Sen. Richard Bennett (R-Oxford) sponsored a bill to combat the state’s opioid crisis by creating overdose prevention centers that give drug addicts a “safe” place to use illicit substances with no risk of legal consequences.

The bill, LD 755, allows towns and cities to approve the establishment of overdose prevention centers where “clients” (drug addicts) can inject fentanyl and various other drugs while being supervised by staff trained in resuscitating overdose victims.

Sen. Bennett’s bill notably drew support from only one Republican co-sponsor, Rep. David Woodsome (R-Waterboro), but garnered support from eight Democratic co-sponsors, including former House Speaker and current Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland).

The bill provides a wide range of protections to its “clients.” It grants them immunity from prosecution and prevents any civil action against them based on their drug use at the center. The bill specifies that a “client” cannot even face disciplinary action from a licensing board.

That provision would theoretically allow a doctor or surgeon to enter a “center,” shoot up fentanyl, and continue to practice medicine with the Medical Licensing Board powerless to take action, potentially putting patients at risk.

Bennett’s bill also provides immunity from any “employment action” based on activity at the center, suggesting that an employer would be unable to fire a worker if they learn that the employee is a fentanyl addict based on their use of the center.

Paroled criminals, released on the condition that they do not commit further crimes — such as illegal drug use — will be able to use drugs at the center without fear of repercussions for violating their conditional release.

Though the bill requires the centers to establish eligibility requirements for “clients,” it does not specify what those requirements should be. In its current form, the bill places no demands on “clients,” who can use the center as a place to get high with immunity before immediately returning to the streets to illegally acquire more drugs.

The bill does lay out numerous requirements for the centers themselves. A municipality can only choose to establish a center following a hearing to allow the public to express their concerns.

Centers must provide referrals to various healthcare and recovery centers, conduct community cleanups of litter and discarded hypodermic needles, establish relationships with the nearest hospitals, and listen to complaints from neighboring businesses and homes.

They are also required to provide annual reports, including the number of clients, the number of overdoses, and the number of clients referred to other services. An independent organization would then conduct a peer-reviewed study of the annual report to determine the effects of the center on the surrounding community and its general efficacy.

The bill does not come with any fiscal note and does not specify whether the centers will be funded by state or local taxpayers. The text mentions that the peer-reviewed studies will be funded through grants and private donations, though it is unclear whether that will be the funding model for the centers broadly.

A 2022 study conducted on a similar program in New York City found a general decrease in overdose risk and a potential drop in public drug use. The study notably only examined the first two months of a center’s operation and did not examine the impact on the community at large or drug-related crime.

A similar measure in Oregon, decriminalizing drug use, proved disastrous for communities.

Vancouver, Canada, has long had supervised injection sites, but, despite some positive studies, law enforcement warned that the sites led to more disorder on the city streets.

The Maine Wire reached out to Bennett for comment, but he did not immediately respond.

The Legislative Committee on Health and Human Services initially considered the bill, but referred it to the Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety following a Tuesday work session.