|
|
Post by Neely on Feb 26, 2018 17:23:04 GMT
@henry
First off, your response was very well worded and I agree with most of what you had to say. To address your ending question, I believe that with upcoming safe injection sites will just put young people in the mind that its "acceptable" to do drugs, because someone is providing them with "free clean needles", which they are not really free. Additionally, like I stated in my original post I think that by having these sites it'll create more problems that do not necessarily need to be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neely on Feb 26, 2018 17:28:08 GMT
@gracebell
No matter what is done in this situation, I could see a city close to home such as Butler having one of these safe injection sites. I say this because there is already a facility where you can buy marijuana in Butler. We (Butler) have such a big epidemic with opioid problems that it will not be too much farther down the road, that one will "pop up" close to home.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weber on Feb 26, 2018 23:06:00 GMT
sierranagy I do tend to agree with this stance on the topic, that these safe sites is just allowing the drug users to become more addicted to the drug and in a sense be counterintuitive. As well as that the people volunteering are doing an illegal act because of these safe sites going against federal law. Although these safe sites have helped lower death rates, although it is not a safe or comfortable way of living, the numbers of lives saved are still there. Though my mind has been more open to the subject, this is the side I would tend to agree on, and that even though it does not seem right; that it is the best solution we have for helping these drug users as of now.
|
|
|
|
Post by sierranagy on Feb 26, 2018 23:06:23 GMT
bluedorn To address your second question, it has been stated various times that this institutions are currently privately funded. I do, however see your concern as I had considered it myself. If the government were to back or at the least accept these “Safe injection sites” than it is more than likely that the question of whether or not the government should assist them in monetary means will soon arise. “Is it fair to force them to pay for the poor life choices of others”? Perhaps not, but nonetheless Americans have to support those who have made what many would consider to be consequences of “poor life choices” such as welfare and unemployment everyday.
|
|
|
|
Post by sierranagy on Feb 26, 2018 23:11:55 GMT
@weber
I find your question intriguing and would like to respond to it. I believe that it is both psychological and emotional issues, ranging from schizophrenia to anxiety as well as a conforming society which is becoming increasingly more accepting of drug usage both contribute significantly to drug use. In fact, in the case of mental health they typically play off each other, someone with depression starts using drugs, and someone using drugs develops depression.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weber on Feb 26, 2018 23:35:54 GMT
@morganmurdock. Although is it a right way to live by always being in the state that the drugs are producing for them? It becomes to the point of the users needing more drugs from becoming numb to it by how it is now at there access easily. Although I do agree that reducing harm and death is better than nothing, just that it would be done in a way where it would not increase the addiction rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Murdock on Feb 27, 2018 1:43:07 GMT
@caldwell As far as paying for the safe injection sites the tax payers of the state would pay for them without a doubt. I understand that many would argue that they have "better things" to pay taxes to and i am sure that the people not affected by drug use do have better things to pay for. But as far as making the users pay for the sites, I do not think that it would work because addicts would much rather get the same high in their own bathroom without paying than paying for something that they really do not need to pay for. But i do believe that if there was some way to encourage the users to "work" for their time at the safe injection sites that it should be done, it is just complicated because then you end up with users who will use away form the sites to avoid the "work".
|
|
|
|
Post by Murdock on Feb 27, 2018 1:53:24 GMT
Confer I believe that everyone would react differently to having a safe injection site set up near their homes. Depending on the circumstances it could be a great thing for the people near by or they could feel as though it is the start of a major issue. I know that if one was set up near me I would be fairly upset and not due to the NIMBY concern but just in worry that younger children (or my little brother) would not realize the real problem behind drug addiction. There is no way for the sites to deal with back lash other than to embrace it because it is such a touchy topic that not everyone will be. They would just have to take the good with the bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry on Feb 27, 2018 2:08:02 GMT
@gracebell To respond to your question on whether or not safe injection sites could become a regular thing in big cities or even Butler, I believe that the sites will target heavily populated areas or areas that witness many overdoses. It would be a waste of resources to have these sites in cities where drug use and death isn’t prevalent. I do think Butler would benefit from a site due to all the various overdoses and how common it is to see needles and users on the streets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stoughton on Feb 27, 2018 2:50:25 GMT
@weber
At first, I didn’t think the safe-injection sites were much of a solution either. They seemed to be more of an encouragement more than anything. You get a nice clean space to do drugs and if something goes wrong, you have people right outside to save you. I agree that it gives people an opportunity to abuse drugs like opioid all they want and it is virtually consequence-free. I can appreciate the benefits of it, though. Ones like the pop-up tents are good for keeping kids and regular civilians away from it all, but to have an entire building is a bit much. Ideally, opioid shouldn’t be a hue epidemic, but since it is and rehab isn’t an option for 70% of drug users, this is the closest thing we have. And to answer your question, I think it’s both. I can muster up sympathy for people who genuinely could not find another way out of their problems but to turn to drugs, but as far as recreational users, I can’t say the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stoughton on Feb 27, 2018 2:51:35 GMT
campbellCompletely agree. The ideal circumstances would call for absolutely zero drugs use altogether, but we do not live in a utopia. As humans, we’re going to do things we know we shouldn’t, but should we expect other people to give their time just to allow our decisions to be consequence-free? It’s great that major cities are making a visible effort to decrease the amount of deaths via overdose, but I don’t see a point to any of those efforts if it doesn’t actually curb the behavior. Maybe rehabilitation centers should become as accessible as these clinics are; So when people are busy doing drugs under medical supervision, that could be their chance to also get off addiction altogether. I understand it’s a stretch, and while taking what you said into consideration, I also figured it would cost less in the long-run to just fix the addiction rather provide a safe space to feed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Callihan on Feb 27, 2018 3:37:12 GMT
@bell I truly believe that if these safe injection sites are deemed as "okay" in the US some cities will have multiple sites throughout. I then believe that more and more cities will come to a verdict that this is helpful based on data collected and it will catch like wildfire throughout the US
|
|
|
|
Post by Callihan on Feb 27, 2018 3:42:58 GMT
@henry When people see 1st handed how difficult it is being on drugs and dealing with these problems I believe that it would discourage the future generations from doing drugs but ultimately people still do drugs reguardless of everything generations before have taught them.
|
|
|
|
Post by campbell on Feb 27, 2018 14:31:24 GMT
@caldwell I do not think that individual tax payers will tolerate being taxed for someone else’s poor decisions. Also, if the users of the safe injection sites are expected to pay for them the sites won’t exist because the users will choose the unsafe and cheaper alternative
|
|
|
|
Post by campbell on Feb 27, 2018 14:47:18 GMT
@mcdermott I believe that this should be dealt with federally because opioid addiction occurs everywhere and if the intention is to prevent overdose then the safe injection sites should be place strategically across the country to give all addicts access to the safe injection sites. Also, if this isn’t legalized then the government shouldn’t allow any states to open a safe injection site.
|
|
