New York City Mayor Eric Adams is once again in the political spotlight, this time for launching a controversial proposal aimed at tackling the city’s visible drug crisis. With his re-election campaign in full swing and poll numbers lagging, Adams has unveiled the Compassionate Interventions Act—a plan that would dramatically expand the city’s ability to involuntarily commit individuals struggling with substance use disorder. The proposal, which would require approval from the state Legislature, has sparked a heated debate about public safety, civil rights, and the best path forward for a city grappling with addiction on its streets.
On August 14, 2025, Adams formally introduced the Compassionate Interventions Act, pitching it as a necessary step to address what he described as an urgent public health and safety issue. Currently, New York’s involuntary commitment laws only allow medical professionals to hospitalize people with severe mental illness for evaluation, and only if they pose a substantial risk of harm to themselves or others. Adams’ plan would broaden that authority, allowing doctors to hospitalize individuals for evaluation and treatment if they are deemed at risk due to substance use—even if they refuse care. If a person resists treatment, a court order could mandate it.
“We know there’s skepticism, but I’ll tell you what New Yorkers don’t want. They don’t want someone injecting themselves with drugs on their porches,” Adams told reporters on Thursday, as reported by The Center Square. “They don’t want someone in the subway system that’s under the influence of some form of substance abuse. This cannot be allowed to continue. We must help those struggling to finally get treatment, whether they recognize the need for it or not.”
The proposal is more than just a legal change. It comes with a significant financial commitment: $27 million earmarked to improve access to drug treatment and an additional $14 million to boost funding for the city’s syringe service programs. Adams argues that these investments, paired with expanded authority for involuntary commitment, will help get people off the streets and into care—whether or not they ask for it.
But if Adams was hoping to unite the city behind his plan, the early response suggests he has a long road ahead. Homeless advocates, substance abuse experts, and civil rights groups have all lined up to criticize the proposal, warning that it risks further stigmatizing people with addiction and could cause more harm than good.
Ann-Marie Foster, president and CEO of Phoenix House New York, didn’t mince words in her response. “New Yorkers suffering from substance use disorder will continue to suffer until they have the resources they need and decide for themselves to get well,” Foster said in a statement on August 14. “Involuntary commitment for severe substance use disorder just doesn’t work—and raises countless clinical and ethical concerns around patient autonomy and justice.”
The Legal Aid Society echoed those concerns, issuing a statement that blasted the proposal as misguided and dangerous. “Forcing New Yorkers struggling with addiction into involuntary detention is traumatic, raises serious civil rights concerns, and does nothing to address the root causes of substance use,” the organization said. “If the mayor were serious about saving lives, he would invest in proven harm reduction strategies, voluntary treatment, permanent housing, and community-based supports—not policies that amount to state-sanctioned incarceration in medical settings.”
Meanwhile, Adams’ political rivals have seized on the moment to draw sharp contrasts. On August 15, Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, who is running against Adams in the upcoming mayoral election, criticized the mayor’s approach during remarks in Richmond Hill, Queens. “When you focus on outcomes and look at recent studies around involuntary commitment, it starts to ask more questions about whether it presents the same solutions that we are told that it does,” Mamdani said, as reported by NY1.
Mamdani’s campaign received a boost the same day, when Queens Democratic Borough President Donovan Richards—who had previously supported Adams in 2021—switched his endorsement to Mamdani. Richards, while poking fun at one of Mamdani’s campaign videos, also issued a subtle challenge to other Democrats still on the fence. “Now is not the time for us to sit on the fence,” he declared. “People don’t care about [whether] you’re a Democrat or a Republican when you need your potholes filled.”
Adams, for his part, has tried to portray himself as a unifier who can bring together New Yorkers from all walks of life. In an interview with NY1 on August 15, he said, “You do not say you’re going to govern right-leaning or left-leaning, you govern the people of the city.” He pointed to his 2021 campaign as evidence of his ability to build coalitions. “That’s how I won. I became the mayor because I built coalitions with all groups.”
But the numbers tell a more complicated story. According to a recent poll cited by NY1, Adams’ favorability rating sits at a dismal 30%, with 58% of respondents viewing him unfavorably. That makes him less popular than both Mamdani and former Governor Andrew Cuomo—an unenviable position for any incumbent seeking re-election. Adams didn’t rule out the possibility of courting Republican voters, emphasizing that “there is always a coalition of people in this city who care about quality of life issues and they want to have a place to raise their children and families.”
On another front, Adams is facing criticism for his veto of legislation designed to reduce penalties against street vendors—a move that Mamdani and other progressives have lambasted as a betrayal of small business owners and entrepreneurs. “What he did with that veto, it harms business leaders and entrepreneurs across the city. And what is important to do is to take the actions that live up to the responsibility of the position, and that’s not what he did,” Mamdani remarked. City Council leaders have pledged to override the mayor’s veto in an upcoming vote, setting the stage for another high-profile showdown at City Hall.
The debate over involuntary commitment comes on the heels of recent changes to state law. In May, Governor Kathy Hochul signed a state budget that expanded the state’s involuntary commitment laws, allowing authorities to remove mentally ill homeless people from the streets if they’re unable to care for their basic needs. Previously, such individuals could only be committed if they posed a substantial risk of harming themselves or others. Adams’ proposal would take that expansion a step further, applying similar standards to those suffering from substance use disorder.
For supporters, the Compassionate Interventions Act represents a bold, necessary step to reclaim public spaces and get help to those who need it most—even if that means overriding individual autonomy in the short term. For critics, it’s a dangerous overreach that risks repeating the mistakes of the past, deepening mistrust in city government and failing to address the root causes of addiction.
As the city awaits action from the state Legislature, the stakes couldn’t be higher. With public opinion divided and the mayor’s political future hanging in the balance, the outcome of this debate may shape not just the fate of the Compassionate Interventions Act, but the direction of New York City’s approach to addiction, public health, and civil rights for years to come.
