Financing
As drug-related death cases increase to record numbers, at least Canada has considered opening safe injection centers where the addicts can use illicit drugs under the supervision of trained staffs ready to respond to cases of overdose. However, the future of such facilities is uncertain following the debates on whether they need funding from the government or not. While proponents of these sites assert that the sites save lives and can assist the addicted people to reconnect with the society alongside getting health services, critics contemplate that safe injection sites encourage drug use and bring crimes to the neighboring community members. This paper, basing its arguments on policy goals to saving lives and the eventual reduction of opioid addiction holds that these sites are helpful thus the need for funding by the Canadian government.
The issue of supervised injections
The issue of supervised injections has been on book-length discussions since the late 19th century. According to Csete and colleagues, there are at least 100 safe injection sites that have been established and are currently operational throughout the world, mainly in Canada, Australia, and Europe. Typically, drug addicts bring with them their own drugs to the centers where they are given clean needles and safe areas for consuming their drugs. Staffs are on watch with naloxone, breathing masks, and overdose antidotes for the purpose of providing safer injection information and advice about the drug treatment as well as other health services (McNeil et al. 646). In Canada, these sites have grown out of grassroots and community efforts. They, therefore, need to be funded by the government to promote safer conditions for injections, boost healthcare services, and reduce overdose.
Arguments for Safe Injection Sites
A recent study by the Association medicale Canadienne found out that since the opening of the safe sites in Canada in 2003, the safe injection sites have been able to assist more than 3.6 million addicts and responded to more than 6,000 overdose cases (New hope for unsanctioned safe injection site 21). These findings are supported by McNeil et al. (649) which also included shreds of evidence by criminologists who found that since the foundation of the safe consumption sites, the rate of fatal overdose has sharply declined in the immediate area of the environment. Similarly, evaluations from Csete et al. (1231) found that these sites stopped more than fifty deaths in their first five years of operation and that those who went to these sites had less likelihood of engaging in behaviors that accelerate the HIV infection rates. In the same way, the study also reported that individuals who used these facilities had high chances of initiating detoxing from drug use and access treatments such as methadone, compared to the individuals were not using the facilities (Csete et al. 1235). So basically, these sites are necessary for preventing untimely deaths that are drug related by keeping in check the overdose cases as well as the provision of medical services to the addicts.
Establishment of these spaces
Establishment of these spaces makes the drug addicts have a sense of belonging for a successful fight against addiction and improved healthcare. According to Csete et al. (p. 1236), these sites have been able to reduce death rate and crime statistics associated with drug addicts because the addicts are accommodated in a non-judgmental place where they are accepted for who they actually are. Kerr et al. (12) says that safe injection sites are an area where all the members feel that they are people. He says "We're also mindful that this is a respite from the street and at times it might be difficult for people to leave the only situation that feels vaguely safe for them in a day." McNeil et al. (645) concur with this observation by describing a safe consumption site as "a place which is an official healthcare setting which is not judgmental, which does not stigmatize them for their drug use, and which accepts that they are people first and foremost."
Denying the drug addicts
Denying the drug addicts the access to safe consumption facilities does not just stand against their chartered rights, but also reinforces the health obstructions. Kerr et al. (17) failure of the government to finance safe drug injections would translate to a regressive legislation given the fact that research has shown that supervised safe-injection areas have a vital role that they play in the lives of drug addicts. It is equally important to note that, while in an ideal world, few or nobody would consider using potentially dangerous and deadly drugs, most drug addicts do. Therefore it is only fair to the society and better to the lives of these individuals that they are given space so that harm is reduced in the community.
Critics of Safe Injection Sites
One major argument against supervised injection sites is that in Canada is that they reverse the overdose, over years. Accordingly, most of these sites have staffs with opioid overdose antidote, oxygen tanks on site, and naloxone for the purpose of reversing overdose so they cannot be claimed to possibly be the areas of reducing overdose, mortality, and irresponsible behaviors. Perhaps, these centers only serve as rising deadly opioid crisis. Kerr et al. (19) suggest that most overdoses, as a matter of fact, are not fatal. It is only reasonable to think that these sites have enabled the use of drugs causing more overdose deaths even if some are being stopped.
A research conducted by reported
A research conducted by reported that “facilities are limited in the number of users they can accommodate” (Csete et al. 1239). Consider Vancouver for instance, the estimations are close to 5,000 individuals who inject themselves with drugs (Csete et al. 1239). The site can only hold a dozen or so individuals at a given time, then the facility remains closed for quite some time of the day. With this kind of the population being served, the implication is that the biggest fraction of the addicts are being ignored. Another argument against these sites is that they bring crimes closer to the surrounding communities. While in the injection site, some colleagues might observe how to others are being injected and extend their practice to home areas.
Conclusion
Although considerable steps have been made in Canada to successfully deal with the cases of drug addicts, especially following the integration of safe injection areas, strong support is still necessary for effectiveness. The increased acceptance of safe consumption sites needs to be fully financed by the government to escalate the efforts made in servicing these members of the society. Notwithstanding the relevance of these developments, there are pressing issues that ought to be amended for better scaling up of these services. Additionally, it is important for the critics of the safe injection sites to look beyond their dilemmas and seek to have the need for treating the society members equally.
Works Cited
“New hope for unsanctioned safe injection site” CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne vol. 190,3 (2018): E90-E91.
Csete, Joanne, Adeeba Kamarulzaman, Michel Kazatchkine, Frederick Altice, Marek Balicki, Julia Buxton, Javier Cepeda et al. "Public health and international drug policy." The Lancet387, no. 10026 (2016): 1427-1480.
Kerr, Thomas, Sanjana Mitra, Mary Clare Kennedy, and Ryan McNeil. "Supervised injection facilities in Canada: past, present, and future." Harm reduction journal 14, no. 1 (2017): 28.
McNeil, Ryan, Thomas Kerr, Hugh Lampkin, and Will Small. "“We need somewhere to smoke crack”: An ethnographic study of an unsanctioned safer smoking room in Vancouver, Canada." International Journal of Drug Policy 26, no. 7 (2015): 645-652.
