My problem with "Safe Injection Sites"

[BornInMarch]

Drugs are a blight on society; they cause many health problems, they slowly destroy the mind, and if left unchecked they can even lead to death. Additionally there is a lot of crime associated with them as some addicts will steal or neglect their children in order to finance their addictions.

The traditional method of combating this (throwing drug addicts in prison forever) has backfired tremendously, so alternative methods should be explored. Any attempt to cure or otherwise treat addiction is an idea worth pursuing.

But we should not implement Safe Injection Sites.

A “Safe Injection Site” is a place where drug addicts can go to take a pure version of their drug of choice with doctors on standby to prevent lethal overdoses. It’s called “Harm Reduction”.

My problem with this is that Safe Injection Sites are not attempting to cure addiction. They think that if they prevent overdose deaths then the problem is solved, even if an addict stays addicted and strung out for the rest of his life. Worse yet, many Safe Injection Sites outright oppose drug prohibition, instead believing drugs should be legalized and regulated.

I hate when people use the “They’ll do this bad thing anyway so we might as well provide a safe place to do it” argument. Some things are just so dangerous that we as a society should try to eliminate them altogether. Drug addiction is one of these things, and (whether by treatment or punishment) we should try to eliminate it entirely.

Do not support Safe Injection Sites because they never try to rehabilitate.

 

[Rosebud77]

Drugs are a blight on society; they cause many health problems, they slowly destroy the mind, and if left unchecked they can even lead to death. Additionally there is a lot of crime associated with them as some addicts will steal or neglect their children in order to finance their addictions.

The traditional method of combating this (throwing drug addicts in prison forever) has backfired tremendously, so alternative methods should be explored. Any attempt to cure or otherwise treat addiction is an idea worth pursuing.

But we should not implement Safe Injection Sites.

A “Safe Injection Site” is a place where drug addicts can go to take a pure version of their drug of choice with doctors on standby to prevent lethal overdoses. It’s called “Harm Reduction”.

My problem with this is that Safe Injection Sites are not attempting to cure addiction. They think that if they prevent overdose deaths then the problem is solved, even if an addict stays addicted and strung out for the rest of his life. Worse yet, many Safe Injection Sites outright oppose drug prohibition, instead believing drugs should be legalized and regulated.

I hate when people use the “They’ll do this bad thing anyway so we might as well provide a safe place to do it” argument. Some things are just so dangerous that we as a society should try to eliminate them altogether. Drug addiction is one of these things, and (whether by treatment or punishment) we should try to eliminate it entirely.

Do not support Safe Injection Sites because they never try to rehabilitate.

While I understand your point, I am not in total agreement. Admiitedly I have not met the attitude re legalising drugs which is a whole differnt matter I

Safe sites and clean needle/needle excbange mean that addicts are safer from infections and illness.
And as you say from overdose.

It also gives them a sound contact.

All very positive and caring.

The only person who can stop an addict being an addict is the person themselves. Same as alcoholism . If they have something positive in their lives eg a person who cares enough to help them avoid fatal illness then that might just help. them to make the break,

Iwas addicted to prescription tranx wrongly prescribed and while I was very well motivated and determined it was a terrible ordeal.

Many addicts are homeless, disadvantaged,

Many drug addicts have no support, no family, no help and dealers on their backs.

What the safe site folk are doing is taking care of addicts at the point they are at. And the fact of medics involved is great.

This is work of compassion, of acceptance, surely of Jesus. No condemnation. Simply caring in a practical way.

 

[Bradski]

…Safe Injection Sites are not attempting to cure addiction.

Correct.

They think that if they prevent overdose deaths then the problem is solved…

Incorrect.

In fact, you have just contradicted yourself. If I can use your own words: ‘they are not attempting to cure addiction’. They are trying to prevent serious harm to those who are addicted.

You can’t cure someone if they are dead.

 

[Thorolfr]

A “Safe Injection Site” is a place where drug addicts can go to take a pure version of their drug of choice with doctors on standby to prevent lethal overdoses. It’s called “Harm Reduction”.

Overdose is not the only concern. Many IV drug addicts will also share needles if there is not at a “Safe Injection Site”. As a result, this has often led to the spread of HIV and other blood born diseases.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a pledge last month, along with most of the nation’s governors, to combat the opioid crisis, calling it “one of the deadliest drug epidemics in our nation’s history.” But when confronted with a spiraling HIV outbreak in his home state as a result of opioid addicts sharing contaminated needles, Pence dragged his feet before agreeing to lift a ban on programs that distribute sterile needles.

Indiana became a national flash point for the opioid epidemic last year when nearly 200 people in rural Scott County became infected with HIV primarily as a result of injecting Opana, a powerful prescription opioid, using dirty needles. Those needles spawned one of the biggest outbreaks of HIV in decades, with more than 20 new cases being diagnosed every week at the height of the outbreak last year.

politico.com/story/2016/08/under-pences-leadership-response-to-heroin-epidemic-criticized-as-ineffective-226759

If an IV drug addict gets infected with HIV, not only is there no cure, it will probably end up costing the government about $15,000 a year to treat the HIV for each person infected.