Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Earlier this week, a two year court battle came to a head, with a federal judge ruling in favor of the legality for a safe injection facility (SIF) to be constructed in South Philadelphia in a neighborhood which has been notoriously known as being an epicenter for drug addiction. SIF's are sites where citizens can receive medical assistance in administering injected drugs by licensed health personal. Such facilities are not a new concept, dating back as early as 1960's London, however, they have yet to officially be established in the United States. The central idea behind them is that once established, they will prevent the rate of overdoses and the transference of bloodborne diseases carried by needles due to being overseen by personal. A great explanation of such can be found here, although much of the data is admittedly ongoing and remains inconclusive.
Facilitating drug use and ensuring safe disposal may seem like a reasonable solution, however, residents of South Philadelphia did not necessarily all see it that way. Immediately following the approval for its construction, intense backlash was seen against the the facility. An outpour of anger over both social media and through active protests were seen, eventually leading the production being cancelled. Those in opposition claimed that the center would only fuel drug use in the area, normalizing it and making it easier for drug dealers to lure in potential addicts. Additionally, it may also deter addicts from rehabilitation, as they now have a legal backing to fuel their addiction. So, despite the efforts, the future for SIF's isn't looking too bright.
For me, I personally, I don't approve of such an establishment. I've had both family and friends who have dealt with drug addiction, and I just can't find any sort of attempt to recreationalize it agreeable in any way. I understand the point that it may prevent some deaths by allowing for the drug use to be administered by medical professions, but I'd argue that it also legitimizes substances in the minds of those who are not yet addicted or may potentially become addicted.
1) How do you guys feel about SIF's? Based on the data, do you think think they potentially serve a useful purpose in preventing drug related deaths?
2) Do you think SIF's will ever be officially established in the US?
3) What do you think could potentially be a better and more agreeable alternative to dealing with drug-laden areas in the United States?
4 comments:
In my opinion, I do think that SIFs can be beneficial in helping the drug problems here in America. I understand your skepticism of its benefits since it doesn’t stop people from taking drugs, only help them administer it safely in a clean environment. With that being said, I believe a lot of developed countries use SIFs to wane their population off drugs. Since these places have the equipment and drugs available for administration, I think slowly giving lower doses (or at least diluted ones) to addicts can help reduce drug addiction and overdose. I also believe that SIFs can be a great location for drug education as professionals are already there to help drug users. As for the second question, I don’t really see SIFs ever being officially established in the US. Despite evidence showing its benefits, I think people are just too afraid of drugs and its effects to see the long term benefits of this program. To be honest I can’t think of an agreeable alternative; banning drugs will only make them more valuable thus spiking demand so that probably isn’t a good solution.
Personally, I can see both sides of the argument. To your point, establishing SIFs may normalize drug use and perhaps even encourage the use of such substances. On the other hand, although it may seem counterintuitive that enabling addicts may help them, if those who are addicted are already going to be using regardless of whether there are SIFs or not, establishing SIFs could help to prevent overdoses and drug related deaths. If SIFs are supplemented with advice and resources to help curb addiction instead of wholly enabling them, I think the idea of SIFs is worth exploring. Especially for those who may not have access to resources to help with their addiction, providing a safe space under the watch of medical professionals seems like a good idea. I understand why some residents are worried about crime, however SIFs would probably reduce the number of needles lying around in public places and drug use in public. Because the nature of SIFs is so counterintuitive and controversial, I’m not sure if it would ever be given the chance to be implemented, however if more research and trial runs are produced, SIFs may become more feasible.
Likewise to Olivia, I can see both sides of the argument. Having little facilities for safe injections are indeed very helpful, and can promote and maintain a safe use of drugs. Having people not share needles, and not overdose is a good idea, and can lead to a safe environment. This will drastically lower the number of deaths relating to drugs, and SIF sites can also allow areas to be more sanitary and clean. On the other hand, I see the other argument and I understand the points the other side is trying to argue. The establishments of SiF sites can instead promote drug use and can advocate new drug users to use drugs as it would be a safer method. Drug dealers can become more successful, and people might sway their careers to drug dealing instead of something more usual. Moreover, agreeing to what Theo said, this would also sway people from rehabilitation, and could actually fuel their drug addiction even more.
Post a Comment