Injection 'Safe Zones' Expose Taxpayers to Liabilities [OPINION]

I can think of a hundred reasons to deny the liberal's plan to provide taxpayer-funded areas for drug addicts to inject their poisons into their bodies. For starters, the title "Injection Safe Zone" is an oxymoron and written up, coincidentally, by morons.

Heroin isn't safe. Fentanyl isn't safe. Perhaps the deaths from overdosing have escaped the senses of the authors and sponsors of this bill?

The disarming titles of these types are bills are clever but deceitful. There is no known area in the galaxy in which it would be safe to inject opiates at levels meant for an irrational and unreachable high. Each is more damaging than the last to the body and eventually, one will either kill the subject or contribute to the cause of death with each injection, given the odds.

Here is where people need to worry, though: state-sanctioned injections of illegal substances (and that is what these are) can foreseeably bring about lawsuits for each overdose and especially those resulting in deaths—and there will be more than a few.

Why expose the taxpayers to this? Are the politicians this stupid, or are they brilliant enough to see the cash cow in litigation? Many of our elected have the same profession—lawyers.

I can see the family members of the overdosed dead, lining up to seek millions from the taxpayers for failing to meet with the expectations of the fantasy "safe injections" from the government, trained overseers.

Has anyone consulted with OSHA about this airtight, logical plan?

The Massachusetts Medical Society and the Massachusetts Hospital Association back the idea. Oh, do they? Well, that's reassuring because OF COURSE THEY DO!

It means guaranteed money by the state. Hello, ka-ching! Also, about this "trained staff" who would be doing these injections in this plan; are these state-created jobs which now come with taxpayer-funded pensions and healthcare benefits?

What if they make a mistake and it results in death? What if you hire a nut who intentionally murders the addicts and it is only discovered after a serial killing? Why expose the citizenry to such reckless liability?

Want a solution? Stop putting people in jail for no other crimes than using and possessing and sentence them to drug treatment facilities instead. It's as cheap or cheaper and actually solves some (only some) of these poor souls' problems.

Also, let's talk about where on the map these things will go.

Let's see them put the "safe-zones" in Padanaram, Mattapoisett Village, on Front Street in Marion. Why not, they're safe zones? Oh, you do-gooder liberals who concocted or support this madness had already envisioned some places just north of Coggeshall Street off of Acushnet Ave? Maybe near County and Cove? Sure, who cares about those neighborhoods, right?

Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Sponsor. State Senator William Brownsberger of 120 Gilbert Road in Belmont: why not put one on your street as a pilot program and let's see how that goes? Not the best place, not ideal? What do you mean not ideal, it's safe! Belmont is a swank and expensive place to live because of its location. Its a great location for a lot of things, injection safe zones included.

Hey, maybe we can have subsidized safe zones extended for gangs to settle their scores in gunfights. Sure, why not. Trained medical staff on the sidelines to cart off the fallen and stop the bleeding sooner. Why not, it's safer! Why stop there? Let's hand out bullet-proof vests to bank robbers so they don't die from their irrational and reckless acts. Why discriminate against bank robbers and gang bangers, given the same logic?

Ken Pittman is the host of The Ken Pittman Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard Saturdays from 9 a.m. to noon. Contact him at ken.pittman@townsquaremedia.com and follow him on Twitter @RadioKenPittman. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.