this relationship with my mom and I'll be alone again.

“Am I just going to be another statistic where I overdose in a random back alley, someone finds me, and I go by the wayside,” he said. “I’m absolutely terrified.”

He’s also concerned about what the impact will mean for others, especially those currently sitting in worse positions.

Last year Guelph and Wellington County saw an all-time high of 62 drug poisoning deaths, according to the Guelph Wellington Drug Strategy. So far this year there have been 28.

Samuel said the spike in overdoses is because of toxic supply – “it’s either xylazine, nitazines or other zines.”

And when the program shuts down in March, he said those numbers will rise as people return to getting and using their drugs on the street.

“It’s going to (cause) hundreds of deaths. That’s what I think they don’t get – they think it’s going to solve everything. But people are going to keep using, you’re gonna see way more needles everywhere, you’re going to see a lot more people dying in the street, shooting up in the street.”