Safe Injection Sites : A Controversial Issue

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.

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).

Harm reductions recognizes an individual’s willingness to make a change in their life, there is a wide range that these individuals may be along, from not thinking about change, to contemplating change, to taking action, to maintaining change and the other way around. The method of harm reduction first begins with focusing on what stage the individual is on with their drug use. As earlier stated the active participation of individuals who use drugs is at the heart of harm reduction. These individuals are the best source of information in terms of their own drug use and are determined with the help of other service agencies to determine the best form of intervention. There have been many success stories from having injection sites as a form

It is suggested that since Insite was created, it has been sending the wrong message to the youth of Vancouver stating that injection drug use is acceptable and has support. This approach is unlikely and naïve. There is evidence shown that the total number of drug users in cities with SIS’s has decreased. The introduction of SISs is being understood as that drug use is right. Rather than it is limited, self-contained, and is a

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.

The ethical implications of the Canadian government funding and supporting these projects, considering current drug laws and policies, are questioned by some. People believe that the government should not participate in enabling drug use (Globe & Mail, (2011) and that zero tolerance approaches should be taken. In opposition to zero tollerance attitudes some

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)

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

In the prime news on the television, there is plentiful atrocious news of deaths by excessive use of drugs. Often, many entertainment stars in Hollywood have been accidentally killed by excessive ingesting of narcotics, for example, Michel Jackson. Furthermore, in some cases in Canada, when the majority of the companies hire employees, they are usually questions or drug tests the candidates. Unfortunately, the number using marijuana has rapidly escalated in contemporary Canadian society, especially the teenage section of Canadians.

Even though there are already harsh penalties toward those who contain and use illicit drugs, it would not be possible to give them these sentences without their presence. Many legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco have relatively dangerous affects that could lead to death in the same ways illegal substances can, which brings upon the question of why an individual’s well-being would ever be put before the law. INSITE has proven to the world that providing a secure and reliable facility for addicts to inject drugs will not only prevent them from harm and provide safety for the public, but it will also encourage users to seek recovery. Research shows that associations with the safe-injection site has caused a 30 percent increase in rehabilitation programs, and an estimate of $14 million in savings and 1000 HIV preventions through the course of 10 years (Mosher, 2011: 377). With the significant amount of evidence that INSITE has positively impacted toward society and its members, there is no reason not to launch additional safe-injection sites in areas where they are

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).

One the many controversies in our country today, regards the prohibition of illegal narcotics. Deemed unhealthy, hazardous, and even fatal by the authorities that be; the U.S. government has declared to wage a “war on drugs.” It has been roughly fifteen years since this initiative has begun, and each year the government shuffles more money into the unjust cause of drug prohibition. Even after all of this, the problem of drugs that the government sees still exists. The prohibition of drugs is a constitutional anomaly. There are many aspects and sides to look at the issue from, but the glaring inefficiency current laws exude is that any human should have the right to ingest anything he or she desires. The antagonist on the other end

I would locate these supervised injection centers in counties with big drug problems, including Dublin, Limerick and Cork. I do not believe these centers would promote drug use as drug injecting would happen elsewhere- often in public places such as parks these places can be more dangerous for the users but also for everyone else, instead of this drug injection could occur in a safe environment under the supervision of registered nurses, counsellors and also health education officers. The professional staff would have the opportunity to engage with the users while also referring them to different services such as specialist addiction treatment. The supervised center would be responsible to supply any drugs to the users, clients must come to