Throughout this semester our class has really talked a lot about the issue of heroin addiction not only in Broome County but across the country. It has become an epidemic in recent years so there is an effort to do something about these rising numbers of heroin addicts and heroin overdoses. One solution presented was the supervised injection sites, and this has already been implemented in other parts of the world including Vancouver. Our class seemed to be in general agreement that this was a good idea and a possible solution, including myself. As i read more into the situation, I don't know if I still feel that way.
A few weeks ago I read an article in opposition to supervised injection sites and it made several valid points on why this isn’t something that we should seriously consider in NYC (http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/donovan_plan_for_supervised_he.html). Staten Island Representative Daniel Donovan claims that sites such as these “defies reason” and would only encourage heroin use in the long run. It might not encourage more people to start using heroin, but those who do wouldn’t have a reason to stop. The risk of dying from an overdose is severely decreased and by having a site where users can go, you also attract dealers. You could increase law enforcement activity in that area to stop this, but then what are the police supposed to do about those people using the clinic, who are using heroin and have it in their possession, which is illegal.
I have also become skeptical because there aren’t any statistics to show that this program essentially decreases heroin addiction levels in an area. The only thing that these sites are doing is prolonging the lives of heroin users just a little bit longer. Heroin has extremely detrimental effects on the body. Heroin destroys your kidneys, liver, and brain, and you can no longer function in every day life. If these injection sites were successfully getting users clean then I would be all for this as a solution. My problem is that there really aren’t any statistics. In 2012, an injection site in Vancouver saw over 9,000 unique individuals using the site. Of those 9,000 less than 500 were discharged from their onsite detox facility, just over 5%. That doesn’t include patients who used outside facilities but it still shows that this isn’t an effective way of solving the heroin addiction problem throughout the world. I don’t have a solution, but a better one needs to be found than these sites.
Anthony, thank you for bringing up this important topic. Heroin addiction is a severe issue in Broome County and in my home of Long Island. Supervised injection sites could and probably bring their own issues. After all, they are allowing people to do something that is very harmful to them. However they do have strong benefits. For example, getting addicts through the door of a medical facility could help with medical outreach to addicts with providing at least answers about questions regarding safe ways to get clean. It is nearly impossible to quit such an addictive drug without any help. Furthermore, if dealers are going to these areas, it could make it easier for law enforcement to find and arrest dealers. Obviously the criminal justice system has its flaws but something does need to be done in order to protect those with diseases from being preyed on. And lastly, these places could do needle exchanges. This is incredibly important when considering the vast amount of diseases that dirty needles can pass on, such as AIDS. Reducing AIDS is a huge public health concern. All in all, every solution has its problem but every problem has its solution. I personally believe that supervised injection sites can be beneficial to society. But we also need to attack the reason which people turn to drug use. For example, supporting agencies that work with mental health patients or at-risk youth would be a great way to curb drug use because people in crisis would have other things to turn to besides drugs. I'm not saying that all people who struggle with mental health or at-risk youth develop drug problems, just that it is more likely if they don't have those resources in place to keep them healthy and safe. Also, having programs that help addicts get clean, such as detox centers, would be very important for those already struggling with addiction. Currently there is only one detox center in Broome County. Without that vital resource that makes getting off drugs a safe process, we can not expect addicts to just get better with counseling. Addiction is a mental illness that needs to be treated and supported as such.
ReplyDeleteI like this post a lot. I've learned a good amount about this topic through reading about supervised injection centers, especially through the article that I tweeted about a couple weeks ago, talking about the proposed supervised injection center for Ithaca.
ReplyDeleteThe points you and the article you referenced make are valid, and I agree that there are many negatives that come with building a supervised injection center. My general take on this issue is that they are not really a resource for helping prevent heroine use, or helping to mitigate usage, but instead they are there to simply acknowledge the fact that people use heroine, and if they do this unsupervised there is a chance they overdose, which can lead to death. These supervised injection centers exist as a place for these users to use in a controlled environment, where they are guaranteed to not kill themselves by overdosing on the drug. Yes, this means that they are tolerating, and even helping users use, but they are preventing inevitable deaths, and because of this I believe they are positive and helpful. If only people would stop taking this awful drug then these places would not have to exist, but that's a whole other battle...
You bring up some good arguments against supervised injection centers, but I am in favor of them. As mentioned they reduce heroin overdoses which is good. These people still have a chance to turn their lives around and make it better. Also, these sights can provide clean needle which reduces the transmission of diseases. Reducing disease is a help to society, the less STDs the better. All this being said it better to just not have people do heroin in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this post, it really made me consider the alternate side of the supervised injection site debate. I think you definitely bring up some good points about the sites, the Vancouver research is shocking. However, I still feel like these sites are a beneficial and important step in combatting the epidemic. Cliff and Gilda made good arguments for the fact that heroin addiction should be treated as a mental health disease and that government-sanctioned centers go a long way to destigmatize the epidemic. In addition, there has been a lot of research (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Safe_Injection#sthash.M3uXgK6W.dpbs) to show that these sites have numerous benefits and do reach their goals. They have been shown to reduce public drug use, overdoses, and HIV/AIDS cases, as well as saving money overall by preventing the costs associated with emergency medical care, disease, and death.
ReplyDeleteIn light of the research, I think this is one of the better strategies than not having these sites. Our country’s policy on drug use has been a zero tolerance one that was championed as a “war on drugs”. We have realized that this just doesn’t work, as it over-incarcerates addicts and throws lots of money at fighting a problem that will always find new avenues and rear its ugly head. Currently, our national strategy towards drugs is shifting towards treatment and more creative strategies rather than just attacking everyone involved in the drug process. I feel like the politicians in the article you posted are part of the older strategy. I question their motives for standing against the facilities, as it probably will gain them political points with voters to take a hard stance on drugs. Their rhetoric that these sites “defy reason” is in itself irrational because it turns a blind eye to the scientific studies that show the opposite.
I'm not sure why it spaced my comment that way, but all the extra spaces weren't on purpose!
DeleteAnthony, thanks for this thought provoking post on an interesting topic. I agree with you that these supervised injection sites come with concerns. The most prevalent being that they might not discourage heroin use in users which is important. However, I believe the good these sites do outweighs the concerns that come with them. Numerous articles have reported the success of the Vancouver injection facility, Insite. Since its founding in 2003, overdoses in the area have been greatly reduced. Additionally, these types of sites have reduced the risk of being transmitted HIV and hepatitis. These statistics prove to me that supervised injection sites provide a highly beneficial service to the communities that they operate in. By preventing transmission of diseases they are benefiting global health. These sites help the community to see addiction as a real problem to be addressed and also work to show people that addiction is an illness. I think these sites will make people stop seeing addicts and criminals, and instead seeing them as patients. So while I understand your concerns, I think the good these facilities do can't be overlooked. I would like to see these sites appear in the United States, but I agree that a better solution to addiction should be found.
ReplyDeleteI've found that many people (vast majority) find it to be difficult to view addicts as people who are in need of help. Supervised injection sites, at least in my opinion, should be viewed less as an enabling mechanism and more of a treatment center.
ReplyDeleteThese addicts are in genuine danger of death every day. To their family members and their friends, their life hold significant value. If places like these sites offer a way to prolong their life, then I see a moral imperative to keep these sites operational.
Obviously, this is an extremely controversial program. However, I personally believe the benefits outweigh the detriments. If an addict is able to prolong their life long enough to find a way to sobriety, then who's to say this person doesn't go on to be wildly successful and a beneficial contribution to society?
On top of that, needle sharing is spreading HIV and other diseases around in communities where treatment is not affordable or preventative care is ignored. Therefore, these supervised sites do well to help keep dangerous, easily spread diseases from entering our communities.
This whole concept is something I have certainly thought about before, including in my other course, and every time it appears to be extremely controversial. Many people do believe that these facilities may encourage people to use heroine, and while you mentioned statistics showing that only 5% of those using the facilities made it out of detox programs, that is still 5% more than might have previously. Not only this, but there are statistics indicating that those who were not previously using were no more likely to begin using due to such programs. In fact, as I mentioned in a previous post on the same topic, many users are often unhappy with the lives they are leading and wish to be able to stop using, despite how they may be made out to look. These individuals may simply not know how to go about doing this, thus, many of these programs often also offer education to users, as well as help weaning off. In an HBO documentary called Heroin: Cape Cod, USA, some individuals who have struggled with drugs issues demonstrate this concept. Many of the users in the film wanted to stop and were aware of the fact that the drug was taking over their lives, yet they did not have that foot in the door to help get them started that such facilities might have been able to provide to them.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the issue goes of police stalking the area in order to arrest the individuals using the facilities, I agree this is a huge issue. However, I do not think it is one that should stop the facilities from doing good in the community. I believe there must be a comprehensive solution in which the police would work with the facilities, so long as all parties remain respectful of one another and the community. As you mentioned, there really is no other solution option seeing as nobody can force another to quit their habits. The only other solution in place is the incarceration of these individuals which is obviously a terrible solution for many reasons. So I do believe this facilities is doing what they can to help the issue considering it is an extremely difficult one to tackle.