A Safe Injection Site Is Essential For Esquimalt And Victoria

Moreover, NEPs will provide sterile needle and syringes to avoid exchanges of used injections between drug users. Since NEPs are implemented, the number of HIV cases and other diseases are declined. In Saskatchewan, distributing needles reduces the total costs for health care because needle exchange programs reduce the transmission of HIV by one-third and accommodate a return of four thousand dollars investment in health care costs. (Thompson) Needle exchange program provide safety not only in drug addicts but also provide safety in the community. Many of needle exchange programs perform a one-for-one basis to decrease the exposure of contaminated needles in streets and playgrounds so that children and other people are away from needle sticks accident. (Franciscus)

Supervised consumption sites are seen as an effective means of reducing harm associated with illicit opioid consumption. Generally these are sites where drug users can inject or consume drugs under the observation of trained personal. The first of such consumption sites in Canada “Insite” was established in Vancouver in 2003. So far there has not been a single reported case of overdose fatality at the site. The success of Insite as a harm reduction approach has encouraged jurisdictions across Canada to adopt or contemplate similar systems. In 2017, the federal government passed Bill C-37 with the aim of streamlining the application process for communities who wish to operate supervised consumption sites. In Alberta, there are five proposed supervised injection sites, four in Edmonton and another in Calgary.

Vancouver Injection Drug User Study (VIDUS) is a project that gives a prospective study and has over 1500 IDU 's enlisted to assist since 1996 and gathers data on drug use, health, sexual activity, etc. Some of the topics discussed included: prison culture, availability and price of drugs and equipment, drug use, VIDUS shows that the risk of HIV infection indicated that incarcerated injection drug users were associated with a greater risk of 2.7 times (Small, Kain, Laliberte, Schechter, O 'Shaughnessy & Spittal, 2005).

Canadian society has always dealt with some percentage of the population who have become addicted to intravenous drugs. Left unchecked, the ecology of IV drug use creates a number of societal issues as well as a greater burden to the already over-stretched Canadian healthcare system. Legally and financially supporting safe injection sites is just a matter of simple economics.

As the number of intravenous drug users continues to rise, so does the risk of dangerous and potentially fatal complications that are associated with illicit drug use. In this population, death rates are higher due to overdose, AIDs-related mortality, and other blood-borne viruses (Mathers et al., 2013). Mortality rates remain high even though precautions have been taken to reduce them. According to Lavender & McCarron (2013), “Mortality in injecting drug users is up to 22 times higher than for the age-adjusted population, despite increased provision of needle and syringe programs, reduced needle and syringe sharing, and higher uptake of hepatitis B vaccination” (p. 511).

Safe injection sites are places where chronic users of drugs such as morphine, cocaine, and heroin can go to inject drugs in a safe and sanitary environment. The site itself does not supply the drugs, but offers addiction and mental health treatment, first aid in case of overdose or injury, and sanitary means to inject drugs safely. These sites apply what is known as the harm reduction model. In her

A safe injection site (SIS) has been placed in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside where drug use is a challenging problem. The program is a vital piece of the cities known harm reduction approach to its serious problems with homelessness, drugs, crime and AIDS. Canada has drastically shifted its method. Going from punishing drug users to establishing the plan of harm reduction. Since 2003 when the supervised SIS opened, it has presented a safe health-focused center where drug users have access to inject illegal drugs using sterile equipment in a clean environment under the supervision of medically trained professionals. Although there are some serious concerns about the

There are many ways in which people who are addicted to intravenous drugs are perceived by our society. People sometimes believe the addicted person is to blame for their circumstance and substance dependence and some feel serious drug addicts are a “lost cause” due to a lack of values or flawed character. “Persons who struggle with addictions often are depicted as criminals or prostitutes, weak, lazy and morally corrupt” (Bartlett, R., Brown, L., Shattell, M., Wright, T., Lewallen, L. (2013). These stereotypes paint people with addiction negatively; a percentage of people who live with serious addiction are capable of recovery with the right attitude, support and healthcare. Street level healthcare services such as; safe injection sites, provide accessable resources at street level for people to make the choice to live healthier lifestyles. Govement funding and support is needed to make these projects possible to improve the health of Canadians. Safe injection sites are proven to be positive contributions to communities, save lives, reduce harm and open doors towards recovery for people from the grip of addiction.

Harm reduction can be defined as an approach that aims to reduce the consequences of high risk behaviours such as injection drug use on the individual and on society as a whole. Harm reduction programs provide injection drug users with access to a clean injection environment, sterile injections, drug-preparation equipment and safe disposal of contaminated material at the time of injection. Staff members in harm reduction facilities provide health teaching, anonymous HIV testing, information on addiction treatment, condoms and assist in connecting clients to social and health services (Semaan et al., 2011; Ball, 2007). Although, the benefits of harm reduction are evident through reduction of accidental drug overdose and prevention of

Safe injection sites possess many salutary benefits related to public health safety of the drug using community. Safe injection sites provide a safe place for drug users to inject drugs into their bodies so they do not have to reuse needles and can also be supervised by nurses constantly while they do so. Insite is the sole safe injection site in all of Canada and the expansion of other facilities has been fiercely contested by policy makers not due to empirical criminological evidence, but simply due to one dimensional classical conservatism inspired ideology and illogical hysteria. The fear propagated by the past Conservative government that by assisting drug users by feeding their addiction and by gathering so many law breakers in concentrated areas would correlate to an increased rate in crime. The traditionalistic ideology of the Conservative government mandated them to adamantly oppose the prospect of safe injection sites let alone their expansion into other regions and provinces regardless of the fact that there were no adverse effects for the community in terms of increased crime. Safe injection sites were introduced to Vancouver in 2003 under a special exemption under section 56 under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which was granted by the Liberal government via Health Canada as a desperate means to help resolve the growing health concerns in the area. In 1998, a report by then British Columbia public health officer John Millar decried the situation in the

Drug abuse and addiction is something that is still overlooked throughout the United States. This issue is real and life threatening; it should be treated as so. “Safe injection sites” are not valid responses to the widespread occurrence that takes more lives each

Although the usage of these harsh narcotics are illegal now as they were then, having a secure place to carry out these activities reduce multiple negative outcomes. There were several specific events during the 1990’s, mentioned by Boyd (2013: 235), that caused the city of Vancouver to realize that the public health of this area was at risk. For instance, he refers to the “more potent and less expensive” injectable substances that became obtainable, which resulted in approximately 300 deaths per year in relation to heroin. This caused a number of drug users and supporters to open a safe injection location, called the ‘Back Alley Site’, which was terminated by the police in 1994 (Boyd, 2013: 235). In 1995, crack cocaine became available to this area in which Boyd (2013: 235) described to be “cheap, addictive and highly destructive”, being a vast concern for the mentally ill. So, would this have even been an issue if the Back Alley Site were to remain open, without the interference of the law? Then in 1997, there was a high occurrence of the HIV infection among injection drug users who shared needles; it was argued that the infection was more common with those who regularly visited needle exchange programs, which was only due to the fact that these addicts were “higher risk drug users” (Wood, Tyndall, Spittal, Li, Hogg,

Health services for people who inject drugs are subject to ‘considerable community concern and media and political attention’ (MSIC Evaluation Committee, 2003, p. 177). The development of a policy network, in July 1997 involved a multiplicity of actors who played an important role in the policy process. A NSW Parliamentary Joint Select Committee of ‘public and private spheres’ (Dennis, 2013, p. 78) was established to consider the feasibility for a trial of a MSIC. The Committee extensively reviewed the arguments contending for and arguing against proposals for a trial, and a suitable location. Copious submissions and evidence was put forward to the Committee with many advocators endorsing the action commenting that ‘injecting rooms may contribute to the reduction in the number of fatal and non-fatal overdoses by providing access to resuscitation and disseminating information about safer using practices’ (Parliament of New South Wales, 1998, p. 82).

In the literature review, I covered a few emerging themes present in my literature related to my research question, are safe injection sites perceived by the public to be more helpful or more harmful in combating drug epidemics? As such, this study extends the related literature on the topic of safe-injection sites through attempting to add in the public’s perception of safe injection sites and the supposed benefits they provide, such as reduction in overdose or blood-borne illnesses. In several of the articles, the sway that public perception holds over support for safe injection sites is briefly highlighted as being crucial. In fact, one study starts the introduction by saying By adding the

“Typically, someone like myself with the score of dope would come in this alley here to consume it…What happens when I run out of dope is I look for more on the ground (Thefilmfano, 2006).” Globally, around 16 million people inject drugs (World Health Organization, 2015). Injection is a common way for drug addicts to consume drugs; meanwhile, injecting drug users (IDUs) have a higher risk of morbidity and mortality than the general population (Marshall, Milloy, Wood, Montaner & Kerr, 2011, p.1429). In North America overdose is the leading cause of high mortality rate of IDUs. However, since the opening of the first legal supervised injection facility (SIF)—InSite at Vancouver has significantly reduced the