Oppose or Amend AB 1627

We are writing in opposition to AB 1627 (Ramos) unless the bill is amended to better serve our communities and more effectively address overdose. Overdose is a critical issue in our communities, but we need evidence-based, compassionate, and community-focused solutions that do not center law enforcement. We applaud efforts to expand access to naloxone in our underserved communities. Such efforts are especially critical given the rising rates of overdose across our state, including here in Riverside County where 799 individuals lost their lives to overdose in 2021 alone and polysubstance overdose deaths involving fentanyl and methamphetamine have doubled every year between 2019-2021. Everyday, we see how the overdose crisis in our community is increasingly impacting individuals who are precariously housed, individuals from minoritized communities, and young people. However, we strongly oppose the provision that the sheriff's department provide training to community members in overdose prevention and naloxone administration for the following reasons: Officers are not trained public health experts. Naloxone training falls outside of the purview of the duties they are best equipped to respond to. There is no evidence-based justification for officer-led training. In fact, viral videos from Sheriff's departments (including here in Southern California) have spread panic, confusion, and misinformation about fentanyl overdose that has been harmful to community efforts to understand and prevent fentanyl-related overdose. Officer-led training will have a chilling effect in terms of who will feel comfortable to sign up for training. Individuals from Black, Indigenous, Latino, and other historically marginalized communities will be far less likely to attend a life-saving overdose training run by officers due to historical mistrust and negative interactions with law enforcement. A growing body of peer-reviewed research shows that officer-involved overdose programming has a counterproductive effect on overdose prevention. For example, law enforcement have been involved in “post-overdose” responses (checking on overdose survivors) in some communities across the country, but research has found that police often check warrants prior to post-overdose outreach visits, which can result in arrest, delayed outreach, and barriers to obtaining services for overdose survivors, ultimately undermining the supportive aims of these programs. Threats of arrest, including “drug-induced homicide” charges, distrust of law enforcement, and fear of mistreatment deter individuals from calling 911 in the first place. We expect that involving officers in overdose training will have similar unintended consequences. As an alternative, we strongly encourage the authors to amend the bill to center local health departments and community-based organizations such as IEHR, who have the training and on-the-ground experience with the community to effectively address overdose.