San Francisco’s Fentanyl Response: Due Diligence or Democratic Overreach?

The San Francisco Fentanyl Crisis 

San Francisco is undergoing a crisis–a fentanyl crisis, the leading cause of accidental overdose in the United States. This is not news, nor is it particularly surprising. The initial spread of fentanyl began in 2016 and has remained a persistent health issue. Fentanyl is a powerful synthetic opioid drug;  given its high potency and low cost, drug dealers often combine fentanyl with other drugs, increasing its fatality. Consequently, deaths have soared, even reaching an all-time high in 2023, with 806 overdoses. These statistics are concerning and San Francisco urgently needs a solution. 

Previous San Franciscan mayors have attempted to resolve this issue through government-funded addiction treatment and harm reduction programs. Yet these efforts have largely proven futile, as it is fairly difficult to incentivize treatment.

Will San Francisco emerge victorious out of its fentanyl crisis? Recently elected Mayor, Daniel Lurie, certainly believes so, centering his  2024 mayoral campaign around addressing San Francisco’s fentanyl issue. Wasting no time, Mayor Lurie swiftly signed his Fentanyl State of Emergency Ordinance in February 2025, committed to delivering his promises. According to Mayor Lurie, this ordinance will unlock the necessary powers for effectively addressing San Francisco’s fentanyl crisis with the urgency it demands. But is this absolutely necessary?

Fentanyl State of Emergency Ordinance

It is important to note that city legislation is not dictated by Mayoral whim, instead, all proposed legislation must pass through the Board of Supervisors. This process can oftentimes be long and extensive, as it requires various meetings and hearings.

This is frequently referred to as bureaucratic delays. This ordinance essentially avoids bureaucratic delays, ultimately granting Mayor Lurie an unprecedented transfer of power. This ordinance additionally eliminates competitive bidding, a formal process for requesting services. As a result, the city can directly award contracts to companies or organizations without oversight.  Mayor Lurie was further granted the ability to seek private donations without supervisor approval. 

Mayor Lurie’s outline for combating fentanyl is nothing short of lackluster, as it remains only a vague outline. One would think that a proposal to reduce executive oversight would pair with a concrete agenda, yet that expectation goes unmet. Mayor Lurie plans to unlock funding to expedite hiring and contracting, allowing for expanded treatment, shelter, and mental health initiatives. These concerns are not isolated, in fact, the board of supervisors voted ten to one in favor of the ordinance, with Shammon Walton voting against due to the lack of details and accountability metrics. 

Implications of San Francisco Fentanyl Emergency State Ordinance

Reduced executive oversight and unapproved private donations is a breeding ground for corruption, fostering the possibility of misallocated funds and improper governance. Without proper checks, these private donations could potentially be funneled into private companies–after all, we would have no way of knowing. Wealthy donors could utilize this as an opportunity to buy influence. Policy influence could be just one text message away: Lurie! Remember when I donated ten million dollars? 

The purpose of this ordinance is beyond evident, but the question remains–was it necessary? Does this set future precedents regarding emergency state ordinances? Imagine: 2050–Newly elected mayor proposes state emergency ordinance…again! Could this ordinance encourage future leaders to seek reduced oversight once a crisis arises? There are valid reasons for bureaucratic delays, one of those being the prevention of rash decision-making.  Mayor Lurie plans to “swiftly” implement programs, will this urgency undermine proper deliberation?

Checks and balances is a system in which each governing branch yields the power to limit the other branches in order to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. This system allows our democracy to thrive, as it promotes accountability and public trust. Of course, if Mayor Lurie delivers his promises without corruption, then great. However, that does not negate the fact that his ordinance fundamentally undermines democratic institutions. Even if Mayor Lurie’s intentions are noble, governing should nonetheless be done the right way, even if it means enduring bureaucratic delays.

Conclusion

Our country depends on democratic institutions preventing any one person or group from yielding too much power, and this ordinance blatantly undermines that principle. This ordinance carries dangerous implications, as reduced oversight opens the door for corruption. Misallocated funds, rash decisions, and possible favoritism are all fair game. Of course, reduced oversight does not inherently suggest a leader will abuse their power, but it nonetheless raises significant concerns regarding the accountability in San Francisco. 

San Francisco's drug crisis is severe, and applause to Mayor Lurie for taking appropriate measures toward reform, but there are nonetheless proper procedures for these sorts of issues. Perhaps Daniel Lurie will victoriously defeat the fentanyl  crisis and news headlines will read: San Francisco is finally free from Fentanyl! But at what cost? Undermining democratic institutions is the improper way to govern.

Bureaucratic delays may be tedious, but they exist for a reason–to keep our politicians in check. Checks and balances keeps our democracy guarded. It keeps us protected.

Image Source: Mission Local