Falls for Democratic Central Committee of Santa Cruz County

Join the Political Revolution! Gail Pellerin, California Assembly District 28 (parts of Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Counties) https://www.gailpellerinforassembly.com Voting Rights Veteran,Groundbreaking LGBTQ+ Ally

In 2020, I ran to be on the Democratic Central Committee because I wanted to work to push the local Democratic Party to the left. I oppose DINOs (Democrats in Name Only), folks who have a big "D" next to their name, but vote against labor and espouse trickle down economics theories. This election season, we have on the ballot, a true DINO running for re-election in the newly created Santa Cruz District 6 (the far Westside, from the ocean up to the western half of campus): Renee Golder.

Renee is extremely friendly, but her politics are fraught. To begin with, Renee Golder was a registered Republican for almost her entire adult voting life. According to voter rolls she registered to vote in 1995, and she registered as a Republican. She did not change her registration until April of 2018. That means she lived through the entire George W. Bush presidency and thought "yup!" She saw the Democrats elect the first black president and was not moved or inspired to switch parties. She heard Donald Trump call Mexicans drug dealers and rapists and watcher her party nominate him anyway and stayed a Republican. She did not change her voter registration until the recall against Drew Glover qualified for the ballot, and she decided to run for office.

Of course, I fully support people like Elizabeth Warren who start as Republicans but who have life experiences that steer them in a different direction, but I simply don't think Renee has been a Democrat long enough for any of us to feel confident that she is a champion of Democratic Party ideals the way Senator Warren has been. I suspect Renee switched her party affiliation mostly because she knew it would be hard to run a city council campaign and win as a registered Republican. I suspect she did it for personal gain and not because she had a big change of heart.

Furthermore, on a personal note, as someone who pays attention to a lot of Santa Cruz city council meetings, I am surprised that she has decided to run when her day job is clearly so demanding. For those of you who don't know, she is a fellow educator. She was recently promoted to principal of Bay View Elementary. As a teacher, I can tell you my job is very time consuming. It is hard, and I work long hours, and I am quite sure my principals all work more. I can't imagine anyone having such a strenuous day job and being able to put their full attention into their city council duties. City Council meetings start at 9 am, but she usually doesn't arrive until after 3 pm, and then when she arrives she looks like she is falling asleep.

You all have to understand that the almost-post-covid life of an educator is very, very challenging. We have so many students who are still so far behind because of learning loss during distance learning. We also have a lot of students who are suffering extreme depression and anxiety. I think our increasingly digital learning environment has been challenging for many students, and I am dealing with more students than ever who are literally in trauma. I have never seen so many students who suffer panic attacks and require special educational plans for extreme anxiety.

As a principal at Bay View, Renee works with a lot of students who likely are enduring what many of my high school students down the street are dealing with. It isn't fair to them to have her so distracted by her city council responsibilities, and it isn't fair to Santa Cruz City residents who need city council members who have the time and energy necessary for tackling our tough challenges.

Be clear, I have heard nothing but good things about Renee as an educator. Everyone I know who works with her loves her. I personally think she is extremely warm, and friendly, but she is not in a position to continue on city council. Plus, as a lifelong Republican, who has spent most of her council career working to criminalize people who sleep outside or who sleep in cars, I think she is way too conservative to continue representing Santa Cruz.

I encourage everyone to support her opponent Sean Maxwell. He is a working guy with the support of the local labor unions. He is a renter who has worked hard on the planning commission to promote affordable housing. He is a champion of true Democratic Party ideals, not just someone who joined the Democratic Party for personal gain.

Sean Maxwell for City Council Sean Maxwell is a 20-year Santa Cruz resident. Father, husband, small local business owner and renter running for City Council. He’s devoted to showing up and working for a Santa Cruz that works for everyone. Proudly endorsed by Felipe Hernandez Former Watsonville mayor Katherine Beiers Former San...

For years, the Santa Cruz County Democrats endorsed the most conservative city council candidates that were running. I remember in 2016, comparing the endorsements made by the local Democratic party to endorsements made by leaders in the Republican party, and they were virtually the same. That is why I ran to be elected to the central committee of the Democratic Party. In 2020, a handful of us won seats, but there were not enough of us for it not to feel sort of hostile. The first year felt pretty tough.

However, over the last year, various people have left for various reasons, and suddenly the local Democratic Party is much more progressive than it used to be. We aren't fully there, though, so last night's endorsement forum ended with mixed results.

The great news is that the Democratic Party of Santa Cruz County officially endorsed Justin Cummings for District 3 Supervisor. (The Democratic Party didn't even endorse him for his city council seat in 2018. Ugh!)

The good news is that the Democratic Party DID NOT endorse Renee Golder (who was registered as a Republican from 1995 until April 2018 when the recall of Drew Glover qualified for the ballot) or Scott Newsome (who comes uses a lot of coded language about law and order and community safety in a very "Take Back Santa Cruz" sort of way).

In fact, Hector Marin and Sean Maxwell got a majority of the votes. They needed 60% to get the endorsement, and they were both 2 votes shy of this threshold.

I guess I think it is a victory that neither Golder or Newsome got the endorsement. Though it would have been nice to have the Democratic Party promoting my candidates. I guess what that means is that local Santa Cruz progressives will have to work particularly hard to promote Hector, Joy, and Sean. Please join me!!

As the driving force behind the "No on E" campaign, I could have told you months ago that despite misleading ballot language, the move to district elections would not lead to increase in representation of people of color and other folks who have been historically marginalized. Our city council chose the most gerrymandered districts possible, making sure students and people in my neighborhood, lower ocean, and people in the beachflats have their voices overwhelmed by their rich, white, more conservative neighbors.

Now we learn that the attorney who pushed Santa Cruz in this direction has been disbarred. This whole thing is outrageous!

At least the article highlights my choice for D4, Hector Marin, who speaks articulately about the amount of privilege required to run and win a city council race.

Where the New District Elections System Went Wrong | Good Times Only one of the six candidates running for the two city council seats is Latinx

Just a few days left to Vote NO on Measure E! If you've already voted, consider this your sign to reach out to your friends, family members, and neighbors to remind them to vote NO on E.

No to gerrymandering, no to unfair at-large elections, and no to double representation.

Also, DM us if you want to join for one last push to drop literature tomorrow at 1pm!

We are pleased that the Santa Cruz County Democratic Party has taken the official position of "No On Measure E". For fairness and equity, vote "no"!

Don't be fooled by the tricky language about Measure E on your ballot. Regardless of the success of Measure E, Santa Cruz City will likely move to district elections. Measure E's only impact is on whether we create 7 equal districts (by voting "no") or whether we create 6 districts, where one district (likely the wealthiest district) will always get two councilmembers, their regular councilmember, plus the mayor who is just a glorified city councilmember. Remember, the mayor is not a full time job. The pay is comparable to that of a 15-20 hour a week job. The mayor has no incentive to understand the issues unique to each district. They will only have the time to find out what their immediate neighbors think about the important issues coming before city council.

If you love district elections, you should vote "no". Measure E undermines the goals and aims of increased participation that district elections are supposed to engender. If you hate district elections, you should still vote "no". Measure E cements this way of choosing councilmembers in place. If we want real reform like ranked choice voting, we will not be able to get it if Measure E passes.

No on E. It is unfair and undermines real reform.

It is really important for city voters to understand Measure E. It will NOT promote diversity of elected officials. Read more to understand why.

Measure E is unfair and undemocratic. The city has been working toward electoral reforms, but Measure E undermines the stated equity goals for our city council elections. Vote "no" on Measure E.
https://www.facebook.com/No-on-E-Santa-Cruz-2022-110026248356359

Measure E creates six city council districts, districts heavily gerrymandered to dilute the voice of students, low income folks, and the Latinx community. Each district elects one city councilmember. A seventh councilmember will be elected at-large and will earn the honorary term of "mayor". This person would need to win a city-wide vote, a challenge usually only accomplished by candidates with access to big donors with deep pockets.

The mayor has no other extra responsibilities beyond setting meeting agendas. If Measure E passes, one district will always get two representatives on city council and that district will likely be the wealthiest district.

The June 7th Primary has some big, hotly contested races. In the excitement of Measure D and two county supervisor races, Measure E is likely to get overlooked. It is a wonky, technical, and innocuous-seeming measure. Many might even think of it as boring. But voters should beware. It is a dangerous, undemocratic measure that will undermine the goals of increased equity that the move towards district elections is supposed to promote.

What is Measure E and why is it inherently undemocratic and unfair? To find out more, please visit our website. www.no-on-E2022.com.

In short, Measure E creates six city council districts, districts heavily gerrymandered to dilute the voice of students, low income folks, and the Latinx community. Each district elects one city councilmember. The seventh councilmember will be elected at-large, by the whole city, a challenge usually only accomplished by candidates with access to big donors with deep pockets. This person gets the honorary term of "mayor" without any extra responsibilities beyond facilitating council meetings.

Measure E essentially guarantees that one district will always get two representatives on city council; that district will likely be the wealthiest.

Please help spread the word that Measure E is unfair and undermines real reform. Like our page and share with others.

No on Santa Cruz City's Measure E - No on Measure E 2022 No on Santa Cruz City’s Measure E — June 7, 2022 What is Measure E? Measure E aims to change the Santa Cruz City Charter to alter the way the City…

I am spearheading the campaign against the Santa Cruz City Ballot Measure E, on the ballot this June. Measure E creates an unfair way to conduct city council elections and undermines efforts for real reform in the electoral process. Join me in voting "No!" on Measure E, and check out the "No on E" page.

No on Measure E Measure E is unfair and undermines real reform. We oppose this June 2022 ballot measure and encourage

I have spent the better part of the last 48 hours in a virtual, Zoom-based convention. I am trying to be as involved as I can considering I am just one of 3,000 delegates without any leadership role. This basically means showing up to webinars and trying to follow along. The only way to give any real input is in big sweeping votes, one vote to approve or object to the endorsement of 100 different candidates, one vote to approve or object to the passage of a 40 page platform. I know all the nuance happened in all the meetings and working groups leading up to this point, so I won't complain too much about loving so much of the platform and finding issue with a few small parts and not being able to weigh in on those small pieces.

What I do want to talk about is my continued concern that Democrats so often talk a great talk while not walking the walk. For instance the third sentence of the party platform (literally, the *third* sentence after the table of contents) states that we support a "universal, single-payer health care system." A bill for universal, single payer health care was brought to the California Assembly where Democrats have a super-majority, and too many Democrats opposed the bill, and the item was removed from the agenda, not even hearing a vote. Of course, because there was no vote, we don't know whom exactly to blame, but there are rumors about who they were. Many of those same people continue to get strong backing from the entire Democratic Party while high up party officials blame progressives for being too divisive by pushing such a controversial bill.

It is maddening.

And when party leaders continue to kowtow to big oil and big companies like PG&E, and progressives try to hold them accountable, the progressives are told they are out of order.

Our party platform has some of the strongest environmental language of any platform in the country, yet I fear we will continue to push for more of the same.

We need to stop being the party of compromisers, a party so afraid to lose we won't actually stand up for poor and working people over big special interests. We lose because all our wheedling is uninspiring. If we want to win we need to be visionaries, working for the world so many actually wish to see.

A virtual convention, with bad internet (which is why my computer is on my floor by the front door) is a little less inspiring, but I have to hand it to Dr. Shirley Weber for bringing some tears to my eyes.

No! No! No! on the Recall of Governor Newsom.

Even if you don't love his politics, consider the alternative. The person highest in the polls to replace him is Larry Elder

This is from my union: "Elder recently said, 'There are far more bad public school teachers than there are bad cops. And it practically takes an act of Congress to get a bad public school teacher fired. So when and where can we expect the [hashtag]DefundPublicEducation [I didn't actually want to hashtag it to help it trend] rallies?'"

Also according to my union, he also said he "would would undo any mask or vaccine mandates, leaving us potentially like Florida where Governor DeSantis has promised to withhold teacher pay if the school districts carry our mask mandates."

There is a huge question about who to vote for at the bottom of the ballot. My union advises that "we do not mark anyone. There is a possible constitutional case for a challenge if the No votes are higher than any one of the candidates. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/11/opinion/california-recall-election-newsom.html"

Opinion | There Is a Problem With California’s Recall. It’s Unconstitutional. Governor Newsom can receive far more votes than any other candidate but still be removed from office.

Are you a member of the Santa Cruz Community Credit Union? Did you sign the petition opposing the sale of our SCCCU main branch to a New York developer to build a 6 story luxury hotel? Seven hundred and thirty eight member/owners, signed the petition, which resulted in the Credit Union board scheduling an online membership meeting on Friday, August 13th from 12PM to 2PM! It is critical that we show up in large numbers to get the message across that we as member-owners believe that a 228 room luxury hotel with 60 parking spaces in our downtown will be a detriment to our community— occupying valuable real estate zoned for housing, clogging our streets, filling parking spaces meant to serve residents and visitors, stressing our water supply, moving profits out of state, adding carbon to our air.

In order to attend the meeting, you must be a credit union member and have registered by filling out the form at this link: https://www.scccu.org/landing-pages/special-member-meeting. There is an hour allotted at the end of the meeting for public comment. Please check the box that says that you want to speak against the hotel. It's a way to show your opposition. If you find you have nothing to say, you can always pass.

Unfortunately this “special member meeting” is scheduled during working hours, so If you aren’t able to attend, please take a few minutes to email your thoughts to [email protected]. And because the only way for Credit Union members to know about this meeting is by going to the website, we urge you to forward this letter to your member friends!

We are planning to track letters and attendance and would very much appreciate your notifying us of your registration and ccing your letter to [email protected]. To sign the petition visit our website: https://buildcommunitynothotels.org.

This meeting is our chance as member-owners to question the sale and envision an environmentally and socially sound use of our property in keeping with the mission of a local member-owned credit union!!

Estas un miembro de Santa Cruz Community Credit Union? Firmaste la petición que se opone a la venta de nuestra sucursal principal de SCCCU a un promotor de Nueva York para construir un hotel de lujo de 6 pisos? Setecientos treinta y ocho de miembros/propietarios, firmaron la petición, lo que hizo que la junta directiva de la Cooperativa programara una reunión de miembros en línea el viernes 13 de agosto de 12 a 2 de la tarde. Es fundamental que nos presentemos en gran número para hacer llegar el mensaje de que nosotros, como miembros-propietarios, creemos que un hotel de lujo de 228 habitaciones con 60 plazas de aparcamiento en nuestro centro será un perjuicio para nuestra comunidad, ocupando valiosos bienes inmuebles destinados a la vivienda, obstruyendo nuestras calles, llenando las plazas de aparcamiento destinadas a servir a los residentes y visitantes, estresando nuestro suministro de agua, moviendo los beneficios fuera del estado, añadiendo carbono a nuestro aire.

Para asistir a la reunión, debes ser socio de la cooperativa y haberte registrado rellenando el formulario en este enlace:https://www.scccu.org/landing-pages/special-member-meeting. Hay una hora asignada al final de la reunión para los comentarios del público. Por favor, marque la casilla que dice que quiere hablar en contra del hotel. Es una forma de mostrar su oposición. Si no tiene nada que decir, siempre puede pasar.

Desgraciadamente, esta "reunión especial de miembros" está programada en horario laboral, así que si no puedes asistir, tómate unos minutos para enviar tu opinión por correo electrónico a [email protected]. Y como la única manera de que los miembros de la Cooperativa se enteren de esta reunión es entrando en la página web, te instamos a que reenvíes esta carta a tus amigos miembros.

Estamos planeando hacer un seguimiento de las cartas y de la asistencia y agradeceríamos mucho que nos notificaran su inscripción y que enviaran su carta a [email protected]. Para firmar la petición, visite nuestro sitio web: https://buildcommunitynothotels.org.

Esta reunión es nuestra oportunidad, como miembros-propietarios, de cuestionar la venta y de imaginar un uso ambiental y socialmente adecuado de nuestra propiedad, en consonancia con la misión de una cooperativa de crédito local propiedad de sus miembros.

Build Community Not Hotels

The republican party is working on another recall coup, trying to oust Gavin Newsom. The recall vote is happening entirely by mail, with ballots being mailed out later this month.

Please make sure your voter registration is current and that your county election officer knows the address where you get your mail.

It is hard for me to even articulate all my anger and frustration at this recall. I have so many issues, it is hard to know where to start. First of all, recall elections are horribly undemocratic. In a typical gubernatorial race, there would be primaries that would whittle all the candidates down to the top two, and then there would be a runoff in the general election where the person who wins is the one who gets the majority votes. In a recall, 49% of the voters could say "no! don't recall", 51% could say "yes, do recall", but then the person who gets to be governor might only have 20% of the voters' support.

But also, the folks trying to recall him are so unreasonable, blaming him for a high population of unhoused and high property taxes. Why in the hell is any of that the fault of someone who has been in office for two years.

Reading the pro-recall website is like reading a MAGA website. It refers to folks without papers as "illegals." and anyone in contact with the criminal justice system is described as violent or pedophiles. They are mad about mask mandates and money spent to educate people about social distancing (when the whole country was on lockdown!)

Here are some of the gems from their website: "Infringements of our 2nd Amendment Rights; Countless new Gun and Ammo Laws;
Sanctuary State for Illegals and Criminals; Made it Legal for Illegal Aliens to Sit on State Boards; Prop 13 – Attempting to Restructure = Increased Property Tax [heaven forbid corporations pay their fair share of taxes]; Prop 47: Reduces Felonies to Misdemeanors of Violent Criminals [ummm...that passed by voter initiative in 2014 before Newsom was Governor??]; Teachers No Longer can Discipline Disruptive Students [uhhh...what??!! Yes I can.]; Illegals are Given: Income Tax Refunds, Welfare, Medical Insurance, Housing, Education, Food Stamps, Cell Phones… FREE!" Ugh. It just keeps going.

Look, I was pi**ed about the French Laundry thing too, and the fact that he sends his kids to private school makes my blood boil, but I hope you will join me in opposing this recall. The truth is, I think most of you do. But we need to make sure we get the word out that this election is 100% by mail, and votes need to be in by September 14. I think most average Californians don't support the recall, but they aren't prepared to vote. Make sure all your friends and family are registered with an up-to-date mailing address, and make sure everyone casts a ballot in this election and votes "NO!!!"

Most of the folks in the convention hall and who are "advertising" during the convention are nonprofits and unions, but repeatedly seeing an "ad" for the California Association of Realtors feels really problematic. The Democratic Party should not be beholden to major corporate interests, and definitely not an organization who sees housing mainly as a money making scheme and not a basic human right.

Digital conventions are weird. I am not a member of any committees, and I am mostly "here" to see what it is all about. Mostly it is me joining a Zoom with 300 people and not saying anything or doing anything. Then my internet gets sketchy and drops me. Today's general session was kind of inspiring, but as a Zoom based general session, it mostly feels like I am watching videos of people speaking. So here is me in the "same (digital) room" as Nancy Peolsi.

Attending the state convention digitally is a bit underwhelming, but I am inspired and impressed that the party's vice chair just used his entire speaking time to say the names of the POC killed by police brutality. Say their names!

It is very clear from the data and the health officials: harm reduction is a positive approach to confronting the opioid crisis and the spread of disease. The Harm Reduction Coalition is an absolute asset to the community, reducing litter, educating people about how to take care of themselves, passing out PPE in the face of a global pandemic, reducing overdose deaths, and generally increasing access to a necessary service. Representatives from the county program had nothing but positive things to say about the professionalism and level of collaboration exhibited by HRCSC. I am endlessly inspired by the work of HRCSC!

resplusagenda.pdf

I am honored to have been chosen to represent Assembly District 29 as a delegate to the California Democratic Party. As the second highest vote winner in an ADEM election with a record number of voters, I will take seriously the call to work for a more progressive party, to make sure the Democratic Party is the party of equality, justice, and fairness, to make sure we honor and uplift working people, poor people and people who have been left behind by our broken and racist systems.

Yippee! I have been endorsed by Santa Cruz County For Bernie Sanders in my run for ADEM! I feel very honored to have this endorsement. When I think about inspiring, progressive action, I think of SC4B. This group represents what an active, truly left Democratic Party could look like. It also seems like it was tough to secure the endorsement. The email I got from SC4B says: "Sixteen candidates (out of 26 running) attended our virtual public candidates forum on Monday, January 4th. After the candidates spoke, SC4B members engaged in a thorough discussion and ultimately endorsed* these ADEM 29 Candidates for the California State Democratic Party Central Committee.

Glenn Glazer
Arlene Haffa
Chris Krohn
Rojina Bozorgnia
Stephanie McGuinness
Stacey Falls

Candidates who were preferred by a majority of Berners voting but who did not reach the required 2/3 threshold for endorsement are:

Sean Hebard
René Bloch
Jovita Dominguez
Justin Cummings
Rafa Sonnenfeld
Ethan Sanchez"

Only 6 of us reached the 2/3 threshold. I am so honored to be one of them!

As SC4B reminds us, "The endorsement doesn't mean anything unless it motivates you to request an ADEM ballot no later than January 11 from the CA Democratic Party and vote later this month. Support our endorsed candidates in moving the Democratic Party in Bernie's direction!" You can request your ballot here:
https://ademelections.com/?isCandidate=False

Registration - Assembly Democrats Registration

Hey everyone,

I have joined a slate of folks running to be delegates to the California Democratic Party, and I need your help getting elected, along with my cohort. https://tinyurl.com/adem29rocks

First of all, why is this important? This is the body who basically drives the Party’s platform and agenda. Unfortunately, we live in a two-party system, but we can ensure that instead of being forced to choose between the right and the center, we can, instead, have a Democratic Party who actually leans left.

Past year progressive slates have pushed the California Democratic Party to adopt one of the most progressive platforms in the whole country, including rent control and rights for workers. I want to continue that work. I would like a Democratic Party that stands up for Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

I'm not going to lie, I was inspired to run to make sure that the people who got elected to this position are not the same folks who cheered and celebrated when Biden promised that "not much will fundamentally change" under a Biden administration.

This is not an election on a typical ballot. In order to vote in this election, you need sign up. If you are a registered Democrat, you can vote. Request your ballot here https://ademelections.com/?isCandidate=False

You need to make the request by January 11. It is my understanding that this process will be all digital, meaning there is no need to attend any caucus. You will vote safely from home. It is super easy, and there is no reason not to do it.

Thanks in advance.

Registration - Assembly Democrats Registration

Leaders in the Democratic Party should support the Harm Reduction Coalition of Santa Cruz County instead of banding together with neighborhood "haters" who are suing in order to halt HRCSCC's work.

I think we do the party a disservice when we don't distinguish ourselves from the Republican Party. Despite a few pundits saying it on TV, there is no evidence that moving left (and calling for things like rethinking how we allocate community resources when it comes to funding an inherently racist criminal justice system, for instance) is the reason for a less than resounding showing from the Democratic Party in the November election. In fact, data from places like Michigan in 2106, where 88,000 people turned out but abstained from voting in the presidential race, suggest that many dislike the Republican Party but are also reluctant to vote for centrist Democrats.

If people like our "Democratic" leadership on the Board of Supervisors and "Democratic" city council members (like Renee Golder, who was actually a republican for 20 years until she decided to run for office) want to disregard science and question the findings of governmental public health agencies like the CDC, there is a party for them; it is the Republican Party.

In fact, the CDC has consistently supported needle exchange programs, and their support of the programs are based on peer-reviewed scientific studies. On this website, which includes citations for all said studies https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/syringe-services-programs-faq.html, the CDC asserts that "studies show that SSPs [syringe services programs] protect the public and first responders by providing safe needle disposal and reducing the presence of needles in the community." The CDC also reminds us that "When people who inject drugs use an SSP, they are more likely to enter treatment for substance use disorder and stop injecting than those who don’t use an SSP.1,2,3,4 New users of SSPs are five times as likely to enter drug treatment as those who don’t use the programs. People who inject drugs and who have used an SSP regularly are nearly three times as likely to report a reduction in injection frequency as those who have never used an SSP.2" and "SSPs do not cause or increase illegal drug use. They do not cause or increase crime.14,15"

Also see this article
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-needle-exchange-programs-are-important -of-programs-increases

This weekend, since the lawsuit was filed, I have been discussing this matter with many others who are leaders the Democratic Party of Santa Cruz County, and it is so weird how they will say, "yes. We should be rational and scientific." and then say "But there are littered needles everywhere [which actually hasn't been my personal experience], so we should [ignore all peer-reviewed science that says needle exchange programs reduce littered needles and] block the HRCSCC from operating."

I am boggled by the way Democrats can profess to care about science and then a sentence later say something unscientific.

We have a rabidly anti-scientific president who is fueling bizarre conspiracy theories that serve his own needs, taking radical action like withdrawing support from WHO. We should take a strong stand for science, facts and common decency. The lawsuit against HRCSCC is the opposite of where we should be heading.

Syringe Services Programs (SSPs) FAQs | CDC Syringe Services Programs FAQs