|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 21, 2018 11:57:10 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 Martin on Feb 23, 2018 1:14:02 GMT
The subject of safe injection sites raises lots of controversy when it comes down to being a beneficial or “supportive” system or a negative or drug promoting environment. According to Vox, in 2016, nearly 64,000 people died of drug overdoses in the US, while at least two-thirds of those deaths were linked to opioids, including heroin. Most Americans, after all, use all kinds of drugs. “The problem is when that drug use begins to hurt someone’s day-to-day function” says Vox. After reading the provided articles, I was able to acquire some of the costs and benefits of safe injection facilities. On the positive side of things, the sites may link people with addiction treatment on request. Also, studies have shown that supervised consumption facilities help cut down on drug-related problems, including overdoses and general public health and safety issues. According to the Washington Post, some who have checked into these safe site facilities also now have jobs and apartments, freed of the need to steal. Lastly, clients are provided with clean needles, proper equipment, and intensive supervision to make sure nothing goes wrong. Although these sites have many benefits, there is also costs, literally. The price of the services is high: about $25,000 per client. This can be a price hard to afford, considering the conditions clients are in when they enter the sanctuary. Also, many worry that if a supervised drug consumption facility opened in their neighborhood, it would attract drug users to where they live, causing a rise in crime. In addition, some of the sites are makeshift, set up by drug users in areas where they commonly use drugs. (Vox) So where does the government sit in all of this? Right now, there is no federal authority supporting or opposing safe injection sites. A man in an article on Whyy says, “Under a Democratic administration, I could not imagine federal law enforcement taking a hands-off approach to a safe-injection site. Even now, though, he said it is possible that the federal government will not meddle at all.” Barbara Garcia, director of health for the city of San Francisco says on The Washington Post, “We just have to do what’s best for the client, and we hope the federal government will understand.” My stance on this issue is uncertain, but I would rather have the state governments intervene than the federal. In a perfect world, America's drug problem wouldn't exist and nor would safe injection sanctuaries, but we can't always get what we wish for, so we might as well do something about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarver on Feb 24, 2018 14:02:51 GMT
The quote, “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.” This accurately depicts the issue faced among individuals and their addiction of drugs in today’s society. Life is not always beautiful. Unfortunately, the scary, ugly side of life is occurring each and every day. Most users have life experiences of abuse and abandonment starting from childhood and need serious treatment provided. So, several cities have announced safe injection sites which seems as a “solution” for these addicts. However, I get that these sites may reduce the costs of criminal justice, death and health care, but the problem still lies where the individuals are still injecting to get high.That is the overall main point of these sites. If they were not getting high, they would not show up to these injection sites. I have no problem spending money on worthy causes and helping individuals seek recovery if needed, but injecting themselves up to three times a day is not seeking recovery. For example, the CNN article stated, “ We cannot just watch as our children, our parents, our brothers, and our sisters die of drug overdose.” I agree with this quote because no one should have to suffer and fear seeking help to get clean, but by providing more needles and ways to just keep getting high, that is still not solving the issue and healing these addicts. It is enabling the drug use to continue and I don't think these people can be saved by just exposing them to their own addiction. Treatment needs to be provided by getting prescribed by real doctors, be monitored and also drug tested. So, how does law enforcement act? The Palm Healthcare article stated, “The Trump administration made it clear they reject any facilities where heroin users can inject drugs under supervision.” With there being over 64,000 individuals dying of overdoses, I do not believe the federal government would turn a blind eye to such a huge problem. Sanctioning a safe injection site presents significant public safety concerns, and changes in state and federal law would need to occur for these sites to operate legally. Therefore, a disconnection between federal and state law enforcement can present situations that are hard to imagine for the future.
So, if the federal government forbids these sites, then won’t individuals fear going to them in fear of getting caught even if it is under supervision?
|
|
|
|
Post by Croll on Feb 24, 2018 16:16:05 GMT
"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." After reading multiple articles on the safe injection sites I can say that statistically this could reduce the number of deaths from overdoses. However, by simply supporting the users' addiction, we are teaching people that it is okay to be using these drugs, we are providing clean needles and sanitary facilities for them. In an article from Vox, "Critics also worry that supervised consumption facilities would lead to more drug use, because they would remove a barrier - and perhaps some of the stigma - to drug use." These facilities would have trained staff members ready to treat them with naloxone, a drug that can reverse the overdose procedure. Essentially, this is telling the users that it is okay to do the drugs they do, and if something goes wrong, their lives can be saved. "Such facilities would also threaten to undercut existing and future prevention initiatives by sending exactly the wrong message to children: the government will help you use heroin. Indeed, encouraging and normalizing heroin injection may even encourage individuals to use opiates for the first time." The incorporation of these facilities in our country have also raised many concerns about the potential raise in crime that could come of it. The drug users need money to purchase their drugs and if they do not have a consistent income from a job, they may turn to crime to support their addiction. On the contrary, studies have shown that the safe injection sites would actually save money. "In terms of skin and soft tissue infections alone, Philadelphia would save as much as $1.8 million in hospitalization costs each year." Also, "Researchers have been gathering evidence on safe injection sites for decades, since the first supervised consumption facility opened in Switzerland in 1986. Since then, studies have consistently found that supervised consumption facilities help cut down on drug related problems, including overdoses and general health." If safe injection sites do launch, federal enforcers may begin cracking down. City officials will have to find a way to block federal law enforcement from shutting down such sites.
Q: Will this help individuals come out and open up about their addiction and receive help, or will it just promote the usage?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarver on Feb 25, 2018 17:51:25 GMT
@martin I liked how you stated, " 64,000 people died of drug overdoses in the U.S...", this is a significant high number pertaining the out of control drug usage in our country. It is hard to imagine a solution for these addicts because they want drugs and will get them no matter what the law enforcement puts in place. This is a hard topic to for the federal and state governments because there is not just a definite solution. I also liked how you included the price of $25,000 for each client in these injection sites. That is a ton of money to be putting out there and my main concern is if it will be put usefully to get the addicts clean or is it just wasted by providing more needles to the addicts. There are so many concerns regarding this topic, that it is hard to picture what will come next.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarver on Feb 25, 2018 18:00:04 GMT
@croll Answering your question of "Will this help individuals come out and open up about their addiction and receive help or will it just promote the usage?", my guess is this will probably promote the usage. I feel as though once you are addicted to something it is hard to get your mind off of it. It takes a lot of perseverance to break free from that habit of wanting that certain substance. If these injection sites were just offering treatment with no needles involved then I think that would be okay, but then would any addicts come to them not knowing if they will have those needles. I also liked how you included " sending the wrong message to children...", this is essentially saying how since these sites are "safe" then will more people feel comfortable trying these products out and not worry about the consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Williams on Feb 25, 2018 18:52:42 GMT
After becoming educated on the implementation of safe injection sites in the United States it has been clear that these facilities are not supported by morals or logic. Although data has shown that sites such as these have been proven to reduce the number of drug overdoses in a specific area, they also enable users. An article by Vox said, “Critics also worry that supervised consumption facilities would lead to more drug use, because they would remove a barrier - and perhaps some of the stigma - to use drugs”. Vox also stated, “These are places where people can use drugs with sterile injection equipment and the supervision of trained staff, who are ready with opioid overdose antidote naloxone if anything goes wrong”. By supporting these sites we are setting a standard for society and making the use of deadly drugs a normal occurrence. Especially by providing trained staff with naloxone, to prevent any overdose deaths, this then takes away any risk and encourages others to start using with the idea that no consequences could come of it. The federal government takes the same stance on this topic. If the states were to implement these safe injection sites the federal government would have the authority to raid them and arrest anyone and everyone involved. A law professor in San Diego however, believes he has found a loophole that could protect the states from the feds. He claims that the states could be protected by, “A section of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act [which] 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 a part of a sting operation from being prosecuted with a crime”. Although this loophole is a creative spin on the law it is still a stretch and many say that the federal jurisdiction over drug and substance abuse overrules it. Despite this the states are willing to take the risk, with Philadelphia , Vermont, and New York on board and San Francisco even expecting to open the first safe injection site as early as July.
Q:Do you think the alarming number of drug overdoses calls for such a controversial solution? What else could be put in place to prevent these deaths?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kingerski on Feb 25, 2018 20:41:38 GMT
The opioid epidemic has negatively impacted the United States for years now, and while the government has tried to put an end to it, there is no cure. Because of its success in Canada, many large cities in the U.S. are planning to implement “safe injection” sites to help the users of drugs such as heroin. The sites sound good in theory, but they will not be able to help those who are addicted get off of the drugs, they will only allow the users to think that it is okay. It is true that the safe injection facilities will decrease the number of overdoses and potentially even help individuals find treatment for their addiction, but it cannot be overlooked that this bypasses the laws created by the government. While there are many people who use illegal drugs, the efforts should be about finding a cure rather than making it safer. Additionally, the state governments that choose to use this form of treatment could be punished by the federal government. However, according to Alex Kreit, a section of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act provides a loophole for this issue. Any local or state official who commits drug crimes has immunity from the federal government if they were enforcing a local law. So, while this safe injection site plan may work for these cities to help reduce overdose and disease rates, and can even be protected by law, it does not mean that these sites are the best solution. Although, these large cities have seen quite alarming statistics in relation to these drugs. According to the Whyy article, “Opioids were the main driver in what Philadelphia officials believe were more than 1,200 fatal drug overdoses last year. That is four times the city’s homicide rate.” Perhaps in this case, these injection sites can be used as “laboratories of democracy” to help get a better understanding and hold on the opioid epidemic.
Question: Do you believe these safe injection sites are possible solutions to the drug craze that is going on across the country? Or do you think that they are only temporary in providing relief to this issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hilliard on Feb 26, 2018 0:16:16 GMT
The topic of "safe injection sites" can be a very controversial topic no matter which side you stand on. While the opioid epidemic has swept the country for many years now, local individuals have now begun to take matters into their own hands. Addiction is defined as a chronic brain disease that causes compulsive drug seeking and use. Nobody chose to be addicted to something, but they knew the outcome of what could happen when they first use the drug. This "harm reduction approach" can lead to either more people abusing this drug because they think its ok, or a form of rehab. A statement by Vox says, "Several places across the US, however, are currently moving forward with supervised drug consumption facilities — backed by a strong, growing evidence base, and driven to stop the deadliest drug overdose crisis in American history." The question still lies, will these sites do their intended purpose and stop the opioid epidemic, or make it worse. How will such sites be funded? Will small organizations fundraise money or will they seek out funds from the government. If the government has enough compelling interest to help these organizations, they might fund them. The (CSA) of 1970 permits the use, possession, manufacturing, and importation of drugs in the U.S. The so called "loophole" can prevent the federal government from cracking down on these sites because, "A section of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act provides immunity to state and local officials who commit drug crimes while enforcing a local law.", says reporter Bobby Allyn from the Whyy article. The costs of establishing a site like this is not knowing how effective they will be and how they will be supported. The pros of this would be the reduction of overdoses and drug related crime is such areas.
Question: Are most American and Canadian citizens willing to back and support drug users and these "safe sites" for the compelling interest of how effective they will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonetti on Feb 26, 2018 1:38:05 GMT
According to Vox, providing safe injection sites is “a harm reduction approach”, and I agree with this statement. After analyzing articles and statistics, it can be concluded that the use of safe injection sites has saved so many lives, and has reduced the local crime rates in those specific areas. In fact, also provided by Vox, is the statement that says “[EMCDDA] 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.” Additionally, I think that there is compelling government interest from both branches of government due to the effect that opioids have on U.S. citizens. However, the national government interest is not compelling enough to intervene on the state government’s decisions. While under the regulations of federalism, certain rights are provided for both branches of government, the state government should be able “override” or simply experiment with the issue themselves without consequence. As stated by Barbara Garcia in the Washington Post, “We just have to do what’s best for the client, and we hope the federal government will understand. I’m not looking to change federal law. I’m looking to save lives.” The federal government should not oppose the issue if the overall goal is to save people’s lives and help addicts.Without such sites, there is a definite increase in the number of services for medical services such as vein care, HIV, hepatitis C, and many others. The services stated cost about $25,000 annually per client (Washington Post). The modern-day opioid crisis is a major concern for British Columbia, in which they state that “81% of last year’s deaths involved fentanyl” (Washington Post). Such sites have enabled a remarkable decrease in the opioid-related deaths and diseases. As for a supporter of safe injection sites, Professor Kreit finds a way to interpret the Controlled Substance Act. Although the “loophole” in the act may not effectively protect the state citizens from a penalty, I agree with Kreit because I think that laws and rules can be lead up to interpretation.
Q: Do you think that the majority of the government’s decisions (state & federal) on safe injection sites are mainly based on moral/personal beliefs, or more logical reasoning and proven data?
|
|
|
|
Post by Howell on Feb 26, 2018 3:15:33 GMT
The issue regarding safe injection sites for opioid users raises many controversies and brings out many different opinions. Safe Injection sites are used to help save addicts who can and will eventually overdose on drugs. This way addicts who inject can be supervised and watched by volunteers who can reverse the overdose and literally save their lives. Like Sarah Blyth states “We literally popped it up in one day. And then you have people saving lives. Immediately”. These safe injection sites will help cut down on overdoses and public health problems like many different diseases. Because it lessens the amount of discarded needles in an area. With many of these overdoses and public health problems decreased this leads to saving money in hospitalization. Without these save zones getting naloxone is very difficult because it is rather expensive and or you need a prescription to obtain it. According to Philly their overdose number is four times their homicide rate. These injection sites are not there to keep the addict going they hope that soon they addicts come to an incentive that they need to quit. The volunteers at these sites will then link people to an addiction treatment facility to try and get help. These addicts need help so give them a place where they feel welcomed and accepted, thus leading to a loss of the social nuisance. This then will make them to want to seek help themselves which they can only quit if they want to and put their minds to it. There is also even more psychological improvements with these safe injection site that a lot of officials seem to forget. That is that it raises these users self-esteem because they are no longer just an addict they are an addicts who wants to find a solution for their problem. This then will put them into jobs and into a home or apartment that is a roof over their heads. These sites are very active and have people coming up to 3 times a day. So what would happen went feds begin to crack down on these areas and try to catch these users. Well according to Philadelphia they said they would pass an ordinance allowing addicts to shoot up there. With all this evidence and support on why these safe cite are nice and useful for addicts why would we not have them already. Well Because of people that are not the addicts like younger adults or kids who could get influenced by this thinking if they can’t get caught and can’t die because of these drugs why not try them. Other residents or citizens may not want one of these sites opening near them and attracting a bunch of druggies to their city. And some people just aren't subjective to change because its been like this for 40-50 years its kind of hard to change peoples views on this topic.
Q: Do you think these safe injection sites are good for addicts and user in the long run?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamerer on Feb 26, 2018 4:01:02 GMT
Kaleb Kamerer pd. 11
The opioid epidemic is not just in the United States, but also is happening around the world. This epidemic can be managed by these safe sites, being provided by the government. Therefore, the United States should have a compelling interest to support these safe injection sites. For example, studies show that nearly 64,000 people died from opioids in 2016, these deaths could be reduced/minimalized by these safe injection sites. Safe injection sites have been proven to reduce death and hospitalization cost; for example, VOX says, “They found that as many as 76 drug overdose deaths annually could be prevented, compared to the 907 people...And in terms of skin and soft tissue infections alone, the city would save as much as $1.8 million in hospitalization costs each year.” To continue, it explains, since 1986 research has consistently proven to reduce overdoses and health and public safety issues in Switzerland. The fear of bringing unwanted crime to the cities has not proven. For instance, crime in Australia decreased as a result of these safe injection sites, according to VOX. Also, these safe injection sites help citizens with addiction issues. They provide a way where people can securilly get help with their problem, without getting arrested and can feel comfortable. It also provides a place where the opioid users can have quick medical attention, if the dosage is used improperly. Although there is medical attention on standby, the dosage should be used properly. We know that the drugs will be used properly because there is trained medical staff at attentions, as stated with VOX. These safe injection sites are a compelling interest among states/cities, but are getting an unwilling approvement from the federal government, For example, it states, “ 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.’” This is controversial among states and federal government. This will eventually lead to what is happening with marijuana. To continue, this is going to be under watchful eye of the federal government. In conclusion, the governments should have a compelling interest for these safe injection sites.
Question: Is this giving the world the misconception that drugs are ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by McHattie on Feb 26, 2018 4:17:15 GMT
According to a CNN article, “In 2016, the city recorded 907 overdose deaths, more than 80% of which involved opioids like heroin and fentanyl, according to the Philadelphia Department of Public Health. This number is double what it was in 2013.” These statistics have led to the idea of safe injection sites. The topic of safe injection sites has raised a lot of controversy. There are many different stances on whether safe injection sites are a good idea or not. According to Vox, “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” Although safe injection sites can reduce the amount of overdose deaths, the sites will do more harm than good. These sites will only encourage people to use heroin. Instead of providing a safe haven for those who use heroin, we should be finding ways to prevent people using the drug in general. I realize that no matter what, people are still going to use opioids, but we can still attempt to stop the epidemic instead of promoting it. Not only do these sites promote the use of heroin, it also can cause an increase in crime rates. According to the Vox article, “Essentially, people are worried that if a supervised drug consumption facility opened in their neighborhood, it would attract drug users to where they live, and that could cause a rise in general crime and social disorder.” Are we really going to put the safety of the people in jeopardy in order to allow others to participate in drug use? Either way, the safety of the people will be in jeopardy. Safe injection sites will prevent overdoses but may cause other crimes, but without the sites people will overdose. The whole situation is a double edge sword. In relation to federalism, the decision whether to have safe injection sites or not should be left to the state government. Although I do not support the idea of injection sites, I still believe that the states should be able to create them if they wanted to. Giving the power to the federal government will only prompt them to make other big decisions that could have a huge impact on the people. They would have too much power. Overall, safe injection sites will help prevent overdose deaths, but it will also encourage drug use, which is the problem in the first place. Creating safe injection sites is just adding fuel to the fire.
Q: If these safe injection sites are not the answer, what are other ideas to help stop/decrease the opioid crisis?
Q: Will safe injection sites promote opioid use and make crisis worse?
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddy Chechak on Feb 26, 2018 4:17:26 GMT
I do not believe in safe injection sites, they are just going to feed more people into doing it. I feel as if these are available more people are going to get into opioids and think they can be safe while using them. The website vox states, “Since then, studies have consistently found that supervised consumption facilities help cut down on drug-related problems, including overdoses and general public health and safety issues.” I see how it may be helping people from overdosing and more, but isn’t it basically promoting it? There is nothing saying that they help stop drug use and we all know we cannot stop people from doing drugs, but I feel it is just going to lead more people into doing drugs. In legal terms, 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 plan for the sights are not legal by federal law, so the federal government can go and shut down the sights whenever they want. I feel if the feds think this is a horrible idea they will do something about it, they are already testing medical and legal marijuana, is that not enough? I do not agree with the sites but there are some benefits to it. Some benefits they can get out of the sites are cost. Vox states, “And in terms of skin and soft tissue infections alone, the city would save as much as $1.8 million in hospitalization costs each year, according to the review.” That is a lot of money, which they can save more rooms in the hospital for more people. Also, vox says, “facilities lead to less public injecting and fewer syringes discarded in the area — both of which can benefit local communities. The facilities also weren’t linked to higher crime in Sydney, Australia, or Vancouver, Canada — and, in fact, were linked to reduced street disorder and encounters with police.” I think this would be the most beneficial thing for the town. Yes, saving money is good, but the people around the area are more important. This will keep more kids and adults safe from being exposed to used needles and more. I do not agree with the loophole, just because the states may think it is safe but the feds may have a different look on it. Why would you want to cause more damage on the topic by making a loophole on the topic so the feds cannot get involved? I do not see how making a loophole will be a good thing, I feel it will just cause more tension, if the feds do not agree.
Q: Do you think the feds can get around the loophole?
Q: Overall, are the benefits of saving money more important than more people being lured into doing opiates?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roxberry on Feb 26, 2018 4:22:08 GMT
Despite the evidence in support of the safe injection sites, there is not any evidence showing how they eliminate the opioid crisis and prevent the use of drugs. Instead, all the evidence shows how opioid users can use in a safer/cleaner manner. The opioid epidemic has caused people to pull at straws in order to find a solution to the number of deaths taking place, and safe injection sites are a start, but they are definitely not the answer. Many of the opioid users who are relying on these safe injection sites are still using because of the consequences that come with trying to quit. According to Vinney Taylor, reported by the Washington Post, “That’s the number-one reason we still use, to not be sick,”. These safe injection sites enable users to continue using and are not actually providing any real benefit to them. If they wanted to reduce the number of overdose-related deaths, they would use the safe injection sites as a way to get drug abusers the help they need; rehab. Instead of getting these users on the immediate path to rehabilitation, according to Vox the sites are only, “link[ing] people with addiction treatment on request”. This is extremely counter productive, because despite claims that this approach “cuts criminal justice and health-care costs” money is going into the training required for the people at the sites. It is also costly to purchase the drugs being used to counter the effects of heroin and act as replacements for it. Not only is this a problem due to enabling drug users and using money to supply them rather than rehabilitate them, but people are also trying to find ways around federal law. Alex Kreit, a law professor in support of the sites is trying to change the original interpretation of a law in order to give the facilitators of the safe injection site a legal backing. The 1970 Controlled substances act has a section put in place meant to “provide immunity to state and local officials who commit drug crimes while enforcing a local law” (whyy.org). According to Kreit,”it would provide immunity to states and localities and their officials to set up something like a safe-injection facility,”. Yet, the original intention of this act was to prevent undercover agents who purchase drugs as part of their operation from being charged with committing a crime. Despite the fact that the injection sites are illegal due to policy under the federal government, it appears as though the are letting the states experiment with these sites, because thus far the DEA has only made threats to shut them down, but hasn’t actually pursued that route yet.
Should the Federal government be allowing so much time for experimentation with these sites?
If the federal government eventually changes the policy to allow for safe injection sites, do you think taxpayers will be in support of funding them?
|
|
