Safe Injection Sites Literature Review

On the other hand, people who are against of needle exchange programs claim that the needle exchange programs don’t save lives but instead it can cause drug-related deaths. Even though NEPs help reduce the transmission of HIV and other diseases, they still encourage people to use more drugs, which could lead to death. Addicts are prone to death, perhaps not from HIV, but from overdosed, collapsed veins, poisoned dope, or the violence and criminality that go along with the illicit drug trade. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there are more than 33,000 people who died from drug overdose in 2005. As a result, drug overdose become the second

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

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 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.

Results of safe injection site studies have shown that an expansion may have a greater impact. This may reduce the chance of dangerous encounters between users of these safe injection sites and the public. Children not even out of elementary school, were getting involved in the drug scene. These runaways were a concern to the residents, who witnessed overdoses in the past decade. Over 2,000 lives were lost due to the Downtowns East side’s “drug-fuelled spiral” (MacQueen et al., 2003). Persisting the safe injection site can help in lowering risk behaviors by the drug users of SIS’s and community concerns that are related to public injection of drugs (McKnight et al,. 2007). Overall, SIS’s may have the ability to change the drug users and transform them into potential productive members of society.

Imagine for a moment being able to walk down the street without seeing used needles or other drug equipment. Although it will not completely eradicate the problem, safe injection sites will allow users to have a safe and clean environment that they do not have access to now; not just to inject their drugs, but also to dispose of their used syringes. When given a 3-year trial at the first facility in Canada, it was found that fatal overdoses within 500 metres of the facility were reduced by 35 percent, and a 9 percent decrease in the rest of the city (Stueck, 2011). Thus proving the effectiveness of injection facilities not only in Vancouver, but nationwide. Giving access to support can significantly increase the quality of life for intravenous drug users. By providing sterile equipment 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.

Here in America, there is an ongoing tragedy ceaselessly unfolding right before our eyes. Beyond the calamities of gun violence, the loss of innocent lives through ruthless crimes and deadly motor vehicle accidents, there is a crisis occurring in the very homes of many Americans. There is a proceeding addiction to the pill bottles hidden behind bathroom mirrors, needles poking through the surface of fragile skin to get a “fix”, and prescriptions being written left and right with the intention to help but the potential to kill. Here in America, over 115 people die every single day from overdosing on opioids and this is a reality that has been nothing short of deadly since as early as 1990.

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 will not be helpful towards the opioid crisis. If the United States give people a place “to safely shoot up” (Mendell), they will end up just using the drugs outside of the center, at their drug dealer’s houses. Many humans will not admit that they have a problem or need help, they are afraid of judgement of others more than they are of their problem. The opioid users would “delay gratification until

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

Did you know that 91 Americans die every day due to an Opioid overdose and yet American’s still report no relief of pain? Since 1999 the number of deaths due to prescriptions opioid or heroin overdose has quadrupled (http://www.cdc.gov). Four out of five Americans turned to the black market for heroin, which initially started as an opioid drug addiction. It is an American crisis, due to the number of individuals that consume oxycodone, which accounts for eight-one percent of Americans (http://www.drugabuse.gov).

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).