I would like to clarify a few points about HB 161 in your article “Youngkin signs 36 more bills but vetoes 22 criminal justice measures,” which was published in the Cardinal News on March 21, 2024.
Someone dies of an overdose in a Virginia jail every other month. The status quo, which the Virginia Sheriffs’ Association (VSA) supports, allows incarcerated people to die needlessly of preventable overdoses amongst those that they are entrusted to protect. If the VSA cared to stop the rampant overdose problems in Virginia’s jails it would have supported my bill HB161 — which would have extended safe harbor overdose reporting. Such programs have been found by the Government Accountability Office to reduce overdose deaths and increase reporting, saving lives and improving access to treatment. This is the message that should have been conveyed when you discussed HB 161 in your article. Instead, it was dominated by the fear mongering rhetoric of the Virginia Sheriffs’ Association and its executive director, John Jones.
Mr. Jones states that the VSA specifically requested that the governor veto two bills — and was “delighted” when their request came to fruition. One of those bills was my HB 161, which you write “would have protected prison or jail inmates from being convicted of possessing, buying or selling alcohol or drugs if the inmates seek emergency treatment for themselves or others.” This description misrepresents the legislation. This bill would have provided limited protection only for people experiencing life-threatening overdoses and people who sought to help that person. There was no mention at all about buying or selling alcohol or drugs in the language of the bill. In fact, it was crafted in partnership with stakeholders to allow investigation and prosecution of distribution explicitly while putting survival first. This is why the Virginia Department of Corrections did not oppose the bill at any point. Currently, people who report or seek medical assistance for someone overdosing in our jails are routinely punished for the act of trying to save someone’s life.
In the next paragraph you include a quote from Mr. Jones, in which he deliberately distorts the impact of the bill: “If you have an inmate that is using drugs, the bill would have provided that we would not have been able to discipline the inmate, and that would have hampered us in an investigation about how the drug got into the jail,” Jones said. “That was a dangerous bill, we already have a statutory provision for safe-harbor for people that use drugs, and those provisions apply to everyone, whether they are incarcerated or not.”
First, it should be noted that we actively sought to include the Virginia Sheriffs’ Association as stakeholders, just as we did with the Virginia Department of Corrections. We offered the VSA amendments to address their concerns by removing protections for the person experiencing the overdose. VSA rejected all of them. I have attached below screenshots of the email, as well as the amendments that were offered. If VSA accepted our amendments then the “inmate that is using drugs” would in fact have been able to be disciplined and only the inmate doing the reporting would receive the safe harbor. It’s telling that Mr. Jones neglected to mention that fact in your interview.
Second, the intention of this bill is to save lives and I do not believe that was properly communicated in this article. If reported in time, overdoses are 100% preventable. That is why such state sponsored programs such as Virginia’s Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services REVIVE! program are so popular. Everyone should be trained and have access to Naloxone. Everyone BUT those who are incarcerated apparently, according to Mr. Jones in this published quote. If the Virginia Sheriffs’ Association is relying on deceased inmates who overdosed from opioids because they did not have access to Naloxone to conduct their “investigation about how the drug got into the jail” then their current strategy is not effective.
Third, this is NOT a “dangerous bill.” The only thing that is dangerous is this rhetoric.
As the sponsor of this bill, I believe it is important to refute the bold and erroneous accusations made in this article.
