Public comment SIGN-IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
0 V06 \rukiy‘c -e l' ,-I
Lewis County Courthouse, 351 N.W. North Street, Chehalis, Wash. Meeting date: 3 it'l I v621/44
NAME PHONE REPRESENTING CITY/TOWN OF RESIDENCE
1 _izk
IL
1 6619L3 -3,0"70__ __Leac,-ea4 gOlcr'ed/ C- I
2 ff,m _,5,,,, 9)p , its_fiA2c_ e
�- 31 5 - ' _ R 7 r--tfo-(0 t frrtveis 62.„4.4--t 4_-41-0-1±45
- --
4__110111. -fintwi m- Fall--110'1 Ciathir I_ dedatis
5____? -e=d_ca____Rg.keir (.3(q()__YoZ_ -L.76).-2 6-6-44L-Q-K _ 1 69--,14--1-- '--- _1
71 ! (00'i -_`a -- --- - 73
i-- 8 ebecra S+ kr 1 305 _ cog-69 1 adraitt
.
9 M or 1 o P i 'sic.--
��e c� _ re h 3�.—_�S 2 �Z.S_ pe s-io 1Ci t-40 lrMD --
io LIi _ I c.,4N___CALI:mats._ i Ro- Vtoci- 7 BM Cirsivit..Ds• PI) . (..6-11144-‘04
11 ; 6;14-0,,,.. r-ba.,A s .503- Z s-i- I s.h1- ieAA"-e� Cd&v.A\e"Lo=k_
02A, 3C;o--%0 - gt___d_ e_t r ____.t.Led IP!Lag,
g.„„e- iCa . -;i6-v. 0 e eiti'4Vi.
14
,\ 'IS S-03 0• 65 IA-- - -
Notice: The information provided on this document may be subject to public disclosure per RCW 42.56.070.
---.11111111111111111
SIGN-IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON N4c - ) 3 SL�OP--CIA
Lewis County Courthouse, 351 N.W. North Street, Chehalis, Wash. Meeting date:
NAME PHONE REPRESENTING CITY/TOWN OF RESIDENCE
1 MA,/L MC L ; �--1. {'-�./V firkwyCcoe, S. C .��.-F-a.l;�
V -- f_
2 _ ram^ 4
3T- --/--- /, I
/.6 �/164A- `17-5 z ic� 3 .�G�'1�lrL�it� Zi'G lit L 1 ifct
' missionaries or
4 Liza,/dueithpyfoil .5°3 5 '
6 '
II .
8
9
10
11 �
i - - -- ,
1 i �
13 �
14 ,
Notice:The information provided on this document may be subject to public disclosure per RCW 42.56.070.
Chapter 8.80: Sterile Needle and Syringe Exchange
Comparison of version proposed 1, as proposed by Swope, Revised 3/27/24
AND Pollock proposal—Revised 3/29/24
-- 4L<-ags.1)
Under 8.80.020 DEFINITIONS:
• Pollock eliminates the definition of a "child"
• Pollock eliminate the definition of "drug offense"
• Pollock eliminates the definition of"drug paraphernalia"
• Pollock eliminates the definition of"Program Staff"
Under 8.80.030 REGISTRATION
• Pollock eliminates "locations of where the needle and hypodermic syringe exchange will
operate"
• Pollock eliminates "all staff, volunteers, and any other individuals working for or with the
sterile needle and syringe exchange program"
Pollock eliminates in its entirety Swope's section "Program Staff"
Under 8.80.040 (was 8.80.050 Swope) QUANTITY OF STERILE NEEDLE AND SYRINGE EXCHANGE
• Pollock adds: "The program operator may offer first time participants of the needle and
syringe exchange program that are not in possession of any used needles or syringes a
package of up to ten needles and syringes."
• RED FLAG: This opens the program up to criticism as it engages in illegal activity—
supplying drug paraphernalia to those who may or may not currently be addicted
(addiction being the underlying qualification for disability status)
Pollock adds a new section 8.80.050 SAFER INJECTION KITS
"The program operator may offer participants of the sterile needle and syringe program a safer
injection kit. A safer injection kit may include a sterile needle and syringe, alcohol swabs, filters,
tourniquet, cooker, and sterile water ampules."
RED FLAG: supplying drug paraphernalia which is, in my opinion, illegal
Under 8.80.100 LOCATION OF STERILE NEEDLE AND SYRINGE EXCHANGE
• Pollock eliminates age restrictions in its entirety
Pollock eliminates LOCATION OF STERILE NEEDLE AND SYRINGE EXCHANGE in its entirety
Pollock eliminates SITE SECURITY in its entirety
Under 8.80.110 (was Swope 8.80.130) DATA AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Pollock eliminates "number of known participants that are referred to or enroll in a substance
use disorder treatment program, drug abuse prevention, education, or those tested for HIV,
AIDS, viral hepatitis, or other blood-borne diseases and referred for medical treatment."
Instead Pollock proposes the "watered down" statement: "the demographic profiles of the
participants served."
RED FLAG: If this policy, as purported, is to address public health issues, this eliminates the
responsibility of the provider to be proactively responsible.
Under 8.80.130 (was Swope 8.80.160) PENALTIES
Section (1): Pollock eliminates "whether or not the violation took place in the citing
authority's presence"
Pollock eliminates in its entirety Swopes section (3): "A third violation, and all
subsequent violations, of this Chapter shall be a misdemeanor, punishable as prescribed
in LCC 1.20.020. A committed finding on a prior infraction for violating this Chapter shall
e sufficient to show the prior violation and notice to the accused, but shall not be
necessary for proof of the misdemeanor. It shall suffice if it is proven beyond a
reasonable doubt within the misdemeanor prosecution that (a) the prior violation
occurred; (b) the accused was lawfully served with written notice of the prior violations
before the third or subsequent violation; and (c) the third and subsequent violation
occurred.
RED FLAG: by eliminating any consequences for illegal behavior, one condones that
illegal behavior.
ttLed1 v hi)
March 29,2023 3oard of County Commissioners
L2utia Crumb,wnshinaton
Lewis County Board of Commissioners At'K 0 2 2024
Lewis County Courthouse
351 NW.North St
Chehalis,WA,98532
Dear Commissioners Pollock, Swope,and Brummer,
I am writing in opposition to ordinance#1354. I object to the following.
8.80.030—This is more in the form of a question. Do not all programs of this nature have to meet state
requirements already. I suppose the providers would already post information listed here.
8.80.040—Who is going to monitor this and exactly how? Who's budget is going to be increased to
monitor this? Since there are only a certain amount of dollars,whose budget is going to be decreased to
monitor this?
8.80.50-If you truly believe that your efforts are for all the citizens of Lewis County,then your efforts with
this clause does not demonstrate that.If you truly believe in less harm programs,this ordinance does not
demonstrate that. By tying the needle program to a"brick and motor"facilities you eliminate less harm
programs to the majority of those citizens in need that you were elected to represent.From Packwood to
Centralia is nearly 75 miles and 1%hours away.
I agree,like all adult activities for which there are already ordinances,such as bars,adult video stores,etc.
needle exchange programs should not be located near locations frequently visited by children.
Line#4 has no place in this ordinance. It should be one of its own. According to your statement of
purpose this ordinance is about needle exchange. No mention is given to supervised injection sites in your
purpose statement.
8.80.06-According to the testimony of the staff that currently runs an exchange program this is the current
practice. So I guess there really isn't anything wrong in repeating it.
Except for the Paraphernalia line. My reading has enlightened me on injected drug use. I tell you I have
learned quite a bit. It's amazing how much you learn if you don't isolate yourself to the sources that agree
with you.It is my understanding that the ordinance as written would equate to handing out the syringe
vessel but not the plunger. The items distributed are items that can also pass along infectious diseases if
clean ones are not supplied. These items are explicitly exempt from the drug paraphernalia law if they are
distributed by a harm reduction program.In addition,according to your definition of paraphernalia,every
public restaurant or place of food service is going to have to count their spoons if they don't want to be
arrested for the distribution of drug paraphernalia. Convenience stores can't sell lighters either.
8.80.090 and 8.80.090—Yes....These are practices already done by the present provider and are in the
state protocols for needle exchange programs. But I suppose it would be okay to codify them on a county
level since they don't disagree with state and federal law.
8.80.110 and 8.80.110—Again these are,as you quoted state laws,by which our local provider program
abides. But if you feel the need to codify,I suppose it's okay. Perhaps a waste of paper.
8.80.120—8.80.130-You're kidding aren't you! I don't think there are codes this strict for drug stores and
they are actually drugs there. Here you are really grandstanding. You are aiming to make things so
difficult----so restrictive that providers will throw their hands in the air and quit. This segment of the
ordinance really reveals the real intent of this ordinance.
Finally.....the nail you hope will go in coffin. Pun intended considering the needle exchange programs
save lives. 8.80.160-Let's make the"rules"so restrictive,with so many barriers that it is nearly
impossible to run a program without breaking the"rules".Let's create a program for vulnerable and a
clientele that doesn't trust law enforcement or government and have them parading through at any time.
Then let's punish the good people who are trying in good faith to help the"least of these"with fines or
worse. Again,this segment of the ordinance really reveals the real intent of this ordinance.
I would also would like to address the statistics that have been thrown around in the hearings without
clarification or sources.The purpose of including such statements as far as I am concerned was only for the
purpose of instilling horror and fear.I accept that we have had a major increase in overdoses. The dead
don't lie.I have read several articles with quotes concerning the increase and it is definitely a sad state of
affairs. But what has not been clarified is how many of these were caused by intravenous use and your
statistics contribute little to the subject.Almost,no I will say it stronger,every resource I researched
(especially CDC,NCDAS-National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics and others)report an increase in
fentanyl deaths.They have also stated that the preferred avenue of ingestion is smoking not needles. I have
no authoritative resource for this but an article by Crosscut Cascade
(https://crosscut.com/news/2023/11/was-new-drug-law-could-help-needle-exchanges-or-restrict-them)cited
two needle exchange programs in Washington counties have seen an increase in drug over doses primarily
fentanyl but a decrease in the number of needles exchanged at their facilities. Logic would lead us to
believe we have a fentanyl problem.A deadly fentanyl problem. But this ordinance does not address that.
I am also at a loss as to the reason for this ordinance to begin with. It seems to be more of a question of
philosophies like naturopath vs.pill pushers.(Not the best analogy,but you get my drift.) I don't see how
this is the business of the county commissioners,unless your goal is not health and safety at all but turf
wars and political capital.If this was a true health issue I believe it's origin would have been within the
County Health Department not the commissioners office.
The last thing this county needs is another lawsuit. But when one commissioner insists on throwing out
religious sermons in the middle of an open hearing it does draw the attention of some organizations who
just love to sue.I believe this proposed ordinance is just flawed enough to bring them out of woodwork.
While we are on the topic of religion,let us remember Matt.25:40."Whatever you did for one of the least
of these brothers and sisters of mine,you did for me".
Needle exchange programs will not solve the drug problem. They are not intended to. They are meant to
save lives so those lives will be long enough to hopefully seek help.
I am firmly opposed to Ordinance 1315 in its present form. It needs radical reforming. Thank you,
Commissioner Pollock,for proposing a cooling-off period when hopefully clearer thinking heads will
succeed.I will forward a copy of this via mail so that you are sure to receive a copy.
Thank you.
Sandra Sund
459 SW Pacific Ave
Chehalis,WA
Kathryn Chatterton
From: Ray Chapman-Wilson <rleroyw@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 8:05 PM
To: BOCC; Ray Chapman-Wilson
Subject: vote no on ordinance 1354 and fully fund law enforcement to fight the fentanyl crisis
Attachments: BOCC 2024-04-09 Fentanyl .pdf
You don't often get email from rleroyw@gmail.corn Learn why this is important
Hello, this is what I spoke about at the last County Commissioners meeting.Would you please forward
to Commissioners and can I get it entered into the record opposing ordinance 1354 on medical freedom
and privacy rights?
Also, can I get receipt of this email for any future litigation and reference?Thank you very much,
Ray Chapman-Wilson
503-381-7444
rlero_yw@gmail.com
External Email - Remember to think before you click!
This message may contain links with malware, viruses, etc. Please ensure the message is
le•itimate before o•enin• it.
i
April 9, 2024
Ray Chapman-Wilson, Centralia
We're here with Families of Faith for Health and Safety.
We want to address Ordinance 1354, and the current fentanyl crisis.
First off, we're a poor county, with millions and billions of our infrastructure tax dollars finally
coming back to us right now. If we use some of this money to improve this poverty issue, lots of
these problems will go away.
After going to the front lines and sifting through health information provided by Lewis County, It
is clear drug overdoses and deaths related to fentanyl are far out-pacing anything else.
Right now, the fentanyl crisis needs to be the front line of action in Lewis County.
Lewis County numbers are right up there with King County.
Why is it so bad here in Lewis County?
Is it because, unlike every other County along the 1-5 corridor; and we mean every county,
Commissioner Swope and other public servants in Lewis County have encouraged and
perpetrated false public health and safety narratives like "masks don't work, vaccines are bad,
among other bad information and falsehoods based on deeply held inaccurate beliefs, not on
good , factual health information"?
No other county is doing this to their constituents. Lewis County stands alone in that fact.
There is one saving grace here in Lewis County; Gather Church provides important life-saving
services for those struggling to get a foothold. This includes pro-life neighbor-to-neighbor
community outreach, wound care, a meds first clinic, care coordination and health education,
among many other community services. These programs are so successful, and so many lives
of neighbors and loved ones have been helped and saved and stabilized, that Gather is
internationally recognized as a shining example for the help they provide. The value of all these
combined ministries is unlimited.
Pastor Cole at Gather has invited you to collaborate in this mission, and we encourage you to
do so.
Make it your mission to be protective of our flock. Stand against the lions. Stop exploiting the
healthcare workers who are treading water in this mess you've created.
Finally, Law Enforcement. We ask you to please fully fund and train and give them the
resources they need to stop the flow of fentanyl flooding into our community.
We're requesting that ordinance 1354 get completely discarded. Start over with a correct focus
on fentanyl and law enforcement and public health and safety campaigns that are factually
correct.
For the common, good, we thank you
Opioid and drug use data:
https://doh.wa.gov/data-and-statistical-reports/washington-tracking-network-wtn/opioids/overdos
e-dashboard
Washington per capita income:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington Jocations by per capita income
County health rankings:
https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/media/document/CHR2021 WA.pdf
Poverty and addiction:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8247994/
Homeless sweeps harm the whole community:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2803839
Kathryn Chatterton
From: mitchel.townsend@localaccess.com
Sent: Wednesday,April 10, 2024 6:41 PM
To: BOCC
Subject: Ordinance# 1354 Amendments Consideration
Importance: High
You don't often get email from mitchel.townsend@localaccess.com.Learn why this is important
Hon. Scott Brummer,
Lewis County, WA
Lewis County Commissioner 3rd District
(Commissioners Swope and Pollack)
Commissioner Brummer, (Commissioners Swope and Pollack)
As a resident of your district, I am personally and philosophically against any needle exchange in Lewis
County. Yet also recognize its peer reviewed efficacy in helping to reduce the transmission of HIV and
Hepatitis.
I support the adoption of Ordinance#1347 as originally written without the additional amendments proposed by
Commissioner Pollack and subsequently rejected by the Lewis County Health Advisory Board on April 4th.
The objections that ALCU identified regarding potential criminalizing parts of the program are seemingly valid
as cited yet a compromise upon this identified conflict would simply be to remove any criminalization language
in Ordinance#1347.
We need additional regulation and accountability requirements with regards to the administration of this
controversial program.
The rapidly increasing problem of drug abuse and its increasingly deadly consequences require data and results-
based policy creation and adoption.
Respectfully,
Mitchel N. Townsend
360-219-5423
External Email - Remember to think before you click!
1
This message may contain links with malware, viruses, etc. Please ensure the message is
legitimate before opening it.
2
Kathryn Chatterton
From: contact@lewiscountywa.gov
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 8:34 AM
To: Tammy Martin; Rieva Lester; BOCC
Subject: Email from Commissioners Contact Form
Name: Sandra Sund
Email: slsund@gmail.com
Message: Lewis County Board of Commissioners Lewis County Courthouse 351 NW. North St Chehalis,
WA, 98532 Dear Commissioners Pollock, Swope, and Brummer, I am writing in opposition to ordinance
#1354. I object to the following. 8.80.030-This is more in the form of a question. Do not all programs of
this nature have to meet state requirements already. I suppose the providers would already post
information listed here. 8.80.040-Who is going to monitor this and exactly how?Who's budget is going
to be increased to monitor this?Since there are only a certain amount of dollars, whose budget is going
to be decreased to monitor this? 8.80.50- If you truly believe that your efforts are for all the citizens of
Lewis County, then your efforts with this clause does not demonstrate that. If you truly believe in less
harm programs,this ordinance does not demonstrate that. By tying the needle program to a "brick and
motor"facilities you eliminate less harm programs to the majority of those citizens in need that you were
elected to represent. From Packwood to Centralia is nearly 75 miles and 1' hours away. I agree, like all
adult activities for which there are already ordinances, such as bars, adult video stores, etc. needle
exchange programs should not be located near locations frequently visited by children. Line#4 has no
place in this ordinance. It should be one of its own.According to your statement of purpose this
ordinance is about needle exchange. No mention is given to supervised injection sites in your purpose
statement. 8.80.06-According to the testimony of the staff that currently runs an exchange program this
is the current practice. So I guess there really isn't anything wrong in repeating it. Except for the
Paraphernalia line. My reading has enlightened me on injected drug use. I tell you I have learned quite a
bit. It's amazing how much you learn if you don't isolate yourself to the sources that agree with you. It is
my understanding that the ordinance as written would equate to handing out the syringe vessel but not
the plunger.The items distributed are items that can also pass along infectious diseases if clean ones
are not supplied.These items are explicitly exempt from the drug paraphernalia law if they are distributed
by a harm reduction program. In addition, according to your definition of paraphernalia, every public
restaurant or place of food service is going to have to count their spoons if they don't want to be arrested
for the distribution of drug paraphernalia. Convenience stores can't sell lighters either. 8.80.090 and
8.80.090-Yes.... These are practices already done by the present provider and are in the state protocols
for needle exchange programs. But I suppose it would be okay to codify them on a county level since they
don't disagree with state and federal law. 8.80.110 and 8.80.110-Again these are, as you quoted state
laws, by which our local provider program abides. But if you feel the need to codify, I suppose it's okay.
Perhaps a waste of paper. 8.80.120-8.80.130-You're kidding aren't you! I don't think there are codes
this strict for drug stores and they are actually drugs there. Here you are really grandstanding. You are
aiming to make things so difficult---- so restrictive that providers will throw their hands in the air and
quit. This segment of the ordinance really reveals the real intent of this ordinance. Finally the nail you
hope will go in coffin. Pun intended considering the needle exchange programs save lives. 8 80.160 -
Let's make the "rules" so restrictive, with so many barriers that it is nearly impossible to run a program
without breaking the "rules". Let's create a program for vulnerable and a clientele that doesn't trust law
enforcement or government and have them parading through at any time. Then let's punish the good
people who are trying in good faith to help the "least of these"with fines or worse. Again, this segment of
1
the ordinance really reveals the real intent of this ordinance. I would also would like to address the
statistics that have been thrown around in the hearings without clarification or sources. I accept that we
have had a major increase in overdoses. The dead don't lie. I have read several articles with quotes
concerning the increase. But what has not been clarified is how many of these were caused by
intravenous use. Almost, no I will say it stronger, every resource I researched (especially CDC, NCDAS-
National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics and others) report an increase in fentanyl deaths.They have
also stated that the preferred avenue of ingestion is smoking not needles. I have no authoritative
resource for this but an article by Crosscut Cascade (https://crosscut._com/news/2023/11/was-new-
drug-law-could-help-needle-exchanges-or-restrict-them) cited two needle exchange programs in
Washington counties have seen an increase in drug over doses primarily fentanyl but a decrease in the
number of needles exchanged at their facilities. Logic would lead us to believe we have a fentanyl
problem. This ordinance does not address that. I am also at a loss as to the reason for this ordinance to
begin with. It seems to be more of a question of philosophies like naturopath vs. pill pushers. (Not the
best analogy, but you get my drift.) I don't see how this is the business of the county commissioners,
unless your goal is not health and safety at all but turf wars and political capital. If this was a true health
issue I believe it's origin would have been within the County Health Department not the commissioners
office.The last thing this county needs is another lawsuit. But when one commissioner insists on
throwing out religious sermons in the middle of an open hearing it does draw the attention of some
organizations who just love to sue. I believe this proposed ordinance is just flawed enough to bring them
out of woodwork. While we are on the topic of religion, let us remember Matt. 25:40. "Whatever you did
for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me". Needle exchange programs will
not solve the drug problem.They are not intended to. They are meant to save lives so those lives will be
long enough to hopefully seek help. I am firmly opposed to Ordinance 1315 in its present form. It needs
radical reforming. Thank you, Commissioner Pollock, for proposing a cooling-off period when hopefully
clearer thinking heads will succeed. Thank you. Sandra Sund 459 SW Pacific Ave Chehalis, WA PS I will
forward a copy of this via mail so that you are sure to receive a copy.
2
Kathryn Chatterton
From: Les Doyle <lesdoyle@pm.me>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 9:41 AM
To: BOCC
Subject: Ordinance 1354
You don't often get email from lesdoyle@pm.me. Learn why this is important
Greetings Board of County Commissioners, My name is Les Doyle. The US Army brought me to
Washington in 1995, and after 25 years of service, I retired and remained in this state where
my two children went on to graduate from the UW and remain with their families to this day. I
have been a citizen of Lewis County (Winlock) since 2014. My wife and I visited this county
when we lived up in Pierce County and decided that this would be a great place to live. We
have not regretted our decision to relocate.
Before I retired in 2016, I was the Director of the New Life Program at the Tacoma Rescue
Mission, a year-long residential drug treatment program. I have experience with the needle
exchange programs located in Pierce County. Additionally, I refuse to consider the disease
model that so many attach to the addiction that pervades our local communities and beyond.
This is plainly an idolatry issue, and we must have approaches in dealing with addiction that
go beyond simple behavioral modification.
I am currently a founding member and on the Board of Directors for Christ the King Academy (a
classical Christian school located in Centralia) and an Elder at Christ Covenant Church in
Centralia. I echo what you have already heard from my Pastor, Aaron Ventura: Every Sunday,
our church prays for each of you by name. This is because we believe that you have a God
given responsibility to promote virtue and discourage vice in obedience to God's law (Romans
13:1-10). It is very troubling to myself and our church that the state of Washington has
become a place where drugs, crime, and all kinds of perversity are tolerated and go
unpunished. We are failing to truly love our neighbors when we vote for, pay for, and
subsidize drug use, and do so under the lying banner of "Harm Reduction." If we truly want to
reduce harm in Lewis County, then we ought to do whatever it takes to make access to drugs
and the actual doing of drugs more difficult. These are destructive substances that no
responsible parent would want for their children. It is no act of love or compassion to
enable someone to do a destructive thing with "greater cleanliness." I join with Pastor
Ventura in pleading with each of you to do all that is within your power to serve our
community by passing Ordinance 1354 without any amendments that might weaken its authority to
regulate needle exchange programs. As a resident, parent, grandparent, elder, and Christian,
I desire Lewis County to be a place that is safe for my grandchildren to walk down the
street. I desire our downtown areas to be places of beauty and joy, rather than ugliness and
sorrow. This ordinance would be a good start towards cleaning up our county. And I pray that
God gives you fortitude and courage to do what is righteous in His eyes, regardless of what
the crowds may shout. May God bless you in your work and may we all seek God in ending this
scourge that robs people, families, and communities of life. Thank you for your service to
our community.
Les
Les Doyle
Christ Covenant Church, Centralia < https://lewiscountv.church/>
Christ the King Academy, Centralia < https://www.christthekinq.academv>
lesdoyle@pm.me
i
253-208-8909
"There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human
existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all,
does not cry, Mine!'"
--Abraham Kuyper
External Email - Remember to think before you click!
This message may contain links with malware, viruses, etc. Please ensure the message is
le•itimate before o•enin• it.
2
Kathryn Chatterton
From: Sherri Murphy <justsmurffie577@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 9:44 AM
To: BOCC
Subject: Ordinance 1347
You don't often get email from justsmurffie577@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Commissioners:
Greetings. My name is Sherri Murphy, and I'm a Lewis County resident. I am opposed to the needle exchange in its
entirety. I acknowledge I have no background in medicine, nor have I served on any public health boards or matters. I
come to you today not to disparage The Gather Church, nor argue it's"ministry", but to offer a different perspective
that has yet to be discussed.That perspective is the liability to the taxpayers.
As commissioners, one of your duties is to mitigate circumstances that could be viewed as negligence on behalf of the
county as well as limiting or removing liability.At no time should Lewis County engage in activities that facilitate the use
of illegal substances,whether by providing funding, providing paraphernalia or by turning a blind eye as another entity
does so. Imagine if you will, a situation where a person uses a needle to inject an illegal substance, gets behind the
wheel of a vehicle and kills an innocent person or family, and that needle came from a program you allowed. Imagine a
situation where a person injects an illegal substance from a needle exchange program, and kills an innocent store clerk
etc.There is no end to the possibilities of what can go wrong.Just like any other statistical data, we can see the trend
with victims,victim's families and even suspects utilizing attorneys for a cash payout.That payout NEVER comes from
the suspect! The attorney follows the money,which in this situation leads right back to Lewis County.We cannot afford
the liability in providing drug paraphernalia!
Additionally, I do not support a mobile needle exchange for the same reasons.
I ask you to consider passing the proposed ordinance 1347 on behalf of the citizens of Lewis County.
Sherri Murphy
Chehalis, WA
External Email - Remember to think before you click!
This message may contain links with malware, viruses, etc. Please ensure the message is
le•itimate before o•enin. it.
1
Kathryn Chatterton
From: gustafam <gustafam@protonmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 7:05 AM
To: BOCC
Subject: Ordinance 1354
You don't often get email from gustafam@protonmail.com. Learn why this is important
Hello my name is Dane Gustafson and I worship in Lewis County.
I would like the Board of County Commissioners to know that I support ordinance 1354 being considered on
3/26/24 in full and would like it to be passed without amendments that would in any way weaken the
county's authority to regulate needle exchange programs in full.
I would also like to remind the members of the BOCC that governments exist and have been granted
authority by God whether at the federal, state, and local level local so that they will "reward the righteous
and be a terror to those who do wickedness (Rom 13:3-4)."
Please consider this truth when deciding how best to let the citizens of Lewis County and Western
Washington know that we are a community where righteousness is rewarded and degeneracy is punished.
VR
Dane Gustafson
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
External Email - Remember to think before you click!
This message may contain links with malware, viruses, etc. Please ensure the message is
le•itimate before o•enin• it.
1
Kathryn Chatterton
From: Aaron Ventura <aaron@christcovenantcentralia.com>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 3:52 PM
To: BOCC
Subject: Support For Ordinance 1354
[You don't often get email from aaron@christcovenantcentralia.com. Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Greetings Board of County Commissioners, I am the pastor of Christ Covenant Church in Centralia, and every single
Sunday, our church prays for each of you by name.This is because we believe that you have a God given responsibility to
promote virtue and discourage vice in obedience to God's law(Romans 13:1-10). It is very troubling to myself and our
church that the state of Washington has become a place where drugs,crime, and all kinds of perversity are tolerated and
go unpunished. We are failing to truly love our neighbors when we vote for, pay for, and subsidize drug use, and do so
under the lying banner of"Harm Reduction." If we truly want to reduce harm in Lewis County,then we ought to do
whatever it takes to make access to drugs and the actual doing of drugs more difficult.These are destructive substances
that no responsible parent would want for their children. It is no act of love or compassion to enable someone to do a
destructive thing with "greater cleanliness."
Therefore, I plead with each of you to do all that is within your power to serve our community by passing Ordinance
1354 without any amendments that might weaken its authority to regulate needle exchange programs. As a resident,
parent, pastor, and Christian, I desire Lewis County to be a place that is safe for my children to walk down the street. I
desire our downtown areas to be places of beauty and joy, rather than ugliness and sorrow.This ordinance would be a
good start towards cleaning up our county. And I pray that God gives you fortitude and courage to do what is righteous in
His eyes, regardless of what the crowds may shout.
May God bless you in your work.And I thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Aaron Ventura
External Email - Remember to think before you click!
This message may contain links with malware,viruses, etc. Please ensure the message is legitimate before opening it.
1
Sean Swope,
You are ignorant in so many ways. It's "heartbreaking". I noticed you like to use that word. You think shutting down the harm reduction program is going to stop
people from using and clean up our city?you are so wrong. If an addict wants to use a needle they will and without the needle exchange it will more than likely be a
used dirty needle. So you shut down that program and not only do you have a sick addict but also an addict without connection or resources. I was a dirty needle
user and because of my choices I got hep c. You know who was there for me when I got clean and wanted to treat my hep c? Gather Church. The harm reduction
program and all of their services. If you think shutting down this program or Gather Church, who provides this program is going to cure addiction or make things
better in our community you are so wrong it's not just about providing clean needles it's a bigger picture. It's providing services and helping make those connections
with addicts so they can get help so they feel comfortable and not judged asking for help. If you take all that away you think the addicts on our streets will just
disappear? You will see more deaths as well as more sick people. You will only see the addiction crisis rise.As you said you have never been an addict. I have
been. I know from firsthand experience what helps and what doesn't.
You also mentioned in your meeting "graduation a few months ago for drug court happened here and that person passed away". What does my brother's death
have to do with what you are fighting against what does it have to do with the harm reduction program what does it have to do with Gather Church? It has nothing to
do with that! SO HOW DARE YOU BRING UP HIS DEATH! You want to "protect those in active recovery". What about the people who are in active addiction?
those people need protected and helped as well!
LY'v LI)
3oisra of County Commissioners
Lewis County Washington
MAR 19 2024
•
Kathryn Chatterton
From: David Sinkman <sinkman@kaplangrady.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 7:28 AM
To: BOCC; Lindsey Pollock; Scott Brummer; Sean Swope
Subject: Ordinance 1354 and federal civil rights litigation
Attachments: Ordinance 1354 letter.pdf
IYou don't often get email from sinkman@kaplangrady.com. Learn why this is important
Dear Clerk Lester and Lewis County Commissioners:
I write regarding Ordinance 1354 which proposes adding Chapter 8.80 to the Lewis County Code. I am a former
federal prosecutor where I worked for years on addressing discriminatory barriers to medical treatment for people
with substance use disorder for the United States Department of Justice. I currently help direct Kaplan &Grady's
Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder practice.
Chapter 8.80, as written, likely violates federal civil rights laws. If implemented, it will likely lead to a costly
federal civil rights lawsuit for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the
Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. I respectfully suggest Lewis County reconsider
Ordinance 1354, particularly Chapter 8.80.50, which directly targets the Gather Church, and Chapters 8.80.040
and 8.80.160. Attached please find a letter explaining why. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Howard Sinkman
External Email - Remember to think before you click!
This message may contain links with malware, viruses, etc. Please ensure the message is
le•itimate before openin• it.
1
1<1 A P L AN David Howard Sinkman
sinkman@kaplangrady.com
3128522184
March 18, 2024
Via Email
Rieva Lester, Clerk
Lewis County
351 NW North Street
Chehalis, WA 98532
Re: Ordinance 1354
I write regarding Ordinance 1354 which proposes adding Chapter 8.80 to the Lewis
County Code. I am a former federal prosecutor where I worked for years on addressing
discriminatory barriers to medical treatment for people with substance use disorder for the United
States Department of Justice.I currently help direct Kaplan&Grady's Access to Medications for
Opioid Use Disorder practice.
Chapter 8.80, as written, likely violates federal civil rights laws. If implemented, it will
likely lead to a federal civil rights lawsuit for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution. I respectfully suggest Lewis County reconsider Ordinance 1354, particularly
Chapter 8.80.50, which directly targets the Gather Church, and Chapters 8.80.040 and 8.80.160.
Civil rights protections
Title II of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by public entities, including state
and local governments.' Likewise, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits
recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of disability in their
programs and activities.2 Lewis County receives federal funding.
The ADA and RA only protect people with qualifying disabilities.Establishing a disability
requires showing a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, a
record of such impairment,or being regarded as having such an impairment.3 In enacting the ADA
42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 32 ("no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be
excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,programs,or activities of a public entity,or
be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.").
2 29 U.S.C.§794("No otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall,solely by reason of her or his
disability,be excluded from the participation in,be denied the benefits of,or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.").
3 28 C.F.R.§35.108(ax1).
Kaplan &Grady LLC
2071 N. Southport Ave.,Suite 205 Chicago, IL 60614 www.kaplangrady.com
Rieva Lester,Clerk
March 18,2024
Page 2 of 7
Amendments Act in 2008, Congress made clear that ADA jurisprudence should focus less on
establishment of disability and more on whether entities were taking steps to avoid discrimination.4
To ensure this breadth of coverage, additional major life activities, including operation of major
bodily functions,were added to the ADA's coverage.5 According to the appendix to Title II of the
ADA,"[a]ddiction is a disability,"6 and courts have regularly ruled as such.
While the ADA and RA do not protect individuals currently engaged in the illegal use of
drugs, there is a notable exception to this caveat that covers the Gather Church and its patients.?
Public entities, such as Lewis County, cannot deny health services, such as those related to
substance use disorder ("SUD"), because of the illegal use of drugs if the person is otherwise
entitled to such health programs or services.8
In the recent Department of Justice Guidance entitled "Americans with Disabilities Act
and the Opioid Crisis: Combating Discrimination Against People in Treatment or Recovery,"the
Department gave the following example illustrating how the health services exception protects
people with SUD who are currently using illegal drugs:
Example F: A hospital emergency room routinely turns away people experiencing
drug overdoses, but admits all other patients who are experiencing emergency
health issues. The hospital would be in violation of the ADA for denying health
services to those individuals because of their current illegal drug use, since those
individuals would otherwise be entitled to emergency services.9
Of course, there is a"direct threat" limitation to the health services exception. If a person
using illegal drugs"poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others,"then the health services
exception does not apply.10 In practice, this means that a person with SUD who recently used
illegal drugs, but is otherwise entitled to health services, is protected by the ADA and RA unless
4 28 C.F.R. §35.101(b).
5 28 C.F.R. §35.108(cX1Xii).
6 28 C.F.R.app.B§35.131.
28 C.F.R. §35.131(a)(1).
8 28 C.F.R. §35.131(b)(1)("a public entity shall not deny health services,or services provided in connection
with drug rehabilitation,to an individual on the basis of that individual's current illegal use of drugs,if the individual
is otherwise entitled to such services");29 U.S.C.A. §705(20)(C)(iii)("Notwithstanding clause(i),for purposes of
programs and activities providing health services and services provided under subchapters I,II,and III,an individual
shall not be excluded from the benefits of such programs or activities on the basis of his or her current illegal use of
drugs if he or she is otherwise entitled to such services.").
9 DOJ,'The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Opioid Crisis:Combatting Discrimination Against People
in Treatment or Recovery',available at https://archive.ada.gov/opioid_guidance.pdf.
10 28 C.F.R. §36.208(a)(emphasis added).
2
Rieva Lester,Clerk
March 18,2024
Page 3 of 7
there is a particularized showing based on "objective evidence" that he or she is an actual and
direct threat to others."
Courts are clear that the "direct threat" exception cannot "be based on generalizations or
stereotypes about the effects of a particular disability."12 This is especially so when local
governments pass ordinances that categorically impact the medical needs of people with SUD. As
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit warned in a decision involving a zoning
ordinance restricting methadone clinics because of purported concerns that the clinics would
increase crime and drug use,13 "[flew aspects of a handicap give rise to the same level of public
fear and misapprehension, as the challenges facing recovering drug addicts.""
Because syringe service programs in general, and the Gather Church in particular, are
health services providers delivering essential medical treatment to at-risk populations facing
elevated risks of overdose death and transmission of infectious diseases(including HIV),they are
covered by the ADA and RA. This means that unless there is objective evidence that Gather
Church and its patients pose an actual risk of a direct harm to others (not themselves),15 then the
ADA and the RA protect them from the proposed ordinance.
Court decisions striking down similar ordinances.
Recent court decisions involving local restrictions targeting SUD treatment facilities
illustrate how Ordinance 1354,which clearly targets the mobile operations of the Gather Church,
violates the ADA and RA. I bring this to your attention and the attention of Lewis County
Commissioners voting on Ordinance 1354 in the hopes that you reconsider the proposed ordinance.
In Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit(the federal appellate court that presides over federal cases
brought in Washington) held that the ADA and the RA apply to zoning restrictions targeting
substance use treatment facilities because"zoning is a normal function of a government entity."16
The Ninth Circuit then struck down an emergency moratorium prohibiting the operation of
" 28 C.F.R. §35.131(b)(1);28 C.F.R. §36.208(a)-(b)("In determining whether an individual poses a direct
threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on
reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence,to ascertain);
28 C.F.R. §36.209(b)(1).
12 Bay Area Addiction Research&Treatment,Inc. v. City of Antioch 179 F.3d 725,735(9th Cir. 1999).
13 Id.at 729.("Specifically,the city council found that the methadone clinic would attract drug dealers and
lead to an increase in crime in the area surrounding the clinic").
14 Id at 736(citing School Bd of Nassau Cnty. v.Arline,480 U.S.273,285(1987)).
15 28 C.F.R. §35.131(b)(1);28 C.F.R.§36.208(a)-(b);28 C.F.R. §36.209(b)(1).
16 Bay Area Addiction Research& Treatment,Inc., 179 F.3d at 735.
3
Rieva Lester,Clerk
March 18,2024
Page 4 of 7
methadone clinics within 500 feet of residential areas in the City of Antioch for being facially
discriminatory on the basis of the plaintiff's disability— drug addiction."
The Ninth Circuit noted that Antioch might defend the ordinance under the "significant
risk" test by showing (1) the methadone clinic "poses a direct threat to the health or safety of
others" and (2) that Antioch is addressing this evident risk through a reasonable zoning
modification.'s The court stressed, however, that to satisfy the "significant risk"or"direct threat
test" there must be evidence of a real and significant risk and that any such zoning restrictions
"may not be based on generalizations or stereotypes about the effects of a particular disability."19
Other federal appellate courts have joined the Ninth Circuit's reasoning. Three years after
the Bay Area decision, the Sixth Circuit in MX Grp., Inc. v. City of Covington invalidated a city
ordinance limiting the number of SUD treatment clinics to one facility for every 20,000 persons
in the city. The Sixth Circuit held that"the blanket prohibition of all methadone clinics from the
entire city was discriminatory on its face"and thus violated the ADA and RA.20 The Sixth Circuit
emphasized that the evidence demonstrated that the zoning ordinance was motivated by prejudice
because it was based on fears and stereotypes,not concrete evidence of a direct threat to others?'
Similarly, the Third Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania statute imposing a ban on the
establishment of SUD treatment clinics within 500 feet of schools, churches, and residential
housing developments because the law "facially singles out methadone clinics, and thereby
methadone patients, for different treatment,thereby rendering the statute facially discriminatory,"
in violation of the ADA and RA.22
The Third Circuit in New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of Reading emphasized that
the standard for determining whether a methadone clinic poses such a risk to justify closure is an
"objective" one: "we cannot base our decision on the subjective judgments of the people
purportedly at risk. . .but must look to objective evidence in the record of any dangers posed by
methadone clinics and patients."23 Turning to the evidence offered,the Third Circuit held that the
city failed to satisfy the"direct threat"test,providing no objective evidence that methadone clinics
increase criminal activity.24
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 MX Grp.,Inc. v. City of Covington,293 F.3d 326,345(6th Cir.2002).
21 Id. at 342(citing Ross v. Campbell Soup Co.,237 F.3d 701,706(6th Cir.2001)).
22 New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of Reading,490 F.3d 202,304(3d Cir.2007).
23 Id.at 306.
24 Id. ("the record demonstrates no link between methadone clinics and increased crime," "no evidence to
support its contrary assertion that there is a`frequent association' between methadone clinics and criminal activity,"
4
Rieva Lester,Clerk
March 18,2024
Page 5 of 7
The Second Circuit long ago reached the same conclusion. In 1997, it affirmed a trial
court's injunction requiring a city in New York to allow a drug treatment facility to open.The city
had initially denied the facility permission to open on the grounds that there was no physician"on
premises."The federal district court had rejected that reasoning because there were"other entities
offering services similar to [the facility's] proposed use in the same zoning district," and because
of "the considerable animus towards drug and alcohol-dependent people expressed by certain
members of the community and their attorneys during the pendency of these proceedings,"among
other factors 25 The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's injunction, in part,because"there
is little evidence in the record to support the [the board]'s decision on any ground other than the
need to alleviate the intense political pressure from the surrounding community brought on by the
prospect of drug-and alcohol-addicted neighbors. The public hearings and submitted letters were
replete with discriminatory comments about drug- and alcohol-dependent persons based on
stereotypes and general, unsupported fears."26
Like the above cases, Ordinance 1354 is not supported by any report,testimony,photo,or
other evidence documenting any public safety danger caused by the operations of the one mobile
syringe service exchange in Lewis County. Rather, it appears driven by animus against syringe
service exchanges and the people they serve and by unfounded fears of increased drug use,crime,
and the number of unhoused in the county. We expect any legal challenge to be met with the same
scrutiny as the cases cited above.
Costs and expenses.
In defending discriminatory zoning provisions eventually struck down as facially
discriminatory, government entities have incurred substantial financial and resource burdens. For
example, in RHJ Med. Ctr., Inc. v. City of DuBois, a federal district court struck down a zoning
ordinance that specifically excluded treatment facilities. The court ultimately ordered the City of
DuBois to pay$132,801.64 in damages and over$270,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.27 To avoid
the risk of protracted and expensive litigation and possibly a federal investigation, Lewis County
should not enact Ordinance 1354 as written.
and even if such connections existed,we are skeptical that they would qualify as the substantial harms contemplated
by the Arline and Bragdon Courts").
25 Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 931 F. Supp. 222, 244 (S.D.N.Y. 1996),affd in
part, 117 F.3d 37(2d Cir. 1997).
26 Id, 117 F.3d at 49.
27 RHJMed Ctr., Inc. v. City of Dubois,No.CIV.A.3:09-131,2014 WL 3892100,at*1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8,
2014).
5
Rieva Lester,Clerk
March 18,2024
Page 6 of 7
Syringe service programs, including exchanges, are proven to reduce overdose deaths and
the spread of infection diseases.
When considering Ordinance 1354 and the applicability of the ADA and RA,it is important
to keep in mind that nearly thirty years of medical research have documented that syringe service
programs ("SSP"), including exchanges, are essential health service providers, necessary for an
effective public health response to the opioid and HIV crises 28 According to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention,for example,"[w]e can prevent and treat infections and overdose
deaths through SSPs. Together, we have an unprecedented opportunity to combat the nation's
opioid crisis while continuing to strengthen infectious disease prevention and treatment for
communities everywhere."29
Leading medical organizations have repeatedly called for expanded SSP access and
highlighted the harmful impact that restrictions and bans,such as those proposed in Lewis County,
pose to this proven, effective, and safe medial response to the opioid and HIV crises. I highlight a
few for your reference. For example:
• According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse:
o SSPs are "especially critical for preventing the community spread of HIV and
addressing the intertwined public health crises of HIV and opioid use."30
o SSPs "result in better substance use outcomes for people who inject drugs and can
improve the overall health of communities in which programs operate."31
o "NIDA,the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,and others have conducted
and supported research on these programs for nearly 30 years. Researchers have
found that syringe services programs are safe, effective, and cost-saving tools to
prevent HIV and high-risk injection behaviors that can impact the spread of other
infectious diseases among people who inject drugs."32
28 https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/syringe-services-programs#what-are-syringe (last visited March 17,
2024)(concluding that SSPSs are"especially critical for preventing the community spread of HIV and addressing the
intertwined public health crises of HIV and opioid use"):https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/index.html(last visited March 17,
2024).
29 https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/index.html(last visited March 17,2024).
30 https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/syringe-services-programs#how-do-syringe (last visited March 17,
2024).
31 https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/syringe-services-programs#do-syringe-services (last visited March 17,
2024)
32 https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/syringe-services-programs#what-are-syringe (last visited March 17,
2024)
6
Rieva Lester,Clerk
March 18,2024
Page 7 of 7
• According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
o "Nearly thirty years of research shows that comprehensive SSPs are safe,effective,
and cost-saving, do not increase illegal drug use or crime, and play an important
role in reducing the transmission of viral hepatitis,HIV and other infections."33
o "We can prevent and treat infections and overdose deaths through SSPs. Together,
we have an unprecedented opportunity to combat the nation's opioid crisis while
continuing to strengthen infectious disease prevention and treatment for
communities everywhere."34
o "Comprehensive SSPs have been shown to dramatically reduce HIV risk and can
serve as an entry point for a range of services to help stop drug use,overdose deaths,
and infectious diseases."35
• According to the American Medical Association:
o "Syringe services programs provide comprehensive services to reduce harms, save
lives."36
o "Increasing access to syringe services programs is essential to limiting the spread
of blood-borne infectious disease."37
o "Public health officials, colleges, universities, and other educational settings can
reduce harms and help control infectious disease spread through supporting
comprehensive needle and syringe exchange services, as well as supporting
widespread, community-level distribution of naloxone and fentanyl test strips."38
Please let me know if you have any questions about how Ordinance 1354 invokes federal civil
rights laws and protections.
Sincerely,
/s/David Howard Sinkman
33 https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/index.html(last visited March 17,2024).
34 Id.
35 https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/effective-interventions/prevent/index.html(last visited March 17,2024).
36 https://end-overdose-epidemic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/AMA-Advocacy-2022-Overdose-Epidemic-
Report 090622.pdf(last visited March 17,2024).
37 Id.
38 https://end-overdose-epidemic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/AMA-Advocacy-2022-Overdose-Epidemic-
Report 090[622.pdf. (last visited March 17,2024).
7
['] The Network The Network—Harm Reduction Legal Project
for Public Health Law 7101 York Avenue South,Suite 270
Edina,Minnesota 55435
Tel(952)452-9706
Ideas. www.networkforphl.org
Experience.
Practical Answers.
Rieva Lester
rieva.lester@lewiscountywa.gov
BOCC
Ordinance 1354
Room 210
351 NW North Street
Chehalis, WA 98532
RE: Ordinance 1354
March 18, 2024
Dear Ms. Lester:
On behalf of the Harm Reduction Legal Project, I appreciate the opportunity to submit brief comments
regarding proposed Lewis County ordinance 1354. The Harm Reduction Legal Project is an initiative of
the Network for Public Health Law, and provides actionable information, guidance, and support to
policymakers, health agencies, providers, and advocates working to create more just, equitable, and
health-focused drug policy in the Unites States.
We believe that this ordinance will create unnecessary barriers to those who wish to reduce drug-related
harm to both themselves and the community accessing harm reduction supplies and services, which will
result in preventable harm and expense to the people of Lewis County. We urge you to support
evidence-based harm reduction policies and reject the proposed Chapter 8.80 addition to the Lewis
County Code.
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 109,000
Americans died from a drug overdose in 2022. These deaths are overwhelmingly caused the presence of
illicit fentanyl in the illegal opioid supply. Participants in syringe services programs (SSPs) are more likely
to stop using drugs—new users of SSPs are five times more likely to enter drug treatment than those
who do not use an SSP. Those who do not stop using drugs but participate in an SSP are three times
more likely to reduce their injection frequency. SSPs also greatly reduce the transmission of disease and
save health care costs, all while reducing the presence of needle litter and causing no increase in illegal
drug use or crime.
Washington state law recognizes the importance of SSPs and of public health supplies like injection
equipment, smoking equipment, and drug testing equipment and provides for wide distribution and use of
such supplies by public health programs, community-based HIV prevention programs, outreach, shelter,
and housing programs, and pharmacies. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 69.50.4121(3). The restrictions
proposed in Ordinance 1354 are not backed by science and impose new requirements for SSPs that
threaten the continued operation of existing programs and would make it extremely difficult if not
impossible for new programs to begin operations.
If the ordinance is enacted, the result would likely be that syringe litter and communicable disease will
increase, and connection to treatment will decrease. The lack of safer drug use supplies will lead to an
increase in community costs due to the increase in preventable disease and overdose. Further, the
scientific literature is clear that syringe services programs reduce syringe litter in areas where they are
implemented. Syringe services programs are also a key element in connecting those who are ready to
stop using drugs to treatment. Eliminating SSPs does not stop people from using drugs.
Even if SSPs are able to continue operating in the County after the passage of Ordinance 1354, the
restrictions the ordinance would impose will reduce their effectiveness. Perhaps most importantly, the 1:1
requirement has long been found to be insufficient and counterproductive -SSP effectiveness increases
when providing syringes on an as-needed basis. The CDC supports a needs-based approach, as it is the
best practice for public health for a new syringe to be used for every injection.
Banning mobile services will also cripple the abilities of SSPs to best serve the community. Beyond the
fact that it can be extremely costly to acquire a permanent space, being able to meet people where
they're at, both mentally and physically, is an important factor in harm reduction. Due to distance, lack of
transportation, or illness, it may be impossible for some people to show up at a brick-and-mortar
locations, reducing the amount of people that SSPs can help to reduce their chance of disease and link to
care. Mobile harm reduction units can also provide medications for opioid use disorder to people who
may not be able to access it otherwise.
Limiting the SSP to distribution of syringes only is another counterproductive provision of the ordinance.
A new syringe can still be high risk if people reuse cottons, use dirty water, or use cookers that have been
used previously for drugs of unknown potency. Further, choosing to smoke drugs instead of injecting
them can often be a way to avoid overdose, as many people who use drugs feel they can better control
their high by smoking. The distribution of injection supplies, smoking supplies, and any other supplies
needed to maintain the basic health of people who use drugs should not be restricted, and should be fully
endorsed and funded by the county, rather than forbidding any county funding to be used for SSPs
whatsoever—another troublesome aspect of the ordinance.
Finally, the ordinance restricts staff at SSPs to those who have not been participants in an SSP or been
involved in a drug crime in the last two years—essentially, meaning anyone with recent lived experience
is banned from working at an SSP. The rejection of staff with recent lived experience is shortsighted at
best. Often, these are the people who know how best to reach out to the drug-using community, who
know what the most recent issues in the community are, and who are most trusted by the exact people
that SSPs want to reach. Without staff with lived and livinq experience, the reach of the SSP will be
hampered.
SSPs are an evidence-based public health and medical intervention. Their operation should not be
restricted by politicians with no training in either field. Decreasing the effectiveness of SSPs does not stop
drug use, it simply makes it more dangerous. The consequences of re-using or sharing injection
equipment are incurable disease and death at incredible cost to the public, both financially and in the
emotional toll on the community that comes with preventable morbidity and mortality. If the BOCC is truly
concerned about syringe litter or the lives of those people who use drugs, we strongly suggest that they
fully fund and work in conjunction with their local SSPs to make them even more effective.
Sincerely,
Amy Lieberman
Senior Attorney, Harm Reduction Legal Project
Network for Public Health Law
Kathryn Chatterton
From: Christina Riley <christina.riley85@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 8:55 AM
To: BOCC
Subject: Ordinance 1354
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
You don't often get email from christina.riley85@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important
Board of Lewis County Commissioners
Thank you, County Commissioners, for the opportunity to comment on this topic.
Open injection sites, while well-intentioned, are not the best option for small communities. There are several
potential drawbacks to consider:
1. Increased crime: While open injection sites aim to reduce the harm associated with drug use, they also
attract criminal activity to the surrounding area. This can make residents feel unsafe and deter businesses from
opening in the area, as well as shifting the burden to these small businesses.
2. Negative impact on property values: The presence of an open injection site may lower property values in the
surrounding area, making it more difficult for homeowners to sell their homes or attract new buyers.
3. Strain on Medical Providers: Open injection sites require significant resources to operate, including trained
staff, medical supplies, and security measures. This can strain local budgets and divert resources away from
other important community needs, especially in small communities with limited resources. Moreover, our local
medical providers are already experiencing a need for more medical professionals. Therefore, the operation of
these sites requires a larger number of medical staff to be present on-site, adding further pressure on the
already stretched resources.
4. Lack of community support: The establishment of an open injection site can be controversial, and some
community members may not support the idea. This can lead to social tensions and divisions within the
community.
5. Reduced Stigma on drug use: When you look up Pro's to a safe injection site, reduced stigma on drug use is
often number one. That should not be considered a pro. We are seeing record numbers of drug usage and
overdoses all across our country. What we know is that Fentanyl is killing kids, and to continue to reduce the
stigma around drug use is a disservice to our youth and to our families. We need to be focusing on the
opposite. We must educate our community members on the harmful effects of all drugs and break the cycle of
drug use.
It is important to consider the potential drawbacks carefully before implementing or sustaining such a program
in a small community. Taking a holistic approach to rehabilitation, mental health support, education, and
training services can provide hope for a better future for vulnerable populations. Additionally, Lewis County
may have other opportunities to assist this population. Narrowing the use of these sites and creating more
regulations for utilization will improve much-needed safety measures in our county.
For our families and especially our youth, please regulate sterile needle and syringe exchanges.
i
Thank you,
Christina Riley
Winlock, Wash
External Email - Remember to think before you click!
This message may contain links with malware, viruses, etc. Please ensure the message is
le•itimate before openin. it.
2