Safe Injection Sites Research Paper

The United States of America has had a war against drugs since the 37th president, Richard Nixon, declared more crimination on drug abuse in June 1971. From mid-1990s to today, a crisis challenges the health department and government on opioid regulation, as millions of Americans die due overdoses of painkillers. Opioids are substances used as painkillers, and they range from prescription medications to the illegal drug, heroin. Abusing these substances can cause a dependency or addiction, which can lead to overdoses, physical damages, emotional trauma, and death. To ease the crisis, physicians are asked to depend on alternatives to pain management. Law enforcement cracks down on profiting drug-dealers and heroin abusers. People are warned against misusing opioids. The controversy begins for those who suffer from chronic pain, because they depend on opioids. There’s so a correlation to the 1980s cocaine epidemic, and people are upset over racial discrimination. Nonetheless, the best way to avoid this crisis is to recover the people at risk, reduce inappropriate opioid description, and have a proper response.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Depending on the source, some would term the heroin and opioid problem in the United States a crisis, while others would use the word epidemic. Regardless of which expression is more accurate, the situation regarding heroin and opioid use, abuse and dependence has ignited national, if not global concern. History shows us that pervasive dilemmas have a tendency to cultivate a variety of intervention and the heroin and opioid crisis is no different.

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.

In Nolan and Amico’s article, “How Bad is the Opioid Epidemic?” they argue the opioid epidemic has become the worst drug crisis in American history. Heroin and other opioids overdose kill more than 47,055 people a year. Deaths caused from drug overdose has outnumber as much as 40 percent compared to the death caused from car crashes in 2014 (Nolan and Amico 3). Furthermore, in 1999 there were only 15000 people died from drug overdose. This number has tripled in 15 years. Also, in his article, “America’s Addiction to Opioids: Heroin and Prescription Drug Abuse” Volkow also presents the fact that “with an estimated 2.1 million people in the United States suffering from substance use disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers in 2012 and an estimated 467,000 addicted to heroin. The consequences of this abuse have been devastating and are on the rise. For example, the number of unintentional overdose deaths from prescription pain relievers has

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.

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).

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

In America, the use of opioids is at an all time high, it has became such an issue nationwide, that it has became an epidemic. Because of the opioid epidemic, America is tearing apart, children all across the country are dying everyday, these children are dying from overdoses due to poisoning. The opioid problem is not just because of a person's decision to pick up a needle or a pill bottle, but it is because in the 1990’s doctors gave up on trying to treat patients for their overwhelming pain and discomfort, causing opioids to become over prescribed. Due to the carelessness of America, opioids are being distributed more and more everyday, causing the skyrocketing number of deaths.

Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage;