That enormously frustrated sigh you hear is from Orange County officials who must promote and protect sober housing for recovering addicts — but can have no role in ensuring said housing is up to snuff.
To wit: Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that sought basic quality standards for sober living homes that contract with local governments on Friday.
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a brief in federal appeals court attacking Costa Mesa’s rules trying to rein in unruly sober living homes last month.
Observers note that there’s a class of people some are trying to protect, but a dive into the data and statistics makes it unclear if they’re being protected at all.
It’s no secret that Sacramento is where plans to remake addiction treatment often go to die, but there was hope for Assemblymember Kate Sanchez’s Assembly Bill 1696.
Accountability
The Sober Living Accountability Act — which passed unanimously out of both the Assembly and the Senate, and waited hopefully on Newsom’s desk — would have required privately owned recovery residences that contract with county governments to provide written permission from the property owner attesting to its use; a code of ethics aligned with the National Alliance for Recovery Residences or the like; written policies addressing a resident’s right to access prescription and nonprescription medication, including medication-assisted treatment (currently frowned upon by “just another drug” types, even though it’s the gold standard of opioid treatment); and proof that naloxone is available and staff knows how to use it.
It’s important to understand that recovery residences/sober living homes are not the same as licensed or certified addiction treatment facilities. Those licensed/certified facilities, usually tract homes in residential neighborhoods, are where treatment actually happens (in theory, at least). Those are regulated by the state.
In contrast, sober homes — also usually found in tract homes…
Read the full article here
