Cons of Supervised Injection Site

 

Introduction

Supervised injection sites are also referred to as supervised injection facilities or medically supervised injection centers.  These supervised injection sites have been designed to provide an environment that is safe and stress free where people are allowed to inject illegal drugs freely. The legality of these supervised injection sites depend on the location and the political jurisdiction. These facilities offer sterile injection equipment, information of the drugs being used. To an a greater extent these facilities offer these people using this sites access to medical staff in case of an overdose.  Regardless of the fact that these sites are of great advantage they have their own share of disadvantages. These sites they are causing more harm than good. They are a threat to public safety and should not be allowed to operate.

            These sites are encouraging individuals to use drugs (Nova Recovery Center, 2018).  These sites fail to report the use of illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin to law enforcement. Some drugs are illegal in other nations but these sites have provided individuals who abuse these drugs with a safe space to abuse these drugs freely not questioning the legality of these drugs in these nations. Using drugs that are illegal in a country is a crime (Nova Recovery Center, 2018). Essentially, drug users are getting away with a crime that has been deem illegal in the country.  These sites for a long time have acted protect, predators and peddlers. These sites argue that drug use is a personal choice which should not be the case since these drugs endanger the health of an individual.  Everyone is entitled to experience their own rights in their nation, the existence of these facilities infringes violate the rights of those who believe that drug use should not be allowed.

            These sites challenge the federal laws against drug use (Nova Recovery Center, 2018).  With continuous establishment of these sites the Federal government will lose power it has to regulate drug and substance use policies. If the Federal Law loses the control it has on drug policies the nation might lack uniformity when it comes to regulating the operation of these sites. In Canada 2008, one of these sites took the government to court to oppose that the government should stop overseeing its operation (Amethyst Recovery Center, n.d). This took place after the country refused to exempt the site from its policy on drugs and substances.  In court the Insite argues that such matters should be handled by the law governing the provinces and the Federal government was not allowed to interfere (Amethyst Recovery Center, n.d). These facilities are challenging the Federal law and the policies that it has in place concerning drug and substance use despite the fact that these laws are for the health and public safety of the people. Legalizing these sites create a legal conundrum. This should be reason enough for the federal law to abolish creation of these safe injection sites.

Operation of these sites only leave citizens with wondering if the government is fighting drug use or encouraging the use of these drugs (Amethyst Recovery Center, n.d).  a large percentage of individuals the community are not comfortable with the idea of allowing addicts to use drugs without facing any kind of repercussion.  Activities carried out by these facilities are a threat to the society and the government is misplacing its funds when it decided to use its funds to facilitate operation of these sites (Amethyst Recovery Center, n.d). Funds invested in these facilities could be put to productive use such as treating and rehabilitating these addicts instead of encouraging them to continue using these drugs. These funds can also be utilized by fighting drug trafficking in the country.

Studies that have been conducted have shown that safe sites are not reliable (Nova Recovery Center, 2018).  The initial goal of establishing these facilities was accepting the idea of people are going to use drugs, thus making them use them where they are supervised and nothing can go wrong.  These facilities also aimed at preventing overdose and getting many addicts to opt for treatment so that they can overcome their addictions.  A study conducted has found out that these sites may not be effective when it comes to preventing these addicts from overdosing and dying. Research documented in the International Journal of Drug Policy has shown that safe injection sites have only reduced crimes that are related to drug use a little but they have not been able to reduce the number of people dying as a result of an overdose and syringe sharing (Lopez, 2018).

Safe injection sites may be responsible for bringing crime to the surrounding community (Amethyst Recovery Center, n.d). Opening safe injection sites does not increase arrests for drug trafficking, assaults and other forms of crime in the surrounding communities. Residents of Moss Park has reported that since a drug injection site opened around that area in they are finding more used needles strewn in the lanes and dealers are now selling in plain sight and drug dealers are verbally attacking any passerby.  Drug addicts are allowed in the site most of the day but where they go after there remains a mystery (Beattie, 2018).Drug users remain a threat to the community and these sites are only protecting them instead of helping them overcome their drug use.

            Reducing harm should be an overall strategy that should be approached from another angel that is not creation of safe injection sites (Yuen, 2016).  What is the use of creating these safe environments for them to use the drugs while indirectly telling them that they have to find their own means of getting the drugs, these sites are encouraging them to commit crimes and then come and hide in there.  If the facilities aimed to help them they should provide them with the drugs themselves so that they can control quality and reduce the harm these people are posing to the rest of the community (Yuen, 2016). These sites are encouraging crime by encouraging the users of these sites to buy drugs from peddlers in the community and come use them in the facilities, the more the reason the government should not allow creation of these safe injection sites.

            Society cannot overlook the few advantages that these safe injection sites have brought to the community.  According to data given by Center for Disease control (CDC) about sixty people in ten thousand who share needles during drug injection results to HIV transmission thus making Injection drug use one of the leading causes of HIV transmission. Supervised injection sites have minimized the risk of HIV transmission by greatly reducing the sharing of needles by drug users by providing enough needles in these facilities.  These facilities have also reduced opioid overdose by offering medical staffs who are trained to administer noloxone incase an overdose happens in the site (Greenhalgh, 2018). This are huge advantages that have come with the opening of safe injection sites but are not reason enough to keep opening these sites considering that injection drug use is  not the only way these people can get HIV and an overdose is a personal choice an individual makes. The disadvantages of these sites outweigh the benefits they bring around and they should be done away with.

Conclusion

Safe injection sites are safe and hygienic sites that are established to enable injection drug users to use these drugs under supervision. These sites have brought with them many disadvantages thus the reason they should be abolished.  These sites protect illegal drug users who are violating the law by abusing these drugs. Operation of these sites challenges the control the Federal government has over Drug and Substance use policies. These sites harbor criminals who violate the law and offend others. Despite the advantages that come with establishment of safe injection sites the disadvantages outweigh the benefits thus establishment of these sites should be made illegal by the government at all levels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Amethyst Recovery Center (n.d). The Pros and Cons of Safe Injection Sites. Retrieved from;             https://www.amethystrecovery.org/pros-cons-safe-injection-sites/

Beattie S., (2018). Do Supervised Injection Sites Bring Crime and Disorder? Advocated and        Residents Disagree. Retrieved from; https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/08/15/do-         supervised-injection-sites-bring-crime-and-disorder-advocates-and-residents-   disagree.html

Greenhalgh. T., (2018). Supervised injection sites Pros and Cons. Retrieved from;             https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/home/advisor-channels/hiv-aids-            advisor/supervised-injection-sites-pros-and-cons/

Lingle, C. (2013). A critical review of the effectiveness of safe injection facilities as a harm          reduction strategy (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).

Lopez G., (2018). A Study Questioning the evidence for Safe injection site has been retracted.     Retrieved from; https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/22/17683364/safe-  injection-sites-study

Nova Recovery Center (2018). Safe Injection Sites: Are They Helping or Hurting. Retrieved        from; https://novarecoverycenter.com/addiction/safe-injection-sites/

Yuen J., (2016). Pros and Cons of Safe Injection Sites. Retrieved from;             https://torontosun.com/2016/07/03/pros-and-cons-of-safe-injection-sites/wcm/dcac73af-    4bc7-4895-9c3c-8564d0b3fcdf

Zhang, K. (2014). 'No easy fix': The Supervised Injection Site Debate in Canada (Doctoral           dissertation, Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa).