|
|
Post by Antal on Feb 27, 2018 1:24:12 GMT
@burnett
I agree that counseling should be a requirement in order to lessen these people’s dependence on drugs. I do not know how effective these “Safe Injection” sites are when it comes to eliminating opioid users because I believe the effect of “having the supervision of trained staff” watching over these drug users is exaggerated. Those in favor of “Safe Injection” sites claim that the sites lower the number of overdoses, but we need to face reality and agree that one overdose is one too many!
@helzsouer
To answer your first question, I do not believe that safe injection sites should exist because they basically encourage serious drug use by eliminating consequences and providing a safe environment for these people. I like how you pointed out the fact that there are people that lacked knowledge when they first starting using those drugs and they genuinely desire to change their lives. These people should not be pushed aside for others that just want to abuse the existence of safe injection sites and take drugs under the supervision of trained staff members. Similar to the video we watched on Monday, I believe people are treating these safe injection sites as “safe zones” where law enforcement cannot punish them for their misdeeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hinchberger on Feb 27, 2018 1:27:18 GMT
@wilson's original response:
For your first question about how america would fund these safe injections sites I believe that the governments should not impose a new tax on the people for this program because some and if not most people would not be comfortable supporting drug use. So I think that for the most fair way to to support/fund this new program would to only have it funded by donations and volunteers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gray on Feb 27, 2018 2:06:23 GMT
@ Gilbert: I agree with you. In a perfect world these safe sites would be a great idea and help many but as you said, it could be very costly. I'm sure that most tax payers will not want to pay extra money to go to these sites which they might see as "enabling" or "promoting" illegal drug use. Also, the fact that there are no repercussions and nothing forcing them to seek help will obviously not solve the problem in the long run for this epidemic. It will just prolong it so we as a society need to work on coming up with a solution to end the war on drugs, not enable it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulneix on Feb 27, 2018 2:15:33 GMT
@fowler
I wold rather see the tax dollars to the benefit of more people and not just addicts but, there are many other things that the american tax dollar goes to that is useless. We as a people would have to get the government to stop squandering money on many other things before the discussion of if they should fund this or not comes up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulneix on Feb 27, 2018 2:21:47 GMT
@hinchberger
I personally do not like the idea of safe injection sites but they will probably have a positive effect or none at all when it comes to the drug problem, and there are not many better solution due to the simple fact that people are just going to do what they what to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gray on Feb 27, 2018 2:23:11 GMT
@ Donaldson: I agree with you in a sense that it is promoting drug use rather than ending it. I understand that they are trying to decrease the amount of overdoses occurring, which is great. However, If you look at the bigger picture, more and more people will just continue to become addicted in that time because it is a growing epidemic at a rapid pace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole Helzlsouer on Feb 27, 2018 2:42:05 GMT
Re: Ralph’s original post
In the current situation of these safe injection sites the goal “should” be to help people get off of their drug addiction and start valuing their own life again, but who’s to say that someone that truely doesn’t want help can act like it just so they have a safe spot to shoot up their drugs. Where should the line be drawn and is it worth the trouble just to pick out the “bad people” as in the serious drug users that don’t want help.
|
|
|
|
Post by L.Pierce on Feb 27, 2018 2:46:36 GMT
@dorrier I think that the loophole, which you explained nicely, should be patched. If it works how you said, which hopefully you said it right, Because I'm still a bit confused, then the act should not have the power to inadvertently allow drug users to do this without consequence. However, I still believe As long as the true intent of these sites so to keep people alive, then the loophole should be abused until it is physically changed in response to all of these safe infection sites.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole on Feb 27, 2018 2:50:36 GMT
Re: Ryan H’s original response
I don’t agree with these safe injection sites because of the fact that they are condoning the drug use more than being focused on stopping it. My proposal for a solution would be to take down these safe injection site, but make rehab facilities more accecable for the people who want to help themselves get off of opioids. Also in my opinion for the people that would not seek help in their situation know the consequences of these types of drugs and value the drug more than their own life so just leave them alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davis on Feb 27, 2018 2:53:42 GMT
@fowler
I agree that the people who are potentially going to overdose chose the consequences so why not let them face those consequences. If you keep on saving the lives of people that are overdosing they are going to continue to do the drugs because they know they will be safe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Feb 27, 2018 2:57:10 GMT
@shaffer I completely agree with you on the fact that the safe injection sites are not going to help the epidemic. I don't think that there would be any prevention for new users because the volunteers there are there to save peoples' lives, not to deter people from doing what they want with their lives, or else the volunteers wouldn't be there in the first place; the other volunteers are users themselves, an for them to be preaching to someone not to do drugs but are doing them themselves would seem vey hypocritical. Also, I think that you bring up a good point about the police preventing violence, because one of the big dangers of being the person administering Narcan, is the danger of being hurt by the angry overdose patient because they are waking up and realizing that the person who just saved their life, took away their high, so I think that you made a very interesting point.
|
|
|
|
Post by L.Pierce on Feb 27, 2018 2:59:37 GMT
@davis
My stance on this topic, as you might recall during class, was that these are a good thing. It might seem boring and repetitive by just saying it again, but I have more argumentative points. For example, from the Vox article, it saves an average on 1.3 million (pretty sure million) dollars from hospitals, that could be used for other patients, which is vastly helpful in the medical world. Another example from the Vox article says in Philadelphia, it could save around 75 lives, which is pretty big from the epidemic going around. Those people who were saved could potentially go to others and tell people to stop, but its just a suggestion. That is my stance on the topic, hope I didn't just repeat myself
|
|
|
|
Post by Davis on Feb 27, 2018 3:05:23 GMT
@madison Lindey response to me
I do agree that the safe injection sites are not to great of an idea based on how in the long run it could support the use of drugs instead of deterring people to use them. However there are better ways to go about it than just letting the people who know the consequences die. I watched a Netflix documentary called "Heroin(e)" and it was about the epidemic in a small city/ big town and they didn't have a safe injection site. Instead their approach was to save as many lives as possible with the reversal drug and instead of throwing the people in jail (which would not help them) they had a mandatory rehab program and you got a certain amount of chances to turn your life around and if you didn't then you faced the jail time consequences but oyu did not lose a life at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davis on Feb 27, 2018 3:09:29 GMT
I encourage you to watch the documentary if you haven't already
|
|
|
|
Post by Malinski on Feb 27, 2018 3:16:53 GMT
@rudish I agree with you that the safe injection sites are not a solution to the opioid epidemic, and that they should not be allowed because the federal government prohibits it. And I also think that if any part of the government would start paying for the sites and used tax dollars to pay for it, there would be a large majority of the population very unhappy about paying a tax that may not concern them directly or just the fact that their money is going to something that they don't support at all.
|
|
