Local leaders and addiction recovery organization advocates for change
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) – Addiction recovery providers around Hampden County came together Thursday evening to share resources and advocate for change. The Western Mass Policy Forum held at the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield filled an auditorium as advocates shared the value of recovery and what it often looks like. 'If you ask anybody who's an addict, they didn't want to be an addict, you know, they became addicted. They became addicted to a drug or to alcohol. Nobody wants to live in that cycle,' shares Noel Sierra, Executive Director, Massachusetts Organization for Addiction Recovery. Overdose prevention centers treat those in need and keep addicts alive across the country. However, in Massachusetts, there are currently no such facilities, and legislation is needed to put them in place. Since 2010, Massachusetts has seen 23,000 people die alone due to overdose. If you ever find yourself in a situation where a person has overdosed, there are five steps you can take to help them. First, you'll want to check their breathing and verify if they are experiencing any type of discoloration, such as blue or gray. Next, you'll want to call 911 immediately. During that time, you can also give the individual Narcan using a push pump in their nose. It's important you stay with the person overdosing until help gets there to assist. Policy makers were also in attendance at the forum, advocating for change. Others, like a local director and producer, are using her recent documentary to contribute to the movement. 'Recovery is possible, and also the stigma of recovery is real, and people recover when they are supported and not judged,' says Lisa Olivieri. If you're interested in viewing her documentary 'Recovery City', visit here for local screening dates and times.
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on WWLP.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Flags are at half-staff in Massachusetts today. Here's why
Gov. Maura Healey announced that state and national flags will fly at half-staff in Massachusetts today, June 7 to honor Staff Sergeant Loring E. Lord of Somerville. SSG Lord served in the U.S. Army Air Forces 642d Bombardment Squadron, 409th Bombardment Group, 9th Bombardment Division, 9th Air Force, during World War II. On March 21, 1945, while on a mission to Duelmen, Germany, SSG Lord was killed in action when his aircraft was shot down. His service was honored with the Air Medal and the Purple Heart. After being missing for almost 80 years, Somerville sargeant was recently identified. In honor of SSG Lord and his service to the country, flags at all Massachusetts state buildings will be lowered to half-staff from sunrise to sunset on Saturday, June 7, the day when his remains will finally be laid to rest at Woodlawn Cemetery in Everett. According to the official website of the U.S. General Services Administration, flags typically fly at half-staff when the country or specific state is in mourning. Observances include national tragedies, days of remembrance and deaths of government or military personnel. The president, the state governor or the mayor of Washington, D.C., can order flags to fly at half-staff. While half-staff refers to lowered flags on land, half-mast refers to those at sea. Both refer to a flag being flown beneath the top of its staff as a sign of respect. This article originally appeared on The Patriot Ledger: Why are flags at half-staff in Massachusetts today? What to know
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge turns back challenge to MBTA housing law; Holden among plaintiffs
Superior Court ruling dismissing MBTA Communities unfunded mandate challenge by Michael Elfland on Scribd A Superior Court judge on Friday tossed a lawsuit brought by nine municipalities challenging the MBTA Communities Act, ruling that the controversial zoning-reform law is not an unfunded mandate. Plymouth Superior Court Justice Mark Gildea granted the Healey administration's motion to dismiss the latest challenges to the 2021 law, which supporters see as a key tool to spur development of much-needed housing in more than 170 eastern Massachusetts cities and towns. Marshfield, Middleton, Hanson, Holden, Hamilton, Duxbury, Wenham, Weston and Wrentham had each filed legal complaints against the law in recent months, contending that it should not be enforceable after the Division of Local Mandates in Auditor Diana DiZoglio's office deemed the measure an unfunded mandate. More: Holden seeks short-term halt to MBTA housing law Plaintiffs said allowing multifamily housing by right in at least one reasonably sized zone as the law requires could force them to absorb significant new infrastructure costs with no state assistance. But Gildea concluded the possible costs are "indirect," which means the law is not an unfunded mandate, and that grant programs are available to help shoulder some of the burden. "Even if [the law] was an unfunded mandate, the Municipalities have failed to allege sufficient facts concerning any anticipated amounts associated with future infrastructure costs beyond a speculative level," Gildea wrote in a 40-page decision. Some of the plaintiffs laid out their own issues with the law as well, such as Middleton arguing that it should not be classified as an MBTA community and therefore should not be subject to the mandatory zoning reforms. Jason Talerman, an attorney for some of the towns, said in an email that plaintiffs are "disappointed with the result and find the decision to be contrary to applicable law." Most of the 177 communities subject to the law have approved new zoning reforms, putting them in compliance, according to the Healey administration. In January, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the MBTA Communities Act as a constitutional law the attorney general can enforce with legal action. The high court required the Healey administration to redo the regulation-setting process. This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Judge turns back challenge to MBTA housing law
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday granted Harvard University's emergency request to block, for now, the Trump administration's effort to ban international students from its campus, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if enforced. The temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs blocks the administration from immediately stripping Harvard of its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP — a program run by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. Burroughs said in her order that Harvard has demonstrated evidence it "will suffer immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties," prompting her to temporarily block the SEVP revocation. Still, some see the order as a mere Band-Aid, forestalling a larger court fight between Harvard and the Trump administration — and one that Trump critics say could be unfairly weighted against the nation's oldest university. "Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview discussing the Trump administration's actions. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, the administration has frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts awarded to the university. It is also targeting the university with investigations led by six separate federal agencies. Combined, these actions have created a wide degree of uncertainty at Harvard. The temporary restraining order handed down on Thursday night is also just that — temporary. Though the decision does block Trump from revoking Harvard's SEVP status, it's a near-term fix, designed to allow the merits of the case to be more fully heard. Meanwhile, the administration is almost certain to appeal the case to higher courts, which could be more inclined to side in favor of the administration. And that's just the procedural angle. Should Harvard lose its status for SEVP certification — a certification it has held for some 70 years — the thousands of international students currently enrolled at Harvard would have a very narrow window to either transfer to another U.S. university, or risk losing their student visas within 180 days, experts told Fox News. Some may opt not to take that chance, and transfer to a different school that's less likely to be targeted by the administration — even if it means sacrificing, for certainty, a certain level of prestige. Regardless of how the court rules, these actions create "a chilling effect" for international students at Harvard, Aram Gavoor, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School and a former Justice Department attorney, said in an interview. Students "who would otherwise be attending or applying to Harvard University [could be] less inclined to do so, or to make alternative plans for their education In the U.S.," Gavoor said. Even if the Trump administration loses on the merits of the case, "there's a point to be argued that it may have won as a function of policy," Gavoor said. Meanwhile, any financial fallout the school might see as a result is another matter entirely. Though the uncertainty yielded by Trump's fight against Harvard could prove damaging to the school's priority of maintaining a diverse international student body, or by offering financial aid to students via the federally operated Pell Grant, these actions alone would unlikely to prove financially devastating in the near-term, experts told Fox News. Harvard could simply opt to fill the slots once taken by international students with any number of eager, well-qualified U.S.-based applicants, David Feldman, a professor at William & Mary who focuses on economic issues and higher education, said in an interview. Harvard is one of just a handful of American universities that has a "need-blind" admissions policy for domestic and international students — that is, they do not take into consideration a student's financial need or the aid required in weighing a potential applicant. But because international students in the U.S. typically require more aid than domestic students, replacing their slots with domestic students, in the near-term, would likely have little noticeable impact on the revenue it receives for tuition, fees and housing, he said. "This is all about Harvard, choosing the best group of students possible," Feldman said in an interview. If the administration successfully revokes their SEVP certification, this would effectively just be "constraining them to choose the second-best group," he said. "Harvard could dump the entire 1,500-person entering class, just dump it completely, and look at the next 1,500 [applicants]," Feldman said. "And by all measurables that you and I would look at, it would look just as good." Unlike public schools, which are subject to the vagaries of state budgets, private universities like Harvard often have margins built into their budgets in the form of seed money that allows them to allocate more money towards things they've identified as goals for the year or years ahead. This allows them to operate with more stability as a result — and inoculates them to a larger degree from the administration's financial hits. "Uncertainty is bad for them," Feldman acknowledged. But at the end of the day, he said, "these institutions have the capacity to resist." "They would rather not — they would rather this whole thing go away," Feldman said. But the big takeaway, in his view, is that Harvard "is not defenseless."
