|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 21, 2018 11:55:57 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 Neely on Feb 22, 2018 17:28:47 GMT
With Canada as an influence, the United States have followed in their footsteps with the “safe injection” sites. Problems now may be tied in with the “loophole” in the United States, where the law would protect or in essence “stop” the Federal Government from a crackdown of these so termed safe injection sites. In establishing and maintaining this safe sites, it would create more problems for the “outsiders” in this case, which in essence are the ones that are not using the drugs. On the other hand, family members or friends of people that are victims to drug use, might argue that it shouldn't matter what the cost is that they would be totally for the “safe injection” sites. Although there may be some benefits, such as keeping these users off the street, it will create more problems in my opinion and the cons would outweigh the pros (benefits) in this case. In one of the articles, a law professor and expert on illegal drug policy, Alex Kreit elaborates on the issue that the injection/drug “loophole” in the long run could provoke more challenges that may be necessary. By Kreit saying this I absolutely agree with him, but I can also see the other side of the argument. With some compelling government interest in “safe injection” sites, it can be made to be emotional like I stated before with parents and friends thinking its “necessary” for these sites. In essence, some argue that the Federal Gov. should have more compelling interest to stop these sites from popping up like the ones in Canada and one in Philadelphia, while others may say its better for them (drug users) to shoot up somewhere it is safe rather than in their homes or out on the streets. According to CNN, Philadelphia is taking bold steps toward opening new safe injection sites, but how do you define the term safe? Statistics from a CNN article state, “Up to 76 overdose deaths per year could be prevented with one site in Philadelphia, the report concludes, based in part on a 2008 study of North America's first supervised injection site, in Vancouver Canada.” Another question to pose, should other people have to save a person's life in the sense of giving them a safe injection site if they do not have the “smarts” not to do drugs? Although, 76 is a significant amount of people that it could potentially save, it is a waste of money. In saying this, by giving these people the abilities to go to “safe” sites, it is creating more problems in the long run and putting a label on the cities that have it by letting people think that is it acceptable to “shoot up” in some places.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caldwell on Feb 24, 2018 22:07:54 GMT
When this topic was first stated in class by Makenzie, I was asking the question of why would the U.S. want to provide these safe-injection sites in the first place. I thought of this proposal as being something completely irrational. After reading the articles I now understand why U.S. cities are considering creating these safe-injection sites. The Vox article states in the beginning that “In 2016, nearly 64,000 people died of drug overdoses in the US ,a record high, and at least two-thirds of those deaths were linked to opioids, including heroin and illicit fentanyl.” This is the reason why U.S. cities are interested in creating these sites. The Vox article also mentions that the ideal world would consist of no one using/abusing potentially deadly drugs. “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 agree that these safe-injection facilities could potentially be the safe spot for one to “shoot up”. Specific sites in Canada, Australia, and Europe have been in use and they have shown that there were drops in drug overdoses, related emergency care calls, risky behaviors that lead to HIV or hepatitis C transmissions, and general public disorder and nuisance associated with drugs.(Vox) These facilities data have shown that the safe-injection sites can reduce not only harm but other things like diseases. The facilities also offer treatment to those upon request for drug addiction. The Washington Post article states that “The organizers acknowledge that their main goal is just to keep people alive, though they have seen a few clients get into treatment and off drugs.” Opponents of these safe-injection sites such as John P. Walters have stated that “normalization and tolerance of drug use are reasons that addicts crowd the streets of this city’s small Downtown Eastside district.” (Washington Post) Others have also said that these facilities could send the wrong message to kids in believing that drug abuse is accepted. These places where people can get clean needles are a topic of federalism. The federal government Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that the facilities “would violate federal law”. The Justice Department 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.”(Vox) The states are at conflict with the federal government because they believe that something should be done to face the reality of things and realize that people are going to use drugs that could potentially kill them. States are arguing that these sites would provide the users with correct dosages and also be there if something were to go wrong. The CNN article states that “Up to 76 overdose deaths per year could be prevented with one site in Philadelphia”. States are saying that they would rather help their people than watch this drug overdose number continue to incline. Overall I think that if enough states are willing to implement these sites then the federal government will be too far gone to act.
Question: These articles are telling about the positives and also some of the negatives of opening these safe-injection sites, but who would be paying for the supplies needed for these sites? Do you think that each state who had these specific sites would pay taxes towards them or do you think that it should be if you want to use these drugs then pay for the drug yourself? If you agree with the second part, do you think that will deter the users from wanting to use the safe-injection sites overall?
|
|
|
|
Post by Caldwell on Feb 24, 2018 22:38:50 GMT
@neely
In response to your second question, I do not think that people have the mentality for no specific reason at all to create these safe-injection sites just out of generosity. I think that the biggest problem in this case is that in 2013 Pennsylvania had the third highest drug overdose deaths in the country. I say this because I believe, that is why Philadelphia wants to become the first US city to open this safe-injection site. I think that the state of Pennsylvania is trying to help their people because there is also a big emotional element when someone dies due to drug overdose. Since PA had a large number of drug overdoses in the 2013 survey, I believe the state wants to provide these sites so that the number can be reduced. The data from the articles provided have shown that other countries using these specific sites to reduce harm has been overall beneficial.
|
|
|
|
Post by McDermott on Feb 25, 2018 15:41:34 GMT
Before further research about this topic, I was completely against the idea of cities providing safe injection sites to opioid users, and I couldn’t comprehend why cities like Philadelphia, New York, and San Fransisco thought this was a good idea. Apparently, I was not the only one thinking this way. An article from USA today states, “We do not protect addicts by reviving them from overdose death only to return them to death’s front door, perpetuating the self-destructive cycle of addiction.” Why would we encourage people who need help with their addiction to use drugs more often, because it’s “safer”? After discovering more information, however, I found that these safe injection sites may be the most reasonable solution in relation to the health of our people. “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).” This sentence itself made me change my viewpoint. We have not found any way of convincing opioid users to get help with their addiction, and usually by the time they decide that they do need help, it’s too late. So instead of trying to prohibit them from using these dangerous drugs through ways that could lead to health defects due to the drug, as well as the way the drug was injected, we can save many lives by providing a safe environment for the inevitable. When it comes to how this situation will be dealt with federally, one may find that there is a “loophole” for protecting these injection sites from prosecution. Alex Kreit, a California Law professor, believes that there is an “obscure provision” within the text of a section of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. Kreit states that, “there’s a pretty strong argument that can be made that it would provide immunity to states and localities and their officials to set up something like a safe-injection facility (Whyy).” I believe that the federal government has compelling interest when it comes to this topic based off of the research done by Alex Kreit, as well as the constitutionality of the local laws trying to permit safe injection sites. I believe that these laws should be decided by state governments, not the federal government. Overall, if these safe injection sites are going to promote safer environment for these drug users, leading to a healthier public, it seems like a good option. I also like the idea of having a place for users to go if they want help with their addiction. An article from Vox states that “The sites may also link people with addiction treatment on request.” This way, if the user realizes they want assistance, they have a way to find some.
Do you think these safe injection sites should be dealt with federally or locally? Why?
Did your viewpoint change in any way after further research on this topic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Feb 25, 2018 17:16:26 GMT
As a whole, I do not believe that safe injection sites are a viable solution to the opioid crisis in America. Some argue that there is research “showing drops in drug overdoses, related emergency care calls, risky behaviors that lead to HIV or hepatitis C transmissions, and general public disorder and nuisance associated with drugs.” (Vox) However, there is nothing saying that they help stop drug use and personally, I see these sites becoming a big sign saying “Hey drugs are okay come use them here”. By partially removing the stigma around using drugs and removing some of the negative consequences of using these drugs, they are opening the door for more people to use drugs and more often. Moreover, The justice department says that “It is a crime, not only to use illicit narcotics, but to manage and maintain sites on which such drugs are used and distributed.” So this plan isn’t technically legal either so there is a decent chance of them being shut down and the whole plan turning into a big waste of time. The idea that the states can use an unrelated law to potentially protect themselves from the federal government is somewhat pathetic. They are just twisting the wording of the laws the federal government has in place for their own benefit. I feel like the chances of this actually working are not that great and the federal government will crack down on these sites if it really wants to. In the end, I just do not see this solution working. I agree that “There are no “safe heroin injection sites.” The only “safe” approach to heroin is not to take it.” I can only see safe injection sites as places that would unintentionally promote drug use and I think that there could be better solutions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Confer on Feb 25, 2018 18:14:04 GMT
Before reading the articles, I couldn't understand what benefits could come from giving safe injection sites to addicts. I wasn't against or for the idea, I just needed to know more. Well, reading the Vox article it was easy to see where people’s concerns lied, however after finishing it you could see that these safe injection sites are backed by a lot of compelling evidence. And actual evidence beats hypothetical concerns. One big concern that people have is that this just wouldn't work in the US even though it has worked in Canada, Europe, and Australia.However, the best evidence against this claim comes from studies that looked at an underground safe injection site at an unnamed place in the US. The facility opened in September 2014, saying “ due to the opioid epidemic, the group simply could not wait for bureaucratic approval or the legalization of supervised consumption facilities to act.” A team of researchers looked over this facility and published two articles where they found that staff and drug users at this site reported “the exact same benefits from the site that were reported in other parts of the world.”. In the CNN article, it states that when Philadelphia delegates visited a Vancouver safe site, “The trip "really hit home" that an injection site would be "just one piece of the puzzle to address the opioid crisis,". At face value, this idea seems crazy and irrational but after closely examining it, it has led me to believe that this could be, not the solution, but a stepping stone in the right direction. This setup allows for this addicts to receive help and care but also keeps them off the streets and out of public view where anything can go wrong for not only the user but the public as well. As far as whether this should be a state or federally handled issue, I think this should be a matter of the state's jurisdiction. The federal government should allow the states to decide how they want to handle the drug epidemic in their state. We have people of every race, age, and religion included in this epidemic and one blanket law is not going to fix such a diverse problem.
How do you think people should react to one of these facilities opening near their home? And how should these facilities deal with the outlash they might face because of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Confer on Feb 25, 2018 18:30:47 GMT
@mcderrmott I think this should be handled by the state government. The state government can better understand what their epidemic looks like, Which drugs have the most influence on their communities and how to better help those who need it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Feb 25, 2018 20:46:53 GMT
Allowing for States to introduce safe injection sites for opioid addict undermines the current Federal laws. The Controlled Substance Act is explicit in stating what it is meant for. The justice department says that “It is a crime, not only to use illicit narcotics, but to manage and maintain sites on which such drugs are used and distributed.” The loophole Professor Kreit proposes needs to be rectified to prevent protection of safe injection sites. If it is not rectified, this could spiral out of control like sanctuary cities have. When a government makes laws they need to be enforced and allowing the law to be undermined creates weakness in the government's ability to govern. Draw a line in the sand and tell people not to cross it only works if you punish the first person who crosses it. Generally, states rights is a value of mine but so is upholding the law. When a law is made and not enforced then it is no longer a law. Safe injection sites only serve to inhibit drug addiction. All it does is justify not changing their addiction and will create burdens on local neighborhoods when these facilities get larger than what they can sustain. The benefits now are from the small group these sites see, when they grow to be more numerous so will the amount of users they will take on. These sites bring on the question of how fund management will be distributed. The more numerous these sites become the more costly they will be. Some sites want to introduce prescription drugs to the addicts they see, as result manufacturing of heroin and fentanyl will require new legislation. Making it a business guised with legality will do nothing to stop the epidemic and only further undermine laws. It should be stated that addicts not be forgotten and help still provided for them but such help should be to wean them away from their addiction. The amount of addicts will not change if they are given justification for their addiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Feb 25, 2018 21:14:13 GMT
@mcdermott
In your response you quoted Vox saying “The sites may also link people with addiction treatment on request.” The term "on request" is the issue. If addicts wish not to get treatment then the sites only serve to fuel their addiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Feb 25, 2018 21:17:45 GMT
@caldwell
On your question of having sites pay taxes, it would depend on what the governmental body in charge dictates. From the information provided it appears that these safe injection sites will only seem to cost money. However, if there is one thing the governments loves is making money, almost as much as they love spending it. If they can make money, they will.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluedorn on Feb 25, 2018 21:26:47 GMT
The idea of a "safe injection site" is an oxymoron. No matter how clean the needles are, how many medical staff are on standby, there is nothing safe about using hardcore drugs such as heroin. These sites are not helping anyone. While they may prevent overdose deaths, the addicts are revived to overdose again, and again. No long term solution is offered to individuals attending these sites. I believe that the government has compelling interest to ban these sites from U.S. cities as they have been proven not to lower addiction rates in British Columbia, where despite the large amount of government support for these programs, the amount of overdose deaths have increased by 250% in just 3 years. The "loophole" that Professor Kreit mentions in the second article seems extremely far fetched to me. While I cannot definitively say what the courts would rule on this subject as I have not read the language in which the law as worded, the lawsuit would have to prove that setting up these "safe" injection sites is enforcing local law. In order to achieve that, the local government would have to pass a law allowing for these sites, which I doubt would go unchallenged by the DEA among various other federal agencies.
A few questions to consider:
For those in favor of these sites, what are they actually accomplishing? They prevent deaths and the spread of diseases but these addicts are still hooked on drugs like heroin that take a tremendous toll on the human body even without being accompanied by diseases like HIV and while Narcan may prevent them from overdosing lives riddled with addiction are guaranteed not to be long or healthy.
If the federal government were to adopt Canada’s open stance towards these sites, who would pay for them? If it’s the taxpayers, is it fair to force them to pay for others poor life choices, especially when the success of these sites is questionable at best?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluedorn on Feb 25, 2018 21:33:29 GMT
“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).” This sentence itself made me change my viewpoint. We have not found any way of convincing opioid users to get help with their addiction, and usually by the time they decide that they do need help, it’s too late. So instead of trying to prohibit them from using these dangerous drugs through ways that could lead to health defects due to the drug, as well as the way the drug was injected, we can save many lives by providing a safe environment for the inevitable. To respond to this point, how do these sites actually help addicts? They do prevent the spread of HIV and overdose deaths, but in the long run they are still in the exact same position they were before. Many of these sites do not make an effort to help addicts recover, rather they just allow them to stay hooked to the very thing that is killing them. These sites do not offer a solution, but rather encourage addicts by normalizing their addictions. |
|
|
|
Post by bluedorn on Feb 25, 2018 21:38:22 GMT
Question: These articles are telling about the positives and also some of the negatives of opening these safe-injection sites, but who would be paying for the supplies needed for these sites? Do you think that each state who had these specific sites would pay taxes towards them or do you think that it should be if you want to use these drugs then pay for the drug yourself? If addicts had to pay to obtain the drugs themselves then it would negate one of the few valid reasons to have the sites in the first place: to prevent drug related crime. Most drug related crime is in the form of theft or robberies to pay for their next fix. This means the price tag would inevitably fall on the head of the taxpayer. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry on Feb 25, 2018 22:05:15 GMT
On the state and federal level there is compelling interest to support these safe injection facilities. Overdosing is one of the leading causes of death in America but this is no surprise due to the fact that Fentanyl and other hardcore drugs are running rampant throughout the country. Drug use is currently a federal topic due to the Controlled Substance act of 1970 but local officials enforce the law. Safe injection sites are currently illegal in the United States but according to whyy there may be a loophole, they state “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.” But there should not have to be a loophole for these facilities to operate under, the federal government should encourage states to create and manage these sites. The Washington Post lists the recorded benefits of safe injection sites by stating, “Research shows that the approach, like supervised drug consumption, saves lives, cuts criminal justice and health-care costs, limits the spread of diseases such as HIV and helps reduce used needles and other debris in the immediate neighborhood.” The facilities are not intended to create more drug users, they are intended to save lives and improve the quality of already existing user lives. The best case scenario in the future of these facilities would be locally run sites that receive incentives from the federal government. The high success rate of facilities in Canada and Europe also adds to the compelling interest for the government to support safe injection and overdose prevention sites. Whyy supports this statement by saying, “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.”
Do you think if safe injection sites are established in the future would their existence encourage or discourage younger citizens to abuse drugs?
Is prevention and stigmatizing drug use adequate treatment for the nations drug epidemic?
|
|
