Banning SSPs Will Hurt All Idahoans, Not Just People Who Use Drugs

The Idaho Legislature recently voted to repeal their prior authorization of “safer syringe programs” (SSPs). Such a move flies in the face of the state’s ostensible commitment to individual liberty – SSPs, after all, do not increase illicit drug use, but do give people a way to make safer choices if they continue using. But let’s put debates about autonomy (and the limits we’d like to place on it) aside for a moment. Since 2019, Idaho’s SSPs have saved lives and protected communities across the state. Banning them will have consequences, and not just for people who use drugs. 

Since SSPs were legalized in Idaho, up to nine authorized programs were operating across the state in a given year. In 2022, they prevented an estimated 93 cases of hepatitis C and 46 cases of HIV. That same year, SSPs collected almost 600,000 used syringes, keeping them out of public spaces and ensuring their safe disposal. According to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare’s latest report, SSP participants reversed at least 628 opioid overdoses using naloxone received through the programs.

According to many of the state’s lawmakers, that isn’t the point. They worry the programs enable drug use, and would rather see the government crack down further on fentanyl sales. But we cannot arrest our way out of this crisis. Doubling down on enforcement tactics while neglecting time-tested public health strategies will not save lives or even reduce drug use. Jails and prisons are poor places to attempt substance use disorder recovery, and people face massively inflated risk of overdose on their release. Even treatment, when compulsory, ranges from inconsistent to downright harmful, increasing patients’ risk of suicide and overdose.

SSPs, on the other hand, save taxpayers upwards of $7 for every dollar spent – regardless of whether the government is paying in – and play a fundamental role in stemming drug use in the long term. Participants are four to five times more likely to engage in treatment, and three times as likely to quit using drugs altogether. In 2021, Idaho’s SSPs connected 915 people to treatment for a substance use disorder.

By deciding to repeal the state’s authorization of SSPs, Idaho lawmakers are taking a massive step backward in their fight against fentanyl and the overdose crisis. Cutting people’s access to sterile equipment will not stop people in withdrawals from injecting addictive drugs. They will instead reuse needles or share with others, which will likely lead to a rebound in HIV and hepatitis C cases – just look at West Virginia.

What’s more, the repeal would leave people who use drugs without the connections that keep them safer, hurting not just their chances of recovery, but their chances of survival. In a state like Idaho, where great geographic distances and a shortage of mental health professionals and treatment beds already hinder access, the warm handoff SSPs provide has extra value.

But even Idahoans who are not concerned with the well-being of people who use drugs should be worried about HB 617. The state’s push for SSPs started, in part, as an effort to protect sanitation workers. Toward that end, the programs have had unquestionable success promoting proper syringe disposal, which has been proven to reduce syringe litter and potential for needle stick injuries. Infectious disease outbreaks, even if clustered among a particular group, can put community health at risk, and the costs are largely carried by taxpayers. And the consequences of substance use disorder and overdose extend beyond the individual, with friends and family suffering alongside their loved one, or in the wake of their death. If Idaho lawmakers ban SSPs, they are abandoning a proven resource for people who use drugs. But they are also abandoning a tool that serves all Idahoans by keeping communities safer and healthier. Talk about a risk not worth taking.