Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Safe Injection Sites

  1. #1

    Default Safe Injection Sites

    Here in Ottawa, Canada, we are in the midst of a very heated, controversial debate over Safe Injection Sites (SIS). One of our local Community Health Centres has announced its intention to integrate an SIS into its existing facility and is conducting several community consultations to address the concerns and fears of residents and neighbours.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ions-1.3520920


    What is a Safe Injection Site?

    An SIS is a public health facility where people with addictions can bring their own drugs to a safe, hygienic place and inject under the supervision of medical professionals. It's based on a harm reduction model with goals that are designed to:
    • Reduce the spread of HIV and Hep C by providing sterile equipment and safe disposal of used needles
    • Reduce the risk of death by overdosing
    • Decrease public drug use and drug paraphernalia litter
    • Serve as a portal to help addicts access social services and treatment
    • Provide First Aid treatment

    This is an issue that deeply divides the community. Many people look at it as an issue of public health and the fact that SIS models have evidence- based research showing the reductions of overdoses, deaths, and transmission of diseases. Here in Ottawa, the Chief Medical Officer has come out in support of SIS's. On the other hand, it is perceived as a crime issue, with people feeling that SIS's simply condone criminal activity by allowing addicts to bring illegal drugs into a public facility to engage in an illegal act by shooting up. Our mayor and Police Chief , not surprisingly, do not support SIS's.

    Some local officials have stated their belief that we should be investing our scarce health dollars into treatment facilities, instead of places that normalize drug activity. Fair enough: There are long, lengthy waiting lists to get into treatment facilities, sometimes taking up to a year to get help. I think that anyone who supports SIS's would also be in favour of investing in more treatment programs. What's funny is how it was our same federal (and dearly departed) Conservative government that opposed SIS's that was also responsible for cutting back funding to treatment centres. An SIS can be operated at a fraction of the cost of a truly substantial strategy to invest in treatment programs. The debate should not be framed as an 'Either-Or' proposition, since both options can save lives. Secondly, you can't force every addict into treatment, and an SIS can help keep them safe, alive and connected to community support, until they reach the stage when they are ready for treatment. The SIS proposed in Ottawa would be integrated into a facility with a full range of medical and social service providers.

    In Canada, we have an SIS that was opened in Vancouver in 2003. Insite is Canada’s first SIS. It has succeeded in benefiting the health and safety of the community in many ways and it has provided clear, consistent evidence that SIS's work.

    http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/me...10-years-later

    • 35 HIV infections are prevented each year, with estimated health cost savings of 8.7 million in health care dollars.
    • Fatal overdoses in the vicinity of Insite decreased by 35 percent
    • Not a single person died of overdose
    • Insite users are 30 percent more likely to seek treatment
    • 458 people entered detox through Insite in 2010
    • Insite has not led to an increase in drug use or crime in the area

    The mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson stated that Insite saves lives, connects people to treatment, counselling and medical help as it reduces crime. After thirteen year in operation, Insite has the full backing of the police department, municipal and provincial governments. Our recently elected federal government has indicated that SIS's are among several strategies the government is bringing forward to deal with addictions and overdoses.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/save...onto-1.3491134


    There are approximately 90 Safe Injection Sites around the world and support is growing for trying new models instead of continuing to spend billions and billions of dollars on the futile 'war against drugs.' A Safe Injection Site treats addicts with compassion, support, it minimizes risks to the community, and serves to help people access treatment programs. In my view the evidence outweighs the rigid ideology of being tough on crime.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Starrunner; 23-Apr-2016 at 23:31.

  2. #2

    Default

    Let me get this straight...you want to treat drug users like they are dealing with a medical issue instead of treating them as criminals...novel idea.

    You think stopping treating addiction as a crime will help? You know what? I would agree. The data backs it up in places where it has been done.

    Am I surprised the police are against it? No, they are doing what anyone in their position would, trying to protect their livelihood. With drug use and possession being a crime, every addict adds to the criminal base that the police need to go after, lending credence to the argument that more money and jobs need to be spent for the police force.

    It's interesting that the places that have decriminalized drug use show no increase in people travelling there to get drugs and no rate of increase in addiction levels.

  3. #3

    Default

    Well, the first question that occurs is, how exactly can such a facility function without constantly being raided by the police without the government decriminalising the possession of hard drugs? How are staff shielded from the charge that they are knowingly complicit in the facilitation of a crime?

    Personally, I'm in favour of harm reduction, given that the War on Drugs is a miserable failure that has led to the creation of criminal organisations so powerful that they can subvert entire governments. Prohibition does not work. It never has. Still, I can't see how such a programme can be unilaterally implemented at the local level without legislative support.

  4. #4

    Default

    Haven't heard of Safe Injection Sites before but I think it's a good idea. Instead of trying to punish and control drug users, they're offered support and guidance.

    I don't think every substance should be legalized, but I think the whole war on drugs is a waste of time and money. These SIS's sound like they offer more help for addicts than fining or jailing them and it provides a safe environment for them to use. While it does somewhat indirectly encourage an unhealthy lifestyle/activity, anyone who uses those centers would have shot up anyway, except without medical supervision.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by Akastus View Post
    Well, the first question that occurs is, how exactly can such a facility function without constantly being raided by the police without the government decriminalising the possession of hard drugs? How are staff shielded from the charge that they are knowingly complicit in the facilitation of a crime?

    Personally, I'm in favour of harm reduction, given that the War on Drugs is a miserable failure that has led to the creation of criminal organisations so powerful that they can subvert entire governments. Prohibition does not work. It never has. Still, I can't see how such a programme can be unilaterally implemented at the local level without legislative support.
    From the sounds of it, these facilities wouldn't contain any illegal substances and/or drugs. People could bring their own "supplies" in and then use them under medical supervision and utilize medical equipment so they can safely use their own supplies they brought themselves. The staff would be aiding users, but they wouldn't be selling or supplying anything. And while this may not necessarily apply to Canada, in the US these facilities could be state funded and managed even if it's not federally decriminalized. A lot like Marijuana dispensaries when they first started appearing in the states. Marijuana was still a schedule 1 drug that was completely illegal, yet it was still "legally" being sold and used where states legalized it. Although, unless it's federally legalized, there's nothing stopping the feds from showing up and making arrests. Then again, selling and possessing drugs is illegal, helping people do drugs is way less of a crime.

    However, implementing this system would be an undertaking with many hurdles to overcome with or without legislative support. Having legislative support would make it much more likely to succeed.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Akastus View Post
    Well, the first question that occurs is, how exactly can such a facility function without constantly being raided by the police without the government decriminalising the possession of hard drugs? How are staff shielded from the charge that they are knowingly complicit in the facilitation of a crime?

    Personally, I'm in favour of harm reduction, given that the War on Drugs is a miserable failure that has led to the creation of criminal organisations so powerful that they can subvert entire governments. Prohibition does not work. It never has. Still, I can't see how such a programme can be unilaterally implemented at the local level without legislative support.
    Our country's first Safe Injection Site, Insite, started under a special 5-year exemption granted by the federal Liberal government in 2003. When the Conservatives were elected in 2006, it refused to renew the exemption past 2008. A constitutional challenge was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. In 2011, it ruled against the Conservative government's decision to withdraw Insite's exemption. Currently, an exemption is still required to open such a facility, however, the Conservative government was defeated by the Liberals last October, and shouldn't present a significant obstacle.
    Last edited by Starrunner; 25-Apr-2016 at 01:11.

  6. #6

    Default

    Interesting concept, but here in New Hampshire, the Tea Party Fanatics in the legislature would never approve it.
    Over in Maine, the next state over, Gov. LePage vetoed any access to anti-overdose medication to satanic dope users.
    Essentially, he wants all his state's dope addicts to die.

  7. #7

    Default

    I'm all for safe injection sites. It's easier to help a person overcome their addiction when you're showing them that you care and want to help them as opposed to when you force them to do everything in hiding. The world needs more of this sort of thing.

  8. #8

    Default

    It's been discussed here in the U. S. Like caitainx said, Tea Party members and other conservative Republicans are still living in the Reagan era when the war on drugs was getting started and getting it past them would probably be impossible. There have been needle exchange programs in our bigger cities.

    I've long felt that drug use should be decriminalized and that drug addicts should be medically helped. The latest world wide conference on illegal drugs recently declared the current war on drugs as a complete failure, and I would have to agree. I think times have changed as how we look at drug use. Criminals have used illegal drugs as a way to make money just as bootleggers did during prohibition.

    I'm certainly not in favor of using illegal drugs except maybe for pot, but drugs are here among us. It's big business. It doesn't make sense to continue the same practices to deal with illegal drug use when those practices have consistently failed. Having a place where users could safely shoot up would also provide an opportunity for them to get clean. Most illegal drugs are illegal because their continued use will eventually kill the user because they deteriorate one's health. Anyway, this is my humble opinion. I would be the first to admit I lack a lot of data and verifiable information, so this is just off the top of my head.

  9. #9

    Default

    In Europe, the opinion (amongst the chattering classes) is that "shooting galleries" (as we call them) work well. I think some countries even provide clean heroin to users. It's a good way to control the problem.

    We must do everything we can to prevent people from either trying of wanting to try heroin. But we also have a duty to care for those who have succumbed to addiction. It is clearly a medical (and perhaps situational and psychological) issue; but it is not a moral one. A heroin user is not automatically a bad person. They deserve compassion and perhaps pity, but not criminalisation and ostracisation.

    The power of heroin can turn decent people into desperate petty criminals. Heroin addiction is not to be taken lightly, and I believe that there should be no possibility for a "socially acceptable" form of recreational opiate use in Western society.

    If a heroin user commits a crime, punish them with the fair justice of law... but don't punish them for using heroin itself. They have probably suffered enough. An addict has no reason (or ability) to stay on the right side of the law if they are already criminalised for being an addict.

    And if petty crime is the only way to fund addicts' habits, then society has a duty to control and prevent addiction issues for the overall betterment of everyone.

    I hope that these shooting galleries will also provide counselling to help addicts overcome their issues and take steps towards living a hard-drug-free life.



    Quote Originally Posted by caitianx View Post
    Over in Maine, the next state over, Gov. LePage vetoed any access to anti-overdose medication to satanic dope users.
    Essentially, he wants all his state's dope addicts to die.
    ...

    (I'm genuinely speechless...)

    ...

  10. #10

    Default

    Brilliant, and oh so compassionate. Short term.

    Longer term? What happens when, bit by bit, incentives and rewards for achievement and effort are stripped away, consequences for slacking and even outright bad behavior are removed?

    You see exactly what we have now. Those who are more internally driven become the 1%, the rest flounder without direction complaining about "their share".

Similar Threads

  1. Why is being safe a crime?
    By Calico in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 12-Jul-2012, 19:02
  2. Is it safe...?
    By BBalljustin in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 15-May-2011, 03:37
  3. How Safe Am I?
    By KansanRod44 in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17-Apr-2011, 18:13
  4. Safe & Secure(d)
    By Bigboy in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 29-Dec-2009, 10:44
  5. Is it safe to have
    By MetalHeadTiffany in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 13-Aug-2008, 01:01

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.