"Safe Injection Houses"- What's This? - page 2

A "safe house" for drug users to use drugs with clean equipment and trained professional supervision using public funding.....what the what????!!! Am I reading this correctly? This instantly... Read More

  1. by   Sour Lemon
    Quote from Triddin
    Studies from Insite showed no significant increase in crime in the area since its opening
    I don't doubt it. But that doesn't mean a significant amount of drug-related crime was not already in existence.
  2. by   Mini2544
    Quote from squishyfish
    Nope, nope, nope, nope. Why are we rewarding dangerous and addictive behaviors with zero consequences? This sounds like such a bad idea.
    I teeter on the edge of "people are going to do it anyways so let's keep them from clogging up our ERs, sounds like a decent idea" to This is ridiculous, it provides no real accountability or change for the problem and I despise anyone who thinks this is ok" Consideing our AG hates pot.. I don't really see this taking off in a federally funded way in America. If it did, I would avoid those areas for sure.
  3. by   Sour Lemon
    Quote from KatieMI
    Many of them beg, prostitute themselves and use cheap, low-qualty drugs which kill them quicker and more painful. Real hard vore addicts will do pretty much anything to avoid police because being in custody = withdrawal.

    Since we as society have no tools to force addicts into treatment (which is, in turn, notoriuosly low effective), everything that remains is to make using safer for everyone. This way, at least, you and me, hopefully, won't have those 3 to 6 months of soul-searching after an accident poke with insulin needle waiting for HIV and hep panel "window" to pass.

    Although I too do not support making those "safe houses" pretty much about everywhere, especially near schools and known tourist zones.
    I see how it makes it safer for the users, but not for their victims. I don't doubt that they try to avoid arrest, but many of them get quit bold due to their addictions and do end up in jail/prison.
    Some may prostitute themselves, but some prostitute others. And I have no statistics, but I believe that when someone decides to put a gun to someone else's head for 40 dollars, they're not usually taking the money to pay their water bill.
  4. by   Triddin
    Quote from Sour Lemon
    I see how it makes it safer for the users, but not for their victims. I don't doubt that they try to avoid arrest, but many of them get quit bold due to their addictions and do end up in jail/prison.
    Some may prostitute themselves, but some prostitute others. And I have no statistics, but I believe that when someone decides to put a gun to someone else's head for 40 dollars, they're not usually taking the money to pay their water bill.
    Im struggling with your logic because this crime is already happening without the safe injection sites. The injection sites themselves do not increase crime in the area.

    so to decrease those who use, you're either locking them up (which let's face it, the government has tried doing this for years and the problem has not gotten better) or you get them into rehabilitation. The safe injection sites act as a gateway for these users to get help. Those who use the sites are encouraged to seek treatment and I believe one of the studies in the link I shared showed an increase in those who accessed rehabilitation.

    you and I may have to agree to disagree, but I'm curious what you would propose instead and what literature backs it up?
  5. by   oceangirl1234
    Google harm reduction. In response to OP, I do think that this is a great idea.
  6. by   Sour Lemon
    Quote from Triddin
    Im struggling with your logic because this crime is already happening without the safe injection sites. The injection sites themselves do not increase crime in the area.

    so to decrease those who use, you're either locking them up (which let's face it, the government has tried doing this for years and the problem has not gotten better) or you get them into rehabilitation. The safe injection sites act as a gateway for these users to get help. Those who use the sites are encouraged to seek treatment and I believe one of the studies in the link I shared showed an increase in those who accessed rehabilitation.

    you and I may have to agree to disagree, but I'm curious what you would propose instead and what literature backs it up?
    My response is purely emotional. I simply don't believe in rewarding and enabling criminal behavior. And it's not so much the drugs I have a problem with, but all the crime that goes along with their production, distribution, and use.
    My point of view has nothing to do with an increase in crime. The crime already exists. I'm fine with locking them up or sending them to rehab ...but not with supplying needles and supervised, "safe" places to get high. I'd rather reserve that level of care and concern for the victims of drug-related crime.
  7. by   GaryRay
    While I do commend the practice of any pursuit to reduce harm, we do have to remember addiction is a disease. Unfortunately, in the US, it is treated as a crime. I have worked for needle exchanges that hand out clean needles to any patrons with or without a deposit to reduce harm. In response to the flood of synthetic Fentanyl flooding the heroin market we have even been able to hand out Narcan kits and educate clients on how to administer the drug if their friend is in trouble (no amount of rescue breaths will revive someone with nuchal rigidity). In states like California were you have to have a separate prescription for the syringe to administer your prescribed injection (I ran into this issue with my depo shot) this is pretty groundbreaking. In the end, the loss of productivity, use of resources, loss of lives, contraction of chronic illnesses, and prevention of other comorbidities while still allowing people to make destructive choices encourages people to utilize the services and outweighs the enabling of the behavior.

    I had more than one person come in for clean needles and ask me if we offered counseling or financial assistance for rehab. All we did was give them more needles and refer them to the local NA chapters and methadone clinics. It wasn't poor management, that was just all the resources we had.

    The problem is we don't offer treatment for the disease itself. It would be like staffing a McDonalds with nurses for Diabetics and Heart Failure patients to come eat at and be monitored but not offering them medications.

    Both my parents have Hep C from using IV drugs in the 80's before anyone really cared about sharing needles. By some miracle, my mother did not pass it on to me. I watched her suffer through 3 rounds of Interferon with no change in viral load before a cure was developed. So this is really a cause I care about and may have an alternative perspective to than most health care providers.

    But if you don't have a license you can't help anyone. Providing a "safe space" for someone to bring in street drugs to use while you monitor them is not only unethical, but irresponsible. You are basically communicating to them it is ok and safe to self administer who knows what because you are there. That is a liability no licensed medical professional should ever accept. If I administer conscious sedation, I am assessing and recording vitals at a minimum of every 5 minutes, and I know exactly what is going into the person and how much. This sounds like a great way to loose your license and not be able to do any good for anyone ever again.

    I feel the same way about "Hangover Clinics". There is no such thing as a waiver full proof enough to get you out of giving your patient permission to binge drink themselves to death or into an MVI, you're at risk of them withholding medical history that would contraindicate fluid resuscitation of that nature or supplements commonly offered. Lab Work indicated given the circumstances is completely disregarded. It's a risk management nightmare. But with the "Safe houses" youre volunteering for that liability. Your license doesn't evaporate just because you are working for free.
  8. by   Fiona59
    No Canadian nurse or doctor has ever lost their licence working in a needle exchange or safe site.

    I'm really noticing a huge difference between American posters and the rest of the world in this thread
  9. by   NightNerd
    Quote from Sour Lemon
    My response is purely emotional. I simply don't believe in rewarding and enabling criminal behavior. And it's not so much the drugs I have a problem with, but all the crime that goes along with their production, distribution, and use.
    My point of view has nothing to do with an increase in crime. The crime already exists. I'm fine with locking them up or sending them to rehab ...but not with supplying needles and supervised, "safe" places to get high. I'd rather reserve that level of care and concern for the victims of drug-related crime.
    Also from a purely emotional standpoint and with all respect to you, I feel like "reserving care and compassion" for only certain people is a large part of the problem. I have never met an addict who feels rewarded by the chance to use; it is a desperate attempt to feel normal. I hear what you're saying - it's not okay that others' addictions create danger for those of us who don't use. I believe that these safe houses are going to be an important measure to bring safety and peace of mind to people on both sides of the issue.
  10. by   elkpark
    Quote from Fiona59
    No Canadian nurse or doctor has ever lost their licence working in a needle exchange or safe site.

    I'm really noticing a huge difference between American posters and the rest of the world in this thread
    Well, that's that "American exceptionalism" you hear so much about. We're special ...
  11. by   Fiona59
    Quote from elkpark
    Well, that's that "American exceptionalism" you hear so much about. We're special ...
    The failure to acknowledge the concept of ‘for the greater good'?
  12. by   elkpark
    Quote from Fiona59
    The failure to acknowledge the concept of ‘for the greater good'?
    For a lot of us, I'm afraid so. America was built on "rugged individualism," y'know, AKA "I got mine, screw you, Jack." Lots of people here are (unfortunately) proud of that.
  13. by   ElvishDNP
    From a public health perspective, this is a fantastic concept and I can't believe it's taken the US such a long time to even consider the concept. This has been a thing around the world for a very long time.

    No sane medical provider is going to promote illicit drug use as a positive life choice. Neither is alcoholism, but that didn't stop us from giving our alcoholics beer TID with their meals to keep them from going into DTs while hospitalized. If a person has no interest in quitting, the best rehab in the world is going to be a waste of everyone's time and money.

    Next best thing? Reduce what risk you can. Make sure people have clean needles. Have sharps boxes in public restrooms (this is already a thing I've seen, so hooray) so they're not left lying about to stick others accidentally, or so other folks can't come along & use it to shoot up. The fewer people walking around with HIV, HepB, and HepC the better. The fewer ED visits for an ODed John Doe, the better. There's no reason a needle exchange depot can't have information about rehab as well for those who are considering quitting. This doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

close