Something I've recently been learning about. Apparently there's only about 100 worldwide. Only three in the US: two in NYC and one in RI. Other states would like to have them, but are hesitant to initiate because they evidently run afoul of federal law. NY and RI apparently operate theirs in opposition of federal law. The attached article gives an (likely biased) impression of how they function and the motivation behind them.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/h...jection-sites-in-u-s

Are they good? Bad? Depends on how they're funded? What do SIGforum folks think about efforts like this?

The organization that operates the two in NYC is called OnPoint.

https://onpointnyc.org/about-us/

OnPoint lists these as their funders:

AIDS Institute
Health Research Inc.
Opioid Settlement Funds
NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Office of Addiction Services and Support
Montefiore Medical Center
Laurie Tisch Illumination Fund
New York Community Trust
The Commonwealth Fund

There is a facility in a city near me that provides Narcan and other resources, but doesn't function as a safe injection site. It is operated by "Access Point of GA".

Yeah, no thanks, how about more facilities to help them get off the drugs, not shoot up....

Those people need to be helped, not enabled.

That is the debate around such places.

Apparently they offer myriad resources for recovery from addiction.

Seems to me that a person ought to be required to proceed through various checkpoints in a "gauntlet" of resource availability and counselling of all sorts before being allowed access to the injection space in the facility.

The NYC facilities claim they have reversed 2,000 overdoses since being operational. Not all overdoses are fatal without medical intervention.

The most cruel thing someone can do is help an addict get high.

This, as I recall, was one citywide site or so it seemed.

The idea seems to be that they are helping the users not die.

They offer various recovery resources and, if the person is determined, sterile equipment and a safe environment to use their self-provided illegal drugs.

It seems advocates feel the sites keep the users and the community safer.

If nothing else, when taking into account the overdose saves it can become an interesting thought exercise on life, and how we assign value to it.

If I had to guess, the folks who advocate the establishment of these sites would champion the life-saving effects, while in the next breath espousing enthusiastic pro-choice attitudes, in the abortion context of human life.

It seems that someone of the "pro-life" anti-abortion attitude would also advocate the establishment and use of these safe injection sites. Or at the very least have a difficult time opposing them.

San Francisco has had various iterations of these safe injection locations.

Given all the homeless that have descended upon the city, these places from my understanding for all the good that they do, such as reduced disease & infection spread and available medical services; these places are simply viewed as a safety-net for drug recreation. Like building a skatepark, pump-track or ski jump next door to a hospital, the majority of users are doing drugs because they enjoy it, and if medical services are freely available with zero repercussions or requirements, then they'll gladly continue their abuse.

I do think the clean needle programs help the population. Especially needle swaps.

Most if not all of these programs make things worse for the public and the addicts.
It enables a dangerous lifestyle. Addicts don’t use these sites exclusively they do drugs when and where they want to. The bureaucracy measures success by claiming those overdoses treated at their sites as people saved, but addiction and OD deaths increase when programs are put in place so in reality the problems off site are made worse.
The safe supply options are also laughably useless. Safe supply drugs are handed out, then sold by the addicts for their preferred options. This introduces even more drugs into the areas.

quote:

if medical services are freely available with zero repercussions or requirements, then they'll gladly continue their abuse.

Again, I get the impression that many other resources are given preferential presentation at these sites. I don't think you just walk in and shoot-up. I could be wrong, of course. I imagine a patron is met by a counselor of sorts and given a lot of information and encouragement in the direction of cessation. Maybe I'm looking at it through rose-colored glasses. Despite my best efforts, it's hard to get an idea of what actually happens inside a site.

quote:

Addicts don’t use these sites exclusively they do drugs when and where they want to.

In my research so far, I never once imagined that a drug user would use a safe site as their only location. I suppose an extreme minority might, but I agree that it's very unlikely.

quote:

Most if not all of these programs make things worse for the public and the addicts.

The biggest "city" in Vermont, where my folks live, is Burlington. My mother told me Burlington wants one of these sites. They apparently have a significant problem with drug users and associated paraphernalia in public spaces. They think it will help. Maybe; maybe not.

quote:

addiction and OD deaths increase when programs are put in place so in reality the problems off site are made worse.

Can you share a resource that would support this?

quote:

Safe supply drugs are handed out, then sold by the addicts for their preferred options. This introduces even more drugs into the areas.

None of what I've read about these sites in the US imply anything about drug distribution, other than Narcan of course, if a user needs it. Even then, according to the video, it is administered by staff in a limited fashion.

A brief video about an NYC site. Still doesn't shed much light on whether or not there is an intake "process" that a patron must endure during a visit...

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

If I had to guess, the folks who advocate the establishment of these sites would champion the life-saving effects, while in the next breath espousing enthusiastic pro-choice attitudes, in the abortion context of human life.

It seems that someone of the "pro-life" anti-abortion attitude would also advocate the establishment and use of these safe injection sites. Or at the very least have a difficult time opposing them.

What does one have to do with the other?
Intentionally killing a fetus (or not) and facilitating a recreational activity don't seem to be connected to me.

On average, your statements may hold true about opinions. It's in the margins where we get problems, so the average is really meaningless, other than to waive a flag in the other side's face.

For the record:
I'm pro-life, but not necessarily 'no abortions ever'.
I oppose the establishment of assisted drug use on the grounds that it's a black hole for money/resources & does more harm than good.
I wouldn't use the word 'advocate' but I would support making some resources available to help THOSE WHO WANT IT. Maybe better stated, I'll go out of my way for someone who is trying, but I won't move a muscle for someone who won't try. I'm actively doing the latter in my life right now. It's not easy & has some crappy side consequences but doing the opposite doesn't work either. Tried that already.

quote:

What does one have to do with the other?
Intentionally killing a fetus (or not) and facilitating a recreational activity don't seem to be connected to me.

I drew the connection because I think debate about these sites would ultimately boil down to a debate about life. They are another effort in the fight against the drug problem in America, when we've already implemented and promoted a mess of other things.

It seems obvious, at this point, that we're never going to address the root causes, so I can't hardly blame someone for wanting to try something new, even if it is controversial.

The statistics of the reversed overdoses mean there are indisputably lives that have been saved by these sites. That's where the debate will always end up. Are we actively murdering drug users by not offering safe injection sites? No. But there is moral culpability in being aware of life-saving opportunities and ignoring or eliminating them.

quote:

On average, your statements may hold true about opinions. It's in the margins where we get problems, so the average is really meaningless, other than to waive a flag in the other side's face.

Right.

My cousin is a drug user. He doesn't want to stop. He used to use heroin, and now uses methamphetamines. His family loves him, as do I. We used to be "best friends" but are no longer close. I think I'd appreciate him having access to one of these places. The first time I went and visited him, I thought I found him dead. There have been other times we had to ask someone who lives near him to check on him because we hadn't been able to get in touch.

I can't say whether or not I "approve" of the safe injection site concept. This thread is part of an effort to perhaps form an opinion. I agree that it can be argued that it's enabling. But I can't ignore the potential positives either.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
It seems that someone of the "pro-life" anti-abortion attitude would also advocate the establishment and use of these safe injection sites. Or at the very least have a difficult time opposing them.

It does seem somewhat of a paradox. The difference is that the babies aren't given the opportunity to decide.

An adult who has chosen a self-destructive life-style at least can opt to redirect the course of their life. Maybe they should be given a chance to do so?

I'll admit there is a fine line between enabling ongoing addiction, and assisting with recovery, I'm sure many would differ about where that line should be drawn. Better that it should happen in a medically-controlled environment rather than randomly on a street corner, or in some flop house. I would expect, and wound certainly like to know that the "patients" in these facilities are required to show measurable progress in their quest for recover as a condition to receiving assistance, but I suspect that is not a requirement.

quote:

I would expect, and would certainly like to know that the "patients" in these facilities are required to show measurable progress in their quest for recovery as a condition to receiving assistance, but I suspect that is not a requirement.

I get the impression that is not a requirement. As previously expressed, I hope that users are required to interact with counsellors of some sort at the onset of every visit.