|
|
Post by McIlwain on Feb 27, 2018 15:15:57 GMT
@caldwell You asked who would be paying for these sites, and to respond to your question, as of now, our tax paying money isn’t necessarily going towards these sites, seeing as to how the federal government still disapproves of them. I had the same discussion with Connor in class, and he brought that up to me. It was also discussed that you can get medical supplies rather easily, so that isn’t difficult to obtain. Where they are getting the narcotics is completely unaware to me, however. It seems as if the projects are being funded by local volunteers and such.
|
|
|
|
Post by McIlwain on Feb 27, 2018 15:18:37 GMT
@murdock If they were to be funded by tax payer money, we wouldn’t have much of a say in it. Although I wish it was possible, we cannot tell the government what we are going to pay for and what we are not going to pay for. The government taxes us, and we theoretically have to trust the government to do with it what we want done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Feb 27, 2018 16:02:24 GMT
ConferI feel that people would not take kindly to these sites opening near their homes. People might feel that it would cause an increase in crime in their area. There would probably be a good amount of backlash and I'm not sure how the facilities would be able to handle it other than just ignoring it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Feb 27, 2018 16:06:42 GMT
bluedornI agree that by having these sites they aren't really accomplishing anything because they aren't solving the problem of these people being addicted to drugs. Yes they may be saving lives but that doesn't solve the drug problem. In the end these people are still gonna be living unproductive lives if they are still addicted to these drugs.
|
|
|
|
Post by McDermott on Feb 27, 2018 16:52:58 GMT
Confer The question that you posed intrigued me because it got me gunning about how one would respond to a safe injection site in their area. Obviously the answer will vary because everyone has a different opinion on the topic. I believe that many people would be supportive of the idea because it will provide a safety net for those who are addicted to drugs and are at great risk of overdose. However, many would also disapprove of it because it will make it easier to become addicted to opioids because of how simply and safely the drugs can be obtained.
|
|
|
|
Post by McDermott on Feb 27, 2018 16:59:39 GMT
@weber
I believe in the idea that in many cases, not all cases of course, people who are experiencing psychological disorders often look to drugs as an outlet. I believe that the overall mental health of our society today is terrible. Desperation rates are at an all time high. I also agree with the idea that drugs have become more accepted in society today, it’s almost becoming a trend. I think both of these combined together are creating a vicious cycle of drug use.
|
|
duffy
New Member
Posts: 15 
|
Post by duffy on Feb 27, 2018 17:00:51 GMT
Confer The NIMBY argument is credible in my opinion. After yesterday’s video, I felt sick to my stomach. The pop up tent appearing in the middle of a public park (as it appeared) seems very upsetting to me. I couldn’t imagine walking with my child or taking a simple jog and having to see someone stumble out doped up, or watch as medical staff tried reviving a user. I respect the benefits of these spots, but they make me uncomfortable. And i’m sure many others feel the same. I wouldn’t want something like this out in the open.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valera on Feb 27, 2018 17:10:32 GMT
The main objective in these sites is to reduce overdose death rates. In terms of that objective the sites are accomplishing their goal of reducing overdose deaths. However this is not ideal in terms of the reducing the deteriorating effects of the drugs and the rates of addiction . In response to your 2nd question I completely agree that funding is the one of the biggest barriers in these sites. Also many taxpayers would not agree with their tax dollars going towards these safe injection sites
|
|
|
|
Post by Valera on Feb 27, 2018 17:11:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Fischer on Feb 27, 2018 17:24:00 GMT
@mcdermott
I agree with what you said about beung totally against it at first. However now that I've read about it more I think this is an ok alternative. I do have a question. Do you think that this is just going to promote first time users to try illegal drugs just because there is no fear of overdose?
|
|
|
|
Post by Valera on Feb 27, 2018 17:28:22 GMT
Safe injection sites could become regular things in big cities with significant opioid issues if the federal government approved it. I don’t think the sites would become a regular thing across a vast amount of American cities (including smaller ones like butler) unless the sites from those initial cities showed undeniable evidence that they have produced a positive effect on the cities and communities.
@grace bell
|
|
|
|
Post by Fischer on Feb 27, 2018 17:28:46 GMT
@callahan What you said about how we should keep teaching kids about drugs to show them how bad that are interested me. The drug usage has been steadily climbing and we've had so many people come in to tell us how bad they are. Obviously that tactic is not working. Do you think we need to make more drastic teachings of how horrible they are or what would be a better solution?
|
|
