|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 21, 2018 11:54:10 GMT
Safe Injection Sites for Opioid Users This current event topic covers the topic of safe injection sites for those addicted to opioids in both Canada and the United States. “Safe Injection” sites have popped up in Canada with the Canadian government’s backing and American cities have started to follow suit. This topic also plays into the conversation of federalism as one article author contends, “any U.S. organization that tries to follow suit (safe injection site operation) would be violating federal law and risking a confrontation with the Justice Department.” Supporting this point one law professor argues, “I don’t see any way around the federal government having the power to close this down and arrest everyone involved.” On the contrary, another law professor claims there is a “loophole” in the Controlled Substance Act that would allow American cities to establish such sites. Articles It is imperative to read all four (4) articles to educate yourself on the topic. 1. Contextualization: Safe Injection Sites and Opioid epidemic: www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/25/16928144/safe-injection-sites-heroin-opioid-epidemic2. Federal and State government Connection to Safe Injection Sites: whyy.org/segments/loophole-u-s-law-protect-safe-injection-site-federal-crackdown/3. Canada’s Safe Injection Sites: www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/at-the-heart-of-canadas-fentanyl-crisis-extreme-efforts-that-us-cities-may-follow/2018/02/11/5e7dd59e-0624-11e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html?utm_term=.91cc6bd3c6344. Philadelphia’s Safe Injection Sites: www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/health/philadelphia-supervised-injection-sites/index.html5. Opinion Article www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/16/heroin-injection-sites-drug-control-editorials-debates/84455286/ Response: For your original responses, make sure to think across all readings and include specific reference to the resources. The original posts are not meant to be a summary, but a response to the posed points of discussion, while sharing your stance on the topic WITH EVIDENCE to support from the readings. Original responses should be 300-350 words in length. Please offer a question for discussion at the conclusion of your original post **Since this topic relates to the current topic of federalism, your original post must make a connection to federalism in order to receive full credit.**Discussion Points to Consider: 1. “The idea: While in an ideal world no one would use dangerous and potentially deadly drugs, many people do. So it’s better to give these drug users a space where they can use with some sort of supervision. It’s a harm reduction approach” (Vox). Respond to this statement. 2. Is there compelling government interest to support or prevent these private organization from setting up safe injection sites in cities in the United States? Explain your justification with evidence from the provided articles. 3. After reading the articles and analyzing the data, what are the costs and benefits of establishing such sites? 4. Do you agree with the “loophole” in the Controlled Substance Act that Professor Kreit suggests in the Article 2? As you always do in discussion, please remember that we never know who may be personally affected by the topic at hand. Because of this, continue to approach the conversation with respect and be sure to back up your statements with evidence from the articles. Original posts of 300-350 words due by Sunday, Feburary 25 at 11:59pm
Two thoughtful Peer posts due by Tuesday, February 27 at the start of your class period |
|
|
|
Post by Cole Helzlsouer on Feb 23, 2018 2:15:48 GMT
In recent news the Philadelphia safe injection site for heroin and opioid users can have a safe place to take their drugs without having the worries of death. In this situation these people who are going to these safe injection sites for purely the reason of taking drugs do not deserve to go to these sites. Our governments state or federal should not have to fund these safe injection sites if the people there are not trying to better themselves, because there are good people who genuinely do not really know what they are getting themselves into when they start doing these types of drugs and they would like to stop. If a drug user has no intentions of quitting and saving their own life then that should be their choice they knew what they were getting themselves into and had the chance to curb that behavior. Honestly the government should shut these sites down or force the people going to have some type of rehab to avoid just letting them illegally take drugs without any type of consequence. From whyy.org Alex Kreit a law professor and expert on illegal drug policy he says, “A section of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act provides immunity to state and local officials who commit drug crimes while enforcing a local law. It was intended to shield undercover police officers who buy drugs as part of a sting operation from being prosecuted with a crime.” Kreit believes that this statement can justify these safe injection sites from being shut down.
Should safe injection site continue to stand if there is no positive outcome in terms of making drug users stop taking drugs? Or is it “okay” to let them take these drugs if it means they will stay alive?
|
|
|
|
Post by Madison Lindey on Feb 23, 2018 3:15:20 GMT
Many people have different stances when it comes to the topic of safe injection sites. From Vox you can see that for one position, “The idea: While in an ideal world no one would use dangerous and potentially deadly drugs, many people do. So it’s better to give these drug users a space where they can use with some sort of supervision. It’s a harm reduction approach.” I can see how most can view this as a positive because if we give people somewhere safe to go we think that they would use it for their own good. However, on the other side do we really think that this is going to solve that many problems. My question is do we really think that the people using the drugs will feel safe and secure in the sites? Or will they feel as if it is the way for people to find them and they will get punished or feel like they have a target on their back? The other big question that needs to be answered is the safety of the other individuals that would be living around their area. Also quoted from Vox, “Essentially, people are worried that if a supervised drug consumption facility opened in their neighborhood, it would attract drug users to where they live, and that could cause a rise in general crime and social disorder.” When it comes to this quote it is like asking for people to choose between the safety of the drug users or the safety of the individuals who are living in the community. We are wanting people to feel safe and secure where they live, so this may cause people to leave if the violence and crime levels go up. When it comes to government intervention there are positives and negatives surrounding what side they should lean more towards. Some positive are found in the reading from whyy which states, “many public health experts say safe-injection sites in Canada and Europe have saved lives and provided a link to detox and other drug treatment services.” When it comes for them wanting to protect the people I can see why they would want to get involved and help the people who are taking the drugs and be more capable in helping them get clean and stay safe. But on the other side it is expensive and someone would have to pay for it and many people would not want it coming out of their wallet. Also it can help the health and well being of the individuals, but are they always going to go to these safe sites or will they also take unsafe measures outside of the facility? In the end it is hard to decide who should have what power when dealing with this topic most would probably say that the state needs to have a more decision making ability when it comes to safe injection sites over the federal government. The states should be able to determine what is best for their people, but I can see how some would want the federal to have a underlying basis that everyone would have to follow and the state and local governments can then build off of it to do what is best for their circumstances.
In the end do you think that this will influence the majority in a positive way or will this come back to bite them and only cause more problems?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilbert on Feb 23, 2018 17:08:00 GMT
Vox says “In an ideal world no one would use dangerous and deadly drugs, but many people do. So’s it’s better to give drug users a space where they can be supervised. It’s a harm reduction approach.” I do not agree with what Vox has to say because this seems to promote the use of drugs. A safe place to do drugs with no fear of overdosing does not help drug addicts get the real help they need. They are being helped by feeling “safer” from overdosing, but the real help they need is to get clean and recovered. Addiction is a very serious thing and many cannot go through withdrawals without help, so why are they being helped to get clean supplies, but not help to get on the road to recovery? The idea of saving many people from overdoses and HIV is grand, but their harmful addiction is still there. It also seems like most people would not be up for putting their money into a safe drug consumption facility. Vox states “Last year, Seattle announced plans for a supervised drug consumption facility, and allocated 1.3 million for it.” These facilities would cost a great amount of money, which could in return save lives, but also could be going towards helping the addicted to become clean. Also, the federal government does not support these safe drug consumption sites, so they would be violating federal law. Many people that would want to go to these “safe places” should actually feel unsafe going there because the federal government forbids both the use of narcotics and the managing of sites where these drugs are used. This is yet another federalism case because of the difference of what the states allow and what the federal government allows. This relates to the topic of sanctuary cities and how they have protections for immigrants, but it does not mean they cannot be deported by the federal government. Even if the state allows for a safe drug consumption facility, it does not mean it will be safe because the federal government can still put in order that goes directly against narcotic drug use.
How do you think federalism will play a role in this case? Will the cities actually follow through with this or will they be shut down?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fowler on Feb 25, 2018 17:49:12 GMT
The thought that safe injection sites should be implemented within the United States is absolutely absurd. First, it is not beneficial to give drug users a safe space to use dangerous/deadly drugs. These are people, for whatever reason whether desire or peer pressure, who chose to do these dangerous drugs. Despite the importance and preciousness of life, we can eliminate drug addiction by letting these people suffer the consequences of their actions. If they want help, and seek it, there are already programs in place to help them. Overall, we can eliminate any harm by letting a few who choose to do drugs feel the consequences. Second, there is serious compelling interest to prevent private organizations from setting up safe injection sites. It is absolutely illegal. According to attorney Jeff Sessions, the leader of the Department of Justice, “the facilities would violate federal law.” The Justice Department also claimed in a statement, “It is a crime, not only to use illicit narcotics, but to manage and maintain sites on which such drugs are used and distributed.” This is exactly what these organizations are trying to do, making it explicitly illegal. These programs are also extremely costly, they require a number of personal there to administer and monitor the drugs, and also others to prevent overdose. It is also costly purchase the drugs themselves as well, and give them away to those who want them. And, if this was a city/state provided system, that money would come out of taxpayers pockets. Man people do not want their tax dollars being spent on someone to inject heroin. The “loophole” in the Controlled Substance Act the Professor Kreit suggests in article 2 is a very very very big stretch. As Bob Reinstein, a law professor at Temple University also says in the article “This is a real stretch, I don’t see any way around the federal government having the power to close this down and arrest everyone involved.” Not to mention, this loophole would not cover those actually showing up to inject the heroin, only the local administrators who are administering it. This is not a system that people want their tax dollars to fund, nor a system that people want to see arise in their area of The United States. This is not a good system. It is illegal, it is expensive, and most of all it only prolongs addiction, it does not fix it.
Would you want your own tax dollars to go to a program like this instead of ones that preserve our wildlife, further space exploration, and provide clean water for cities?
|
|
|
|
Post by Trent Donaldson on Feb 25, 2018 17:55:42 GMT
Safe Injection sites are a hot topic at the moment. They sound very counter intuitive to the solution to stopping drugs. Various cities in the United States such as, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle have already implemented these or are in then process according to the Vox news article. Canada has already done this and they are reporting positive results. These positive results are the decrease in Overdose deaths, however this may have other affects. The US federal government doesn't agree with the injection sites and Trump even released a statement that says he will enforce the federal law. The local governments have a countermeasure to this which is the 1970 controlled substance act. This in terms was to let undercover drug agents to purchase drugs without prosecution in the name of the law. This in a stretched out manner may be able to be interpreted that the government is providing service to protect the community. It seems like a stretch, but it might work. On the opposite side of the spectrum these injection sites could be harmful to society. They are in turn condoning the use of drugs. With that more and more addiction will occur and becomes a never ending cycle according to the USA Today article. In the Vox article it is stated that since people will continue to do it, then it should be allowed, but in a safe manner. This statement is similar to saying stealing is never going to stop so let people do it to help out the less fortunate. There is no real logic behind this for the long run. What sounds good right now will sound 10 times worse when the addiction rates are through the roof. In conclusion, safe injection sites are not the solution to the war on drugs and the Federal government should use their power to shut them down.
Do you believe allowing the use of drugs will lead to increase in addiction rates or will it solve the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by T Donaldson on Feb 25, 2018 18:08:56 GMT
@fowler
I agree with the points of increasing the addiction rates. The way I view it is like a temporary patch for something... eventually the patch will break. Also, the use of our tax money to fund this program is a big shocker considering more drug addicts will flock around the Injection sites and potentially cause unsafe areas. Another interesting thing I found was the fact that the peak of the Injection sites was when welfare payment was released. This is partially evidence that some of our money is already funding these drugs, which is disappointing.
@gilbert
I believe the federal government intervening is eventually going to happen. Trump's released statements show that he is not okay with these sites existing and he most likely will take action from preventing other cities to follow the bandwagon. In addition, Medical Marijuana will have to be enforced to in a sense considering both have to deal with illegal drugs. So, no action yet towards Medical Marijuana leads me to believe it could take some time to see intervention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antal on Feb 25, 2018 22:18:16 GMT
The Vox article lays out the idea behind the “Safe Injection” sites as it claims, “While in an ideal world no one would use dangerous and potentially deadly drugs, many people do. So it’s better to give these drug users a space where they can use with some sort of supervision. It’s a harm reduction approach.” In this case, though, I do not believe that “harm reduction” is enough action for such a serious matter. I side with the USA Today opinioned article which states that this approach is not focused on healing, rather it “perpetuates harm.” There are thousands of people that have conquered various forms of addiction. However, “Safe Injection” sites are just another name for “a government-approved place for unlimited heroin injection” and they “create the conditions for never-ending addiction.” I agree with Bob Reinstein, a law professor at Temple University, when he says, “This is a real stretch” in regard to Alex Kreit’s interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act. The line that proves the craziness of this idea is found in the whyy.org article when it states, “an obscure provision in federal drug laws can essentially serve as a loophole to protect the injection site.” Why would officials seek to protect the injection site of opioids that caused “more than 1,200 fatal drug overdoses last year . . . four times [Philadelphia’s] homicide rate”? Lawyer Douglas Marlowe acknowledges something that those in favor of “Safe Injection” sites would fail to recognize as he claims, “The analogy to an undercover narcotics officer is, obviously, faulty.” I believe federalism enters the discussion because this should be a federal matter that state governments should not even have the chance to decide upon. The opioid epidemic is not in any way “safe;” therefore, “Safe Injection” sites should not exist in any form.
Question: Will “Safe Injection” sites actually dissuade people from opioids, or will they open the door for more users to get their hands on these lethal drugs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Pierce on Feb 26, 2018 0:31:57 GMT
The normalization of this so called epidemic is part of the problem, how can we as a people and government preach to stop doing harmful drugs and then go right back and give the people addicted to the opioids opportunities to do so. While this is one viewpoint another has quite compelling interest. As far as lowering overdose rates and then lowering the deaths from overdoses. So naturally many people are torn, whether to provide a space in which people can freely use illegal drugs without the consequence of ODing (since there are trained professionals on stand by if someone happens to OD) or to uphold the law. I personally think it is almost encouraging the behavior if the counseling is not required in order to use the facility. In relation to federalism since the drug is illegal the Federal government could go shut down these places at anytime they wish. Also, the state agencies can go in and shut them down. There is compelling government interest to prevent these institutions simply because they are encouraging crime if they are not actively helping them quite their addiction. The benefits are that they can lower the deaths from overdoses but a reason why people overdoses is that they are not getting a good enough high so they are either trying to get a satisfying high or potentially try to get it out of the addiction by suicide. This is very unfortunate to see people feel like they have no other option than to throw away their lives. So if the help is required then it would definitely be a better idea. The loophole is just a disaster. I say this because if they can potentially “get away” with this loophole then what is next.
Will these safe places alo include other drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine,LSD and other drugs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffer on Feb 26, 2018 1:19:56 GMT
The use of heroin takes many lives across America every year, and every year the epidemic gets worst. Many people believe one way to stop the epidemic is to have a safe zone where user have clean needles and are under supervision incase of an overdose where they have the treatment to keep them alive. Unfortunately, It's hard to give someone something that's harmful and addictive and try to talk them out of using it. You can take an overweight person to an ice cream shop buy ice cream for them and tell them never to eat sugar again and expect that to happen. Putting more clean needles out in the community means more of an opportunity for someone new to use heroin USA Today states that “There are no safe heroin injection sites. The only safe approach to heroin is not to take it.”. There are better ways to handle the heroin epidemic but before we find a solution we should not encourage the use of heroin and make the epidemic seem like a small problem that we can easily fix. To someone who doesn't use drugs they see the effects that drugs have on other people. With the safe injection sites it seems that drugs are socially excepted and could bring more people to use drugs. Furthermore, who would pay for the safe injection sites, the needles and the medical supervision. What would the government with all the legal issues, and how would they prevent new users to from using for the first time. How would the police protect violence from happening around the sights and losing all the supplies. Even tho saving the life of a couple users by providing clean needles and supervision seems like a good idea. There are many cons to have safe injection sites all across America.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaffer on Feb 26, 2018 1:21:58 GMT
Once we open up the safe injection sites how do we close them down and when is the right time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulneix on Feb 26, 2018 1:51:25 GMT
There are no easy solutions to the problem of opioid use and even though safe injection sites seem to be an answer with how well they work they are a problem within themselves. According to the Vox article these safe injection sites are effective at reducing the rates of death and hospitalization of those taking these dangerous drugs. As well and good that it is that these facilities help people it still cost money to make and operate them, and it allows people to continue with their addiction and only get counseling if they ask for it. To normalize the use of drugs as these facilities would do is not a good message to send to people, and even if drug use does not increase it allows to people to continue with their bad habits without the consequences of their bad choices. In the article from the Washington post about the safe injection in Canada there is a quote “It makes me feel normal,” said a 52-year-old woman named Lori, who did not want her last name used. That may sound nice but it is a problem because drug use is not normal and it should never be normal. Even though in this case its only to prevent withdrawal symptoms but it is still a self-inflicted problem. All the money that would go to building, and maintaining these places would be better served to campaign and implement methods to prevent people from ever trying these drugs and education of what happens and can happen if you use theses substances. If the government doesn’t close the loop hole or stop these sites from existing then there should at least be some sort of mandatory treatment or therapy to try and get these people off of the drugs their using.
should these people be able to use these sites without counseling?
|
|
|
|
Post by L.Pierce on Feb 26, 2018 2:49:13 GMT
The war against drugs is growing in America, and the central government wants it gone. However, I bet they never would have thought that the major cities would make facilities that could “encourage” drug use in children in neighborhoods with safe injection sites. But according to research, it is wrong, and our cities SHOULD add these sites. In a research about injection sites in Philadelphia, roughly 76 overdoses could have been prevented, out of the 907 in 2016, according to the Vox article. In response to the Vox quote, I totally agree with the statement. Why go on a wild goose chase to eliminate drugs, or rather help those already addicted, and help them through, or just let them do it safely? If you try to get rid of it, it becomes a black market drug, making it even worse of an epidemic. In response to the second question, there most definitely is compelling interest to do something about this crisis. I believe the government should assist the cities in these injection sites, as it just helps most citizens, and rarely causes more drug use. In most cases, this will just save hospital money, which can save even more lives, “And in terms of skin and soft tissue infections alone, the city would save as much as $1.8 million in hospitalization costs each year, according to the review.”, from Vox. The costs of these injection sites might be very costly, being the need for counselors, medical staff, getting the drugs, testing to so its safe, etc. However, in my personal opinion, the human life outweighs all of those costs. Even if to takes millions to maintain, and facilitate, if it saves lives, then it should be used. In relation to federalism, this topic should be left up to the state government, and no federal blanket. But in regards to said blankets, states already “burned” the blanket. The states should have all rights to this topic, as the federal government should be involved more if it makes blankets, like the controlled substance act. I believe these sites should exists, to save lives of people, not creating a drug trafficking system.
Questions: Should the state governments and the cities go forward with these infection sites? If the federal government did raid these sites, if it continued to move forward and be a thing. What kind of backlash would occur if such events happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hinchberger on Feb 26, 2018 3:06:09 GMT
There are many different opinions when it comes to drug users. Some people believe that it is, “better to give these drug users a space where they can use with some sort of supervision. It’s a harm reduction approach.”(www.vox.com). People view this as a huge step towards reducing the opioid crisis by these safe injections sites offering addiction treatment and by stopping overdoses which lead to death. People fear that with these new safe injections site that it will bring an increase of crime into their neighborhood as said by www.vox.com. Due to the potential increase on local crime people may wish to leave the area which would harm the local businesses and it would deter other people from moving their. When it comes to government intervention there is the positive, which is them funding the safe injection sites and that is they would be saving lives. But there is also the negative effect of government involvement which is forcing people through taxes to support in the aid of addicted drug abusers. But even if the government is funding this controversial solution to the opioid crisis there will likely still be people that use these drugs outside of these safe injections sites which will still lead to possible overdoses that have no chance in being eliminated. When it comes down to it if this proposed idea is put into motion the federal government should provide assistance to those state that wish to participate but the federal government should not force the state governments to participate in this controversial topic. The states should only participate in this movement if the people of that state wish to be taxed for this proposed idea. Do like this idea of safe injection sites? If not propose another idea that could benefit the decrease in the opioid crisis. |
|
|
|
Post by burnett on Feb 26, 2018 3:33:22 GMT
In the news article Vox they said “ These are places where people can use drugs with sterile injection equipment and the supervision of trained staff, who are ready with the opioid overdose antidote naloxone if anything goes wrong. The sites may also link people with addiction treatment on request.“ I personally disagree with this having safe injections sites lower the numbers of overdoses, but it almost seems to be like it’s okay to be doing drugs, and the people do it more because they know there is a less chance of overdosing. Having safe injections sites should have to require treatment, not have it just available for request. Being addicted to drugs is very serious and people need help. Safe injections sites almost seem to promote that doing these harmful things is okay. I don’t know think it is right for the federal or state government to fund these sites. People should not be able to go somewhere to feel safe to do these drugs, I understand people mess up and get themselves into these bad spots. Having safe injections sites is almost as if they are saying it’s okay to do these drugs and make sure you are safe. I feel that if they are going to have these sites it should be mandatory to get help, not have it optional. CNN article stated, “ We cannot just watch as our children, our parents, our brothers, and our sisters die of drug overdose.” I do agree with this we can’t watch our loved ones suffer and have these problems, that is why we need to give them to help we can, not promote using opioids and heroin, but to give them the counseling everyone needs.
|
|
