Supervised Injection Sites Guanina P

Supervised Injection Sites
Guanina P. Lopez
ENG 101 Critical Thinking and Academic Writing, Section 414
Dr. TuckettOctober 8, 2017.

Outline
Can legalizing drug usage be a good thing?
The United States is not the only country that is undergoing a major crisis with the opioids epidemic, and other drug related issues. Other countries however, are finding diverse ways to address the crisis. For some, treating a drug problem with drugs sounds contradicting, but new measures are in place to finds as many ways possible to save lives.
Thesis: Liampin Ti’s, Thomas Kerr’s, and Mary Clare Kennedy’s (2015) articles make a case that harm reduction programs and supervised injection sites have lots of benefits that can eventually manage drug use, and reduce the number of people overdosing, and dying. The United States involvement in this discussion is absent to none; the more time we waste in not acting, the more people will die.
II. In the article, the impact of harm reduction on HIV and illicit drug use, written by Thomas Kerr (2014), they concluded that there has been a prevailing support for supervised injection sites that target the prevention of overdoses and the spread of infectious diseases; however the dissemination and attention of this information is limited.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Supervised injection sites (SIS) provides users a sterile needles exchange program, therapy, and synthetic opiates with a registered nurse. There is a controlled environment component, compared to a non-controlled one.
Studies reveal that rates of HIV and HCV have dropped due to regular controlled environment, screenings, and informative/preventive education.

In kerr’s, et.al, article programs that include supervised injection sites, and harm reduction programs are more cost effective than courts, probation or jail; which are usually the outcome or consequence for addicts.
III. In the article, Overdose prevention in the United States: A call for supervised injection sites, written by Liangpin Ti and Mary Clare Kennedy, they confirmed that In the U.S. treatment like supervised injections sites, and drug harm reduction programs are not as popular due to the notion that it will motivate more drug usage, and disrupt our current drug and law enforcement policies.
Critics of the SIS do not see this approach as a viable source of disrupting drug use. Some may even say that the opposite would occur.
In the U.S. We currently have law enforcement policies that are against drug use of any nature, contextually it would disrupt the order of things.

Government officials have stated that they don’t believe in funding programs of this kind; as a result drug related crime will be on the rise.

IV. Adjudicating the facts and risks that arise from new methods to deal with this opioid epidemic in a time where lives are being lost; I will strong stand for supervised injection sites.

A. Kerr’s articles give a strong arguments on data that is backed up by facts and
Scientific studies.

B. Ti’s and Kennedy’s argument is not as passionate and forgets that people are dying.

C. these two article’s bring a strong message written with pure raw emotion about saving lives.

Conclusion
Mercifully, people are waking up to the notion that injection drug use is everywhere and people from all walks of life are dying. In Vancouver’s, Downtown Eastside has supervised more than 1.8 injections without a fatality since they opened this site in 2003
We may not agree to certain risks that come with these injection sites but as I look at both sides to me choosing risk over lives; I will choose saving lives.

Supervised Injection Sites
Can legalizing drug usage be a good thing? The United States is not the only country that is undergoing a major crisis with the opioids epidemic, and other drug related issues. Other countries, however, are finding diverse ways to address the crisis. For some, treating a drug problem with drugs sounds contrdictory, but new measures are in place to finds as many ways possible to saves lives. Liangpin Ti’s, Thomas Kerr, and Mary Clare Kennedy’s (2015) articles make a case that harm reduction programs and supervised injection have lots of benefits that can eventually manage drug use, and reduce the number of people overdosing and dying. The United States’ involment in this discussion is absent to none, which will result in more people who will die.
In the article, the Impact of harm reduction on HIV and illicit drug use, written by Liangpin Ti and Thomas Kerr (2014), they conclude that there has been a prevailing support for supervised Injection sites that target the prevention of overdoses and the spread of infectious diseases; however, the dissemination and attention of this information is limited. Researching and analyzing harm reduction strategies requires to unite a field and logical techniques. For this project, both quality and ethnographic studies are essential for the retrieval of data of a client. Supervised injection sites (SIS) provides users a sterile needles exchange program, Psychological therapy and synthetic opiates with a registered nurse. There is a controlled environment component, compared to a non-controlled one giving a safe place for the user. Studies reveal that rates of HIV and HCV have dropped due to regular controlled environment, screenings, informative and preventive education. In TI’s, et.al, article, programs that include supervised injection sites, and harm reduction programs are more cost effective than courts, probation or jail; which are usually the outcome or consequences for addicts. A huge amount of proof for harm reduction is vividly mounting, it sad to say that the ideology and political barriers to enforce harm reduction in the U.S. exist.

In the article, Overdose prevention in the United States: A call for supervised Injections site, written by Thomas Kerr and Mary Clare Kennedy (2017), they argue that in the U.S. treatment like supervised injection sites, and drug harm reduction programs are not as popular due to the notion that it will motivate more drug use, and disrupt current drug and law enforcement policies. Supervised injection sites will likely be feared by the opposition facing significant legal and political barriers. Critics of the SIS do not see this approach as a variable source of disrupting drug use. As a result, many governments are reluctant to approve giving addicts place to shoot up, let alone the drugs to do so. Critics argue how supervised injection programs are different than needle exchange programs that are offered in every state, and the success rate to recover from addiction. In the eyes of the government, this is as equal as to legitimizing an illegal activity and worse, providing government funding to support a destructive habit. In the U.S., we currently have law enforcement policies that are against drug use of any nature. Contextually, it would disrupt the order of things. Health officials usually support evidence based on harm reduction methods, but without political, financial banking, or any motion toward controlled usage is likely to go nowhere in their minds. Political barriers to SIS have gotten stronger in the country’s rural areas, where pathways to services remain limited despite an increase on fatal overdoses. For example, Republican senators disapproved legislation to authorize SIS in New York State, and similar, in Maryland, after hearing an unfavorable report by the state Health and Government committee.

Government officials have stated that they do not believe in programs of this kind; as a result, drug related crime will be on the rise. At these sites, all operators, staff, and users of these facilities could run the risk of criminal prosecution under federal law. Unfortunately, fear rises from these shifts in the federal drug strategy over building concern about drug enforcement among the public. How do we really deal with this epidemic? Is it by prosecuting those who sell drugs locking them away and addicts to deal with their addiction the only way they know how; pick the drug over life every single day until death itself.Providing a clean, medically, supervised place where addicts can get their fix; it’s just simply a logical extension of a service that is done in the public eye. Adjudicating the facts and risks that arise from new methods to deal with this epidemic in a time where lives are being lost, I will strongly stand for supervised injection sites. This epidemic does not think about age, race, sex, religion or lack of it, all it wants is to bring pain and misery to the addict and those who are close to them. Kerr’s article gives a strong message argument on data that is backed up by facts and scientific studies. The evidence is on paper that shows that there is harm reduction and a chance at treatment; what is sad that the ideological and political walls puts a hold in a desperate need to save lives. In Vancouver, a SIS shows evidence of 35% reduction in the fatal overdose rate surrounding the site in 2 years of being opened. Now that we are becoming aware of different avenues to fight against this disease, politicians and law enforcement wants to push federal laws to aggravate staff and users from coming to the sites. Ti’s and Kennedy’s is not as passionate and forgets that people are dying. The opposition talks on all the negative outcome but, fails to provide academic research to back up their findings. In the 1990’s, Vancouver was hot in the middle of an HIV and overdose among IDU’s; as a result they did everything the opposition talks about syringe distribution, peer based programming, methadone maintenance therapy and establishing the first North American sanctioned SIF. Incredible findings occurred from three National American Drug Abuse-funded cohort studies showing that the rates if HIV and HCV infection and other related risks and harms decreased over the last 15 years. From needled sharing had declined by 40% in 1996 to 2% in 2011. Aslo, there has been an incline in drug injection cessation among intravenous drug users in these sites. To think that all these gains are coming despite efforts on behalf of officers, politicians, which, will still allow them to concentrate on the war on drugs by reducing drug supply and accessibility, and price on drugs. In these two articles, there is a strong message written with raw pure emotion about saving lives. I can only agree with one and I chose saving lives by whatever means necessary; yes, it gives a drug to assist the user but it also connects the user with medical attention, dual diagnosis therapy and a safe controlled environment.

Mercifully, people are waking up to the notion that injection drug use is everywhere and people from all walks of life are dying. In Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside have supervised more than 1.8 million of injections without a fatality since they opened this site in 2003. SIS has a lot of benefits that can eventually manage drug use, and the number of people overdosing and dying can cease. Wasting time is not optional. We need to get educated and leave are biases at the door, before is too late. We may not agree to certain risks that come with these injection sites but as I look at both sides to me choosing risks over lives; I will choose to educated and save lives. RIP Carl Webb.

References
Kennedy, M. C., & Kerr, T. (2017). Overdose Prevention in the United States: A Call for Supervised Injection Sites. American Journal Of Public Health, 107(1), 42-43. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303523
Lianping, T., & Kerr, T. (2014). The impact of harm reduction on HIV and illicit drug use. Harm Reduction Journal, 11(1), 1-5. doi:10.1186/1477-7517-11-7

x

Hi!
I'm Casey!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out