Safe Injection Sites Research Paper

Decent Essays
Two experts are debating on a widespread question that is becoming more severe than ever. Drug abuse and addiction is an issue spreading throughout the entire country with multiple pros and cons arising; therefore, creating many opportunities for opinionated discussions. Dr. Brian Johnson made distinct, appropriate points to negate the validity of “safe injection sites” are not a valid response to the opioid epidemic. One point expressed in the pro/con portion is, “[i]f a Ford Motor truck causes expectable deaths because the truck is dangerous, Ford pays, not taxpayers.” (Johnson). This should not differ because the choices are being made consciously. The amount of deaths caused by drug abuse is skyrocketing. Taxpayers should not be forced to help with this situation, much like the taxpayers would not have to pay for a vehicle accident that they did not cause. The company/provider should be the ones to take responsibility for their actions and decisions. A valid response is not being forced to pay…show more content…
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.
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
Get Access