SISs (safe injection sites)

[Delta]

So I'm reading my abnormal psychology text book and come across this harm reduction technique that's used for drug abuse. Basically in Vancouver (and I guess many parts of Europe) they have what is called safe injection sites. Pretty much a place drug addicts can go to safely (cleanly with medical supervision) and legally shoot up... all funded by the government.

Is it just me, or does this seem completely ridiculous? People can go to a federally funded medical building, shoot up heroin and whatever else, but I can't smoke a joint in my own house? Sure you can argue "oh but it makes it safer for everyone"... yea so would tossing them in jail and forcing them to quit. I'd rather see funding for that than to promote hard drug use.

Ugh.

 

[DodgeFB]

So I'm reading my abnormal psychology text book and come across this harm reduction technique that's used for drug abuse. Basically in Vancouver (and I guess many parts of Europe) they have what is called safe injection sites. Pretty much a place drug addicts can go to safely (cleanly with medical supervision) and legally shoot up... all funded by the government.

Is it just me, or does this seem completely ridiculous? People can go to a federally funded medical building, shoot up heroin and whatever else, but I can't smoke a joint in my own house? Sure you can argue "oh but it makes it safer for everyone"... yea so would tossing them in jail and forcing them to quit. I'd rather see funding for that than to promote hard drug use.

Ugh.

Now that is strange. If they did that here the police would lock them up when they stepped on the street.

 

[The Parakeet]

I've read the reports from some of the ones in Europe, and it's actually pretty interesting. It seems to be helpful on the whole.

I actually thought that Canada was decriminalizing weed? Drug policy is all kinds of messed up. I'll agree with you on that. Regardless, the idea is fairly sound for two reasons.

One, they're saving money. Clean needles means that they won't be treating them for AIDS in the future. They're being proactive about the healthcare.

Two, it seems to work well. Having them come to a safe and controlled environment to do it tends to work well. The ones who would do it are usually salvageable. They can be worked off of the heroine and put into methadone treatment with pretty good success rates. If you throw them in jail, then that will basically just doom them to forever be stuck in the cycle.

 

[curious]

When I was in Amsterdam, where drug use isn't legal but is tolerated. They were pioneers in the clean needle and other campaigns.

I stayed in a hostel behind the train station. It isn't a nice areas, but during the day I could walk through the station, which was fine. but if I came back late, I had to walk around the block. And there I saw addicts passed out on a grassy underpass, and streetwalkers (in a town with legal prostitution) selling themselves for whatever they needed to get to their next fix. I also saw a drug bust.

So, you are right, no matter how safe you try to make it, there are some people that are just going to be beyond your reach.

 

[Sparks]

I think that the "safe injections sites" is a brilliant concept. Hey, modern society creates a fair amount of damaged individuals and that is simply the way it is. No ideology will change that and dealing with them so they are least amount of drag makes sense to me.

Free needles won't stop aides, but it may slow it down. The same for free condoms with the side benefit of a lower birthrate in a segment of society least prepared to raise children. I am all for it.

 

[Delta]

To me it seems like it's just going to be a venue for experimentation that will probably lead more people to become addicted and dependent on drugs. Sure it's nice for the people already addicted who are going to do it regardless of the legal consequences... think about those not yet addicted though.

Legalities and issues of safety are probably what holds quite a few people back from ever trying these drugs. Now if their friends come up and say "hey I found a legal place where we can try out drugs in the safety of a doctor's close watch." To the educated that's going to still seem like a bad idea because they will know about the harmful effects (addiction etc.) but to the uneducated, those are just 2 more reasons to try cocaine or heroin.

Being fascinated as I am with drugs and their effects (namely hallucinations and perceptual effects) I would love to try some of the less addicting substances with relatively low dangers of overdose such as "shrooms" and LSD for purely experimental purposes. Maybe I'll stroll up to vancouver and give it a shot.

A bit off topic: there was a drug I read about in a psychology text, and basically it acted on neuro-receptors and brain pathways related to fear. The person studying it tried some out and stated that it was the single most fearful thing he had ever experienced and would likely ever experience. I'd like to see what that was like too.

 

[The Parakeet]

It generally doesn't seem to cater much to experimentation though. People usually don't experiment under these circumstances (doesn't sound that good really). I'm also not sure that they actually provide the drugs either. They just offer clean needles and emergency health care (no real specifics, it just says that drug use is legal within the set rooms).

It's a decent way to protect people who slip through the cracks.

 

[myp]

I am surprised that so many of the responses to this thread have been positive. I am with you on this one Delta, I find it absurd. Maybe not so much for the same reasons, but I do find it crazy. Let me explain...

Basically what has happened in this situation is:
the government outlawed drugs because they are dangerous> this automatically lead to a black market which is often unsafe and very expensive> to counter the ill effects of that black market, the government is now letting people use these dangerous drugs that were too unfit for anyone to use in the first place in these "SISs"

Along this chain, the government is paying to enforce the drug prohibition, they are paying for the police that has to fight that black market, which is often tied to other crimes as well, and they are paying for these clinics where people can take drugs for free.

Now, look at this from the situation where there is no prohibition: Companies compete to sell these drugs, bringing down drug costs (if the government sees a problem with this they can always tax them to keep prices higher.) The competition in the white market means the drugs are a lot safer, like they are in the SISs. Since the drugs are legal, there will be no black market (unless taxes on the drugs are too high, in which case there may be a black market, but not as big as a total prohibition) which means less crime and less costs to fight the illegal operations and the tied crimes that come with it. People can still take the drugs like they do in the SISs, except that it costs government nothing. The government ends up not losing any money on this and saving a lot compared to the prohibition. In fact, the government may even make money through this with taxes.

Sometimes I really don't understand what goes on in the heads of some of these big government advocates...

 

[Delta]

Now, look at this from the situation where there is no prohibition: Companies compete to sell these drugs, bringing down drug costs (if the government sees a problem with this they can always tax them to keep prices higher.) The competition in the white market means the drugs are a lot safer, like they are in the SISs. Since the drugs are legal, there will be no black market (unless taxes on the drugs are too high, in which case there may be a black market, but not as big as a total prohibition) which means less crime and less costs to fight the illegal operations and the tied crimes that come with it. People can still take the drugs like they do in the SISs, except that it costs government nothing. The government ends up not losing any money on this and saving a lot compared to the prohibition. In fact, the government may even make money through this with taxes.

Sometimes I really don't understand what goes on in the heads of some of these big government advocates...

Of course there would be healthcare costs, but as you say, offset this with taxes (like they do with tobacco and alcohol, although I'm positive they are still losing money on that) and especially the lower cost of drug enforcement and violent drug related crime. Of course since heroin, cocaine etc. are highly addictive, you'd still have the crime from people stealing to fund their addictions.

In any case, it should be one way or the other. Either allow it or don't allow - not pour huge amounts of money into both enforcing and allowing.

 

[myp]

Of course there would be healthcare costs, but as you say, offset this with taxes (like they do with tobacco and alcohol, although I'm positive they are still losing money on that) and especially the lower cost of drug enforcement and violent drug related crime. Of course since heroin, cocaine etc. are highly addictive, you'd still have the crime from people stealing to fund their addictions.

In any case, it should be one way or the other. Either allow it or don't allow - not pour huge amounts of money into both enforcing and allowing.

Well I also believe that the government should not pay for people's healthcare, so that would be the people's problem. I believe in free-choice, in that if people want to destroy their own bodies with drugs, that is fine as long as they don't hurt others. It is not the government's body, it is theres. It is not like the prohibition stops anyone who really wants drugs from getting them anyway and no one is making the argument that drugs are good for you- the education would still be there and there would certainly be private organizations which advocate against drug use, which would turn off many people from trying them even if they are legal.

As for the crime from the hard drugs, this would be no where near what it is now for two reasons: 1) the drugs would be a lot cheaper even with heavy taxes in the white market opposed to the black 2)even if the taxes are so high that they are so expensive and the addict steals to pay for the drugs- the crime will be no where near as bad as it is now because it will be single people doing those crimes. The prohibition creates an underground of organized crime, which is a lot more disastrous than individuals stealing.

 

[deanhills]

I've read the reports from some of the ones in Europe, and it's actually pretty interesting. It seems to be helpful on the whole.

I actually thought that Canada was decriminalizing weed? Drug policy is all kinds of messed up. I'll agree with you on that. Regardless, the idea is fairly sound for two reasons.

One, they're saving money. Clean needles means that they won't be treating them for AIDS in the future. They're being proactive about the healthcare.

Two, it seems to work well. Having them come to a safe and controlled environment to do it tends to work well. The ones who would do it are usually salvageable. They can be worked off of the heroine and put into methadone treatment with pretty good success rates. If you throw them in jail, then that will basically just doom them to forever be stuck in the cycle.

Agreed these are really good points in favour. Probably also easier to get them to come forward so that they can be treated for addiction.

 

[Delta]

Agreed these are really good points in favour. Probably also easier to get them to come forward so that they can be treated for addiction.

It is true, from what I have read, the rate of people coming forward for addictions counseling did increase in vancouver. There are definitely benefits to it, but I still say there are negatives as well and the government shouldn't be going in both ways at once.

 

[deanhills]

It is true, from what I have read, the rate of people coming forward for addictions counseling did increase in vancouver. There are definitely benefits to it, but I still say there are negatives as well and the government shouldn't be going in both ways at once.

I agree with the negatives too. This system may only be easy to introduce in countries with a strong leaning towards socialism as in Canada and the Netherlands. The US may not be right for it yet. Negative in Canada would be the cost of programmes like that, and also taking care of people who won't take care of themselves, i.e. some may come forward, but the others will be a burden on the system in perpetuity.

 

[Delta]

I agree with the negatives too. This system may only be easy to introduce in countries with a strong leaning towards socialism as in Canada and the Netherlands. The US may not be right for it yet. Negative in Canada would be the cost of programmes like that, and also taking care of people who won't take care of themselves, i.e. some may come forward, but the others will be a burden on the system in perpetuity.

That's definitely true. The conservative party, when they came in shortly after the program was introduced, wanted to get rid of it immediately. I guess they were going to stop funding in 2008 but I think that may have been dependent on the outcome of benefits vs negatives. I haven't looked into to see what has happened.

In any case, I'm sure the US government would be against it... although maybe not Obama?

 

[curious]

Well I also believe that the government should not pay for people's healthcare

Maybe I should start a thread on this. Do you really believe I should die because I can't get medical insurance and don't have a spare $250,000 to pay for a bypass? Or if I get a cancer where the most appropriate %chemotherapy is going to cost two years income a month? There's a treatment out there where the Medicare copay is $6000 per month.

Because that is what will happen if I have any heart problems between now and the time I get Medicare. Of course, you probably want to repeal Medicare, too.

But if I were some rich crook who'd been ripping off the world by creating bogus securities, I could live, because I could afford it? Do you really think only the rich deserve to live?

I think I've mentioned this before, but my broken ankle, ten years ago, when I had medical insurance, would have cost me $45,000 per year, or well over a year's take home. Do you think that if I had been uninsured, I just should have been left to suffer and die of infection?

 

[curious]

But, back to the topic. We really don't know what to do about addictive drugs, and most of the people and organizations that work in the area are essentiallly trying things, hoping that maybe it will help. I think we need to continue to try, and be willling to pay the cost of stuff that turns out not to help.

I don't necessarily think this is a great idea, but at this point we need to try a lot of things, to see what we can learn about what has an impact.

 

[Delta]

But, back to the topic. We really don't know what to do about addictive drugs, and most of the people and organizations that work in the area are essentiallly trying things, hoping that maybe it will help. I think we need to continue to try, and be willling to pay the cost of stuff that turns out not to help.

I don't necessarily think this is a great idea, but at this point we need to try a lot of things, to see what we can learn about what has an impact.

Well really, as long as addictive drugs are available, people are going to use and abuse them - they have for centuries and they will for centuries more. There is also probably always going to be a flow of drugs - there is too much money in it not to be.

As far as the SISs I think the main reason is to stop the spread of AIDS rather than to stop drug use - which is fair I suppose.

 

[The Parakeet]

I agree with the logic of this as part of the war on drugs.

It's a three pronged attack.

1 - Have programs set up to educate kids and discourage drug use.
2 - Use police action to hit drug ring and suppliers
3 - Provide a safety net to retrieve those not helped by step 1 & 2.

Now...steps 1 and 2 are generally failing pretty bad. 3 seems to be alright though. If the war on drugs is going to keep going, then we might as well keep the one effective step going.

 

[Delta]

I agree with the logic of this as part of the war on drugs.

It's a three pronged attack.

1 - Have programs set up to educate kids and discourage drug use.
2 - Use police action to hit drug ring and suppliers
3 - Provide a safety net to retrieve those not helped by step 1 & 2.

Now...steps 1 and 2 are generally failing pretty bad. 3 seems to be alright though. If the war on drugs is going to keep going, then we might as well keep the one effective step going.

I suppose so... what I don't understand is how it seems to be so hard to hit the drug ring and suppliers. I mean really, is it that hard to infiltrate? As for the education, it definitely needs to be ramped up. If you've ever seen the new(ish) meth commercials - I think they are on the right track... but kids need to learn this stuff in school and they need to hear horror stories about these drugs and actually see the effects. Can't be sugar coating it. As of now, learning about drugs - they just say blah blah blah and these are the side effects. Almost every kid is probably thinking "wow cool!"

I watched a video in class once when I was 12. I forget which drug it was, but someone was tripping out with their friend who was seeing rats eating at the back of his eyes, so he basically scratched at his eyes trying to get them out, and when that failed, he took his grandmas knitting needles and rammed them into his brain. Thats the kind of education kids need on drugs.

 

[The Parakeet]

The hilarious (to a cynical jerk like me) thing is that DARE has been a failure. Studies think that its actually pushing kids toward drugs in general. The whole "Weed will make you go crazy thing" that's still in the program just makes kids roll their eyes. It also focuses too much on how all the cool kids will want you to do drugs...so a lot of kids who want to be cool do drugs (when in reality it's usually the a-holes that no one likes who are really users).

Just so you know...I totally stole most of that from an article on Cracked.com last week (god I love that website).

As far as the criminal justice side...it's a real pain. The big movers are well organized. It can take a year to build up a case as they turn users, record sales, find safehouses, work their way up the chain, etc. I know someone who served on a jury for a drug case. The police had apparently spent at least six months trying to build a fairly week case on some local dealer. It's just a real pain to actually prove anything. Especially since most of the users are too afraid to step up. They'll either be known as rats or arrested for their drug use if they come forward.