Period 10: Opioid Crisis and Safe Injection Sites

@mcdermott
In response to your question when first heard about these safe-injection sites I thought that the federal governments should eliminate these sites, because it tells younger viewers that Opioid use is acceptable. After reading the articles and realizing that the true intentions of these sites are I have mixed feelings. I think that if you have some relative that is addicted to drugs, you would want these kind of sites to reduce the risk of transmitted diseases and also hope that they may go into treatment. I am also still concerned that with these sites the generations to come will see that their cities accept Opioid usage and that will then not deter them from abusing drugs.

When this topic was first brought up in class, I was shocked. As someone who has seen firsthand the effects drug use has on loved ones, it’s not hard for me to say that I am not completely in favor of these sites. I do understand the “benefits” of them, if that’s what we’re calling the changes. The Washington Post writes that admistrators are not promoting drug use, but are instead trying to keep people alive. They also offer support to those who want to enter into rehab. Vox reports that im 2016, around 64,000 people died of overdoses in the U.S. At least 2/3 of those deaths were linked to things such as opioids. For example, heroine and illicit fentanyl. Providing clean “tools” and “clean” substances only slows down the inevitable in my opinion. These people will die. Drugabuse.gov writes that, “Medical consequences of chronic injection use include scarred and/or collapsed veins, bacterial infections of the blood vessels and heart valves, abscesses (boils), and other soft-tissue infections. Many of the additives in street heroin may include substances that do not readily dissolve and result in clogging the blood vessels that lead to the lungs, liver, kidneys, or brain. This can cause infection or even death of small patches of cells in vital organs. Immune reactions to these or other contaminants can cause arthritis or other rheumatologic problems”.

Drug use is without a doubt inevitable, that is something we can all agree on. I am just not convinced that the benefits created by these facilities will last long term. By providing a safe spot for drug addicts to go without fear of punishment or forceful rehab, we could be opening the door to the normalization of substance abuse. Growing up, I was raised to know that it is deadly. I myself watched multiple loved ones struggle with addiction, and some continue to struggle to this day. My father’s best friend died last year due to heroine use. So to those reading and thinking that I have no idea what it is like to watch someone struggle, I do. I understand it more than most people would, and I’ve been aware for a very long time.

But for young children who have yet to learn what this topic is, how will they see it? It’s hard for us to imagine a world where drug users are welcomed with open arms by facilities that provide for their drug use, but for those who have yet to learn? How will they be affected? Vox writes 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.” Say these sites become accepted across the nation. To a young boy in the first grade, it will be all that he knows. Growing up, drug use may not be as serious of an issue to him as it would be for us as matured young adults because the world he was raised in has begun to accept the concept. We don’t know the statistics that will come about within the next ten years, and we cannot predict them! We cannot guess how younger generations will be affected by this issue. I don’t think I will ever be able to stomach this idea. The U.S. government has plenty of compelling interest in this matter, and I believe that it is not something that should be normalized. It is too loosely regulated in the sense that no consequences are to come from using these facilities. This could create a whole new kind of epidemic that is beyond our imaginations.

Initially, I was bordering being against the facilities and seeing the sensible side to them. I thought it was just making it easier for opioid users to gain access to an addiction that, like all addictions, shouldn’t be there in the first place. I thought that these “safe-injection” sites would just apt more people to want to do drugs. They’re safe, so why not? But, I did eventually see the benefits that are visible upon reviewing the circumstances. Even after changing my view on these facilities, I still completely understand the controversial side to them, but I encourage others to think more openly of them. According to Vox, places with these ’Safe Spaces’ are “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.” Not only are they fixing current abusers, but they’re also preventing new ones. Children are not exposed to street drugs/users and civilians do not run the risk of catching a disease themselves. My understanding is that the government heavily regulates what happens inside of the “Safe-Injection” sites. The deal is “if you’re going to do drugs, we’d rather you do it in a controlled environment,” and this diminishes the need for drug dealers, so they can keep track of where the drug goes. It’s all part of the cutbacks. Like I said, I can still understand why others are concerned, maybe they think it’s the government’s way of condoning a drug epidemic but the farther in you look into it, it does have its benefits. I believe there are ideally better ways of solving things such as this, but given our economic state, we have to work with what we have.

What a world we live in today. The use of drugs such as heroine has substantially increased and with that the amount of deaths. The main issue concerning this is the legality of the safe injection sites spring up in different countries and and states including Philadelphia, Seattle, and San Francisco. The federal law says it is illegal to allow the use of drugs let alone facilitate it. However, a reporter from the reporter Bobby Allyn states, “...it is possible that the federal government will not meddle at all”. This could be related back to weed becoming legal in some states. It has gotten far enough out of control it would cost the government too much to arrest and even find all the safe injection sites. The states have attempted to come up with a loophole in which they could get around the federal law. The loophole is flimsy and is not likely to hold up in court. The reading pertaining to the loophole stated, ‘“The analogy to an undercover narcotics officer is, obviously, faulty,” Marlowe said. “But I honestly don’t know how a court would decide the matter.”’. There are some benefits to the safe injection sites as well. Vox states, “They found that as many as 76 drug overdose deaths annually could be prevented, compared to the 907 people who died of an overdose in Philadelphia in 2016.” It may not seem the most substantial but it is showing some improvement. There is also the issue of how are these safe injection sites paying for the needles and other things needed. The washington post states, “The largest crowds are on days when welfare payments arrive.” This most likely means it’s the taxpayers dollars paying for these people to continue doing drugs. In all the federal government is either going to need to crack down and make a blanketed decision one way or the other.

Honestly, I never thought there’d be a discussion regarding “safe injection sites” for illegal narcotics. At first glance, I was shocked that this was a thing, and quite frankly thought it was ridiculous. It also surprised me that it isn’t necessarily a new trend. However, it’s important in any situation before debate to research the topic in depth in order to create a more valid stance. After doing so, I can safely say that I support this idea of safe injection sites, because I believe it is better than the alternative. I particularly liked - for lack of a better term - the part in the article from vox.com when it said, “While in an ideal world no one would use dangerous and potentially deadly drugs, many people do.” This supports my thought that I’d rather have a controlled variable than an outlier. What I mean by this is that I would rather have someone who uses opium and other dangerous substances be in an environment where it’s safER to do so, instead of lying next to a dumpster in an alleyway. It makes the situation less chaotic, as well as enables people to seek help if they need it, because (I also found this extremely interesting) the safe injection centers can also serve to assist in the treatment of addictions. On the other side of this discussion is the relationship between the federal and state governments in this scenario. The states are technically justified because of the loophole found in the 1970 Controlled Substance Act, which allowed law enforcement to use illegal drugs as a “sting operation” during prosecution. Well, hey, if the federal government gets upset by the states taking advantage of their obnoxiously vague language, they should have thought about that beforehand. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Although the first article says that Americans have a very “stigmatized approach” on the opioid crisis and all other drug issues, there is not much else to expect. Most people realize the harms caused by these drugs and for the most part would like to eliminate it all together; ideally that would be the best thing. It is not a perfect world and there is no way to completely get rid of drug abuse, so reduction may be the only option at hand. Harm reduction is a better approach than no approach at all. Since there are so many deaths due to drug abuse each year the government does have compelling interest it setting forth some sort of prevention. There are nearly 907 deaths in Philly PA yearly and about 76 of the people could have possibly been saved had there been help. The total amount of lives that could be saved should be enough interest to the government to help and support safe sites. There may not be an actual blanket solution to this, but even if state governments were able to help some sites out it would be beneficial. According to Vox, Philadelphia PA could save up to 1.8 million dollars in hospital costs if a safe site was set up and running. As always, there could be a possible downfall for cities like Seattle, Washington where it would cost them 1.8 million dollars to set the site up. Setting these sites up could depend on how common drug use is or could be based off of the average cost to treat overdose patients in hospitals. Another issue many people were concerned about is the NIMBY concern. The “Not in My Back Yard” means that people do not want these sites set up in their towns in fear that it would bring the drugs close to their homes and would potentially make drug use more common. But, according to the EMCDDA there have been less public injections in the towns that have sites and that there has been no record of crime increase in the cities of safe injection sites.