Heroin Drugs

It is shown that people that tend to be involved in the use of drugs do so after making a voluntary choice (Heyman, 2009). The major use of drugs for social and non-medical preferences can lead to dependence and further addictions, it is a choice that people tend to make and from that it can lead to wanting it more, do it more with friends and further it becoming an addiction, that then effects the brain and body. When drugs are used in the wrong way they can cause many health issues but some people still tend to refer to drug addiction as a disease. Yes, There has been compelling evidence that addiction is a disease, however the result shown are weak and inconclusive. Results of different brain scans are shown by The National Institute of Drug Abuse (2017) are used to back up that addiction in fact is a disease, however the brain scans used in this research are not symbolic of any abnormal changes. The research by The National Institute of Drug Abuse do point out that changes in an individual’s brain is shown as evidence that addiction is a brain disease, however this argument can be shown as mistaken as changes in many human brains can be seen as not exclusive in addicts, although they can occur when a person is normal (Branch,2011). To top it off the information that is stated by the NIDA however doesn’t show evidence of the behaviour of addicts being involuntary or

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

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.

There are no “safe heroin injection sites.” The only “safe” approach to heroin is to not take it. For addicts, the humane public health response is to help them get and stay sober, or at the very least, opioid replacement therapy in sustained treatment. Any approach without these goals is cruel and dehumanizing- not healing, but perpetuating harm. (Walter 2)

Heroin, methamphetamine, and opioids have been around for centuries and the use of these drugs is not a new phenomenon. The use of injection drugs causes individual’s serious harm and have placed large expenses on the health care system. “Heroin, cocaine and other drugs kill around 0.2 million people each year, shattering families and bringing misery to thousands of other people” (United Nations iii); Because of-these incidents harm reduction strategies have been put in place to create a safer and more educated population, but it has only been a start. ‘Safe injection sites’ has become a well talked about term in the last decade. The term itself refers to a physical place

Today, experts in public health policy have been advocated for harm reduction, which is a philosophy that attempts to reduce the negative outcomes of drug use. Safe injection sites (SISs) follow this ideology. They are facilities where addicts are legally able to use opioids, such as heroin, under medical supervision. To stop reusing and sharing of needles, Opioid users will be given access to clean needles, which will prevent hospitalizations from serious infections and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore, opioid addicts will have a clean space and will not fear being arrested by the police. This will eliminate additional anxiety and stress. Advocates for SISs believe that SISs will reduce public drug use and provide a safe space for addicts to consume illicit drugs. They have been successful in many developed countries. In many studies, it has been shown that SISs save taxpayers money and reduce the number of opioid-related deaths.

Opioid overdoses have been a problem over the past two decades. These overdoses usually happen to those that are addicted to the painkiller, morphine. However, this narcotic has recently changed from morphine to a new form of heroin. New reforms such as, “safe injection sites”, have been offered as solutions to lower the high overdose rate from opioid, but is this method going to lower or raise the overdose rate? These safe injection sites will not be beneficial because, the users will just be using the drugs outside of the safety injection sites, no one will want to be paid to watch others take drugs, the government would just be funding the habitual drug abuse industry, and the better option to lower the opioid overdose rate is for State Addictive Drug Centers (SAD) to be in charge of administration.

The word “epidemic” itself spreads fear throughout society, however fluctuations in drug use are considered epidemics, which may not instill fear into the general public. Due to the fact that the CDC considers opioid overdose as a national epidemic, it may be confused to what this “epidemic” entails. This is not saying that the misuse and rising overdoses due to opioid painkillers is not a serious problem, it just may render the severity of the problem. In addition, because the CDC does consider the rise of overdoses due to painkillers an epidemic, the access to treatment needs to be more widely available. Through one of the interactions I had during my time at the NA meeting, I was able to understand that many people feel as though they do not or did not have access to help. Dan Mangan (2016), writes, “[a] survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation also found that a large majority of Americans believe that lack of access to care for people suffering from substance abuse is a problem in the United States.” In this, those who work in medicine should take from my supporting observations and numerous studies’ that access to recovery programs need to become more widely available. If the United States is going to consider the use of opioid painkillers as an epidemic, action needs to be taken to assist addicts and educate the nation on the effects of these

In order to successfully decrease the cases of drug addiction, society needs to remember that we cannot change the physiological effects of drugs, but we can prevent individuals from turning into them. In other words, the primary focus should be on the individual and not the drug.

Brian Johnson expressed his opinion of the issue at hand, “[l]et's see the proposal for “safe injection sites” for what it is — just another way to help dealers sell their drugs in the guise of being “safe.”” (Johnson). This idea speaks more loudly than any other presented in the discussion. “Safe injection sites” are not the right way to go about helping addiction. There are many flaws in this decision that can affect the outcome of a patient. Agreeing to continue to provide the drugs to which they are already addicted is nothing short of naive. This is just allowing the dealers to continue making money on something that is illegal; it should be prohibited, not advertised.

The idea behind the creation of safe injection sites is that society can’t cure or get rid of the drug problem. While harm reduction may work for those not effected directly with the damages of drug use, it encourages out of sight, out of mind compartmentalization of people who unconsciously don’t want to help the addict. This results in the addict staying in his addiction. It seems to me that such an approach is much like facilitating drug use, which is illogical. The fact is we can’t stop rape either but we don’t resort to lowering the consequences and give ways to do it. There is a concern that the users sharing straws to snort cocaine will spread Hep “C”. So, should we also create a straw exchange program? There will always be something that will cause harm with drug use.

The short film on YouTube “Insite” shows behind the scenes action at North America’s only legal injection facility, located in Vancouver, Canada. This facility, which opened in 2003, has promoted the harm reduction ideology and fought hard to keep its doors open for this long. Initially, the site was only granted a three year exemption, allowing users to inject drugs at the site legally, because under Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, there is an exemption which allows drug using if it to conduct medical or scientific research. Insite collects data about the users who visit, which allows the site to qualify for this exemption. The Canadian federal government took Insite all the way to the Supreme Court to fight its right to extend

Regardless of its legality, heroin remains an ever popular drug and continues to be an issue many cities face. Heroin deaths continue to rise each year; Seattle reported 156 deaths in 2014, 99 deaths in 2013, and 49 in 2009 (Beekman). Heroin isn’t a problem that is going away, rather it is a problem that grows annually. Deaths from an overdose, the spread of disease, and the improper disposal of dirty needles all rise with the popularity of heroin. To combat this, heroin safe-sites have been established across the world. Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada, Spain, and more countries have all implemented safe-sites for the consumption of hard drugs under certain legal pretext which is typically an age requirement (Haemmig and Beek. 160-169). The first site proposed in the United States is here in Seattle, but unsurprisingly it is highly controversial. Despite any negative sentiment towards heroin and the consumption thereof, these sites should be implemented. This is not to say that the abuse of heroin should be endorsed and widely accepted however. The aim of these sites is to open a channel of dialogue between drug abusers and medical professionals to offer treatment, to prevent deaths and disease, and to keep needles off the street and out of public. It is for these reasons that heroin safe-sites need to be more widely established and that the proposed frontrunner site in Seattle needs to happen.

Imagine obtaining a serious injury and being given medicine to kill the pain so you can heal. Imagine that pain killer taking over your life and becoming an addiction that you will feed at any cost. Imagine stealing, lying, giving up every possession of yours and losing the support of your family and friends just so you can achieve a temporary feeling of euphoria that needs to be tended to frequently in order to maintain the euphoric feeling. This is a reality some Americans have to deal with on a daily basis. No family in America is entirely immune from feeling the pain caused by the opioid epidemic. The main solution proposed by organizations attempting to end the epidemic is the establishment and increased accessibility to rehabilitation centers. If rehabilitation centers helped every individual and ensured that the individual would never go back to their former ways, this would be a great idea. When individuals experiment with these dangerous substances knowing they may very well die, there is no fear because they know that if they are in a public place and overdose the chances of them being revived is high. If one can feel euphoria, not be in pain and far, there is no consequence for that person to connect with this toxic behavior.As a nation, there needs to be a reevaluation of procedures involving the revival of overdose patients. Consequently, the purpose of constantly reviving someone that has no desire to change their toxic lifestyle seems ridiculous, as does using

Drug use has been problematized since the early 1900s through the Shanghai International Opium Commission; however in 1961 the United Nations was the one that established the need for drug control internationally through the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs. The phenomenon surround intravenous drug use and addiction are problematized in way that leads to a strategy of social control of supervised injection sites (SIS) because the government cannot get rid of drug users from the city, as “previous efforts to tackle “the drug problem” by way of repression had not only proven ineffective, but were increasingly perceived to worsen these negative consequence” (Fischer, et al., 2004, p. 363). Supervised injection sites may also be well described as a ““late 20th century postmodern form of social control that targets categories of people using actuarial techniques... and develops specific locales for prevention rather