North America’s first safe injection facility, InSite, was opened in Vancouver in 2003, and was greeted by a storm of controversy. Those opposed to such sites argue forcefully that providing addicts with a place to use drugs is encouraging their behavior, and lessens the likelihood of recovery. Increasingly common diseases and infections, such as HIV/AIDS is another worry for those against these facilities. They assert that if intravenous drugs are a main cause of these health problems, then the government should not be providing users with the means to spread them. Still others fear the effect safe injection sites will have on the neighborhoods in which they are established, claiming there will be an increase in violence and crime in the area. Addicts driven by addiction will often go to extreme lengths to feed their habit. These are certainly valid concerns, however, safe injections sites have been proven to do far more good than harm. When considering the pros and cons of safe injections sites, the positive effects these facilities have on the community safety, disease risk, and recovery rate must be considered.
While those against safe injection spots hold that they are a risk to the community, these programs, in fact, do quite the opposite. In a survey of 1,082 injection drug users, 71% reported that because of safe injection sites, they were not shooting up outside, and 56% said they were no longer disposing of dirty needles unsafely (Winnipeg Free Press, 2006). We must look at the big picture. While it is true that the existence of such sites do attract users to one particular location, the negative effects on the community of an open drug scene are very much reduced. By providing a place for drug addicts to go, the rest of the area is made much safer. Addicts no longer hang out outside of local businesses, or leave their used needles in children’s playgrounds, a danger I am sure we would all like to see diminished. Also, with these junkies more localized in just one place, they are more easily monitored by health professionals who can provide help in emergencies, and by the police who are able prevent acts of violence. The provision of kits containing needles, etc, decreases the amount of crime in a given area, as users are not as likely to be forced to go to extreme lengths to get money for materials. Clearly, the result of having safe places to use drugs is having a positive effect on communities.
Along with worrying about the danger to the community, those opposed to government funded injection sites fear the spread of disease, however the reverse is true. Often lacking in money and driven by desperation, junkies will re-use needles or perform sex acts for drug money, but a safe environment providing clean equipment helps to prevent these blood borne diseases from spreading. HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C, the diseases of most notable concern, are both transmitted through body fluids. Therefore using a needle previously used by an infected person can be deadly, as his or her blood is coming in contact with the blood of someone who is uninfected. The job of safe injection programs is to provide new needles to drug users in an attempt to prevent the spread of these sicknesses is such a manner. They also educate their clients about how diseases, such as AIDS, are spread and what they can do to prevent contracting them. Pamphlets and educational videos are available, teaching how vaginal, oral, and anal sex are all possible mediums for infection, and condoms are available for those who need them. Dr. Evan Wood, one of the chief people involved in the study mentioned above, said, “HIV rates have also come down in the drug-riddled Downtown Eastside [of Vancouver] since InSite opened. That means health-care costs have been reduced because it costs taxpayers $250,000 to treat each person infected with the virus” (Winnipeg Free Press, 2006). Drug addicts who are educated and properly equipped are much less likely to contract an infectious disease than their peers who are without such a refuge.
There are those who think providing a safe place to for addicts to use drugs is like giving them permission to continue their addiction; however the availability of health care and support in these facilities increases the probability for recovery. The study conducted by Dr. Evan Wood found that out of the 1,082 addicts surveyed, 75% claimed the safe injection facility had positively changed their injecting behavior (Winnipeg Free Press, 2006). Instead of being out on the street alone and without resources, intravenous drug users find help and support in government safe injection programs. To some, it is a beacon of hope in a desperate time. Centers for safe drug injections do not merely hand out needles, but also provide services such as free health care, counseling, and group therapy for those looking for a way out of their addiction. There is also residential treatment available, where those in recovery find safe and protected living arrangements that are substance-free. This treatment is intensive (about 28-50 days long) and is aimed at reintegrating former addicts into society. While it may be true that drug addicts find using drugs easier with a safe injection site, it is impossible for them to go there and no be offered support and help to get better. When they decided it’s time to step away from their addiction, instead of feeling hopeless and trapped, they know where to go and are provided with the means to achieve their goals. These programs will even help to find recovered addicts homes and jobs when they are ready. The encouragement and provision of these safe injection centers empowers an otherwise hopeless group of people, looked down upon by the rest of society, and gives them the ability to defeat their demons.
It seems clear that safe injection sites are affecting drug users and the communities in which they live for the better. The facilities attract addicts from the surrounding area and keep them in a more centralized location where monitoring their behavior is easier. Here they are also less likely to put others in dangerous situations by leaving their used needles in public areas or lashing out violently at passerbys when under the influence. The assistance these sites provide reduces the spread of disease by teaching practices that reduce risk of infection, as well as medical support in the event of an overdose or other emergency. In addition, the services available to addicts looking to recover are free, easily accessible, and proven to work. Due to a constant lack of funding, such centers are at risk of shutting down. In such an event, “there will be a backlash in Vancouver when we go back to the same patterns of needles in store fronts and people injecting in public in the tourist areas of Gastown that British Columbia will probably not tolerate it for that long” (Winnipeg Free Press, 2006). This is because safe injection sites have become such a necessary part of public health, providing an essential service to intravenous drug addicts, who are otherwise in a hopeless situation.
