Benefits Of Safe Injection Sites

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)

Portugal's success would be the ideal model for Canada to base decriminalization of illicit drugs. Although Canada does not have as much of a drug epidemic that Portugal had before decriminalization, statistics show the country has rising rates of both heroin and meth use. Treating this evident problem with a different approach has been gathering heavy support over the years. Support behind this legal movement in Canada includes the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and the Green Party of Canada. Not only were drugs decriminalized in Portugal, the entire system was reconstructed to aid those addicted. Both the reduce in law enforcement towards illicit drugs and the increase in funding towards treatment paid off greatly for Portugal. Overdose death went down by 72% while the spread of HIV went down by 94%. Canada has prioritized the war on drugs, although the method being followed does not prove effective. It might prove better to abandon this current war in favour for public health, following Portugal's lead in providing harm reduction treatment and treating the addiction as the public health crisis that it

Several studies have shown that injection drug users lower their risk of transmitting infectious diseases when there is a needle exchange program available. There has not been a valid study of whether or not the amounts of time needles are returned to the exchange programs are harmful to communities. The Journal of Public Health, conducted surveys, evidence from needle exchange sites, jails, and institutions that needle exchange programs are effective in reducing illnesses such as HIV and AIDS (Burt & Theide, 2016). Furthermore, Reepalu, Blome, Bjork, Widell, & Bjorkman (2012), researched the same individuals for 20 years, with no breaks. Their studies concluded that injection drug use, not only heightens the risk for HIV and AID’s, there is also an increase in Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. However, there studies showed that there is not an increase rate of cancer diagnoses due to injection drug use. In a study conducted by Bonar and Rosenberg (2014), they wanted to see if self-initiated harm strategies, such as: proper needle sterilization techniques, proper disposal of needles, and cleaning of the pre injected skin, could help improve the health of those that use drugs intravenously. Their study was conducted over an eight-month period, results showed that their

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).

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 a controversial issue in Canada, and have been for a long time. As society grows more and more comfortable with the idea of legalizing certain drugs, the attitude towards these safe injection sites changes. This change affects laws, politics, and society in general and is a legal and moral issue. Insite, the first safe injection site in North America, opened in 2003 in Vancouver, British Columbia to a mass of controversy that induced legislative, legal, and moral change worthy of observation and investigation. This paper will first introduce the concept of safe injection sites as well as an explanation of the harm principle in which these sites operate under, then introduce Insite, the first safe injection site opened in North America, along with appropriate statistical evidence that proves its effectiveness, followed by the issues brought up by opponents of these sites will be discussed as well as the landmark Supreme Court case that allowed for their continued existence, and finally an overview of the current legislation that threatens it.

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

Drug abuse has always been a delicate subject as it deals with the health, safety, and the well-being of not only the users, but also everyone they come into contact with. Cities across Canada are faced with a rising number of drug abusers, and therefore increased cases of infectious diseases and overdoses by these users. Vancouver housed the first injection site in Canada; its purpose to offer sterile syringes as well as other equipment to addicts, medical care in the event of an overdose or other emergency, as well as counseling and referrals to drug rehabilitation programs. This was a great step towards ensuring the safety and security of the public; drug users are given access to safe, one-use syringes and are provided with clean environment,

Supervised injection sites are clean, safe and medically supervised facilities where users can inject intravenous illegal substances. These facilities are legally sanctioned and are part of a harm reduction approach towards drug use problems. Safe injection sites have been implemented in Australia, various European countries including, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, as well as in Canada. Safe injection sites have been successful in every country in which they operate.

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

Vancouver is a city with multiple “claims to fame”. Known to be one of the worlds most livable, expensive, and beautiful cities, it is also well known for its large population of drug users, and the detrimental effects intravenous drugs have had on the Downtown East Side community. One of the major concerns connected to intravenous drug use is the large proportion of users who report a history of needle sharing, greatly increasing their chances of contracting HIV, Hepatitis B or C, and other injection related infections (Strike, Myers & Millson, 2004). With an estimated 15000 intravenous drug users (IDUs) currently residing in Vancouver, and up to an estimated 125000 nationally, the Canadian government has taken a proactive “Harm Reduction” stance allowing the implementation of controversial Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs) throughout most of the country (Weekes & Cumberland). Canada’s first NEP opened in Toronto in 1987, with Vancouver following suit in 1989. While it was still considered an offence to possess drugs under the Canadian Criminal Code, section S.462.2 stated that it was “not an offence […] to distribute needles to prevent the spread of HIV infection” (Weekes & Cumberland). The goal of these early NEPs was to supply IDUs with injection equipment to eliminate the necessity for needle sharing between users, operating on a strict “one for one” model. For each used needle returned, it would be replaced with a new, sterile

occurs as a response to injuries and introduction of foreign environment into the body of

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).