Government in Canada should continue to fund and support supervised drug-injection sites - Research Paper Example

Government in Canada should continue to fund and support supervised drug-injection sites Supervised injection sites are medically administered and legally authorized facilities designed to lessen pain from public drug use and to provide a clean, sterile and peaceful environment for illicit drug users, counseling and information related to drugs and health care and rehabilitation referrals. (RCMP, 1969) Safe injection sites remain controversial that whether this is the right way to tackle the problem of excessive use of drugs. Researches have revealed that they have a positive impact on drug users and for community that includes harmful aspect of drug usage (spread of disease, overdose risk), and for society it is beneficial to the extent that it tends to reduce drug related crimes and public exposure to these hard drugs. Public has gained awareness regarding the treatment and safe use of the drugs (RCMP, 1969). Patients of these facilities are called “off the street” users hence decreasing public use. Patients here are forced to use sterilized syringes therefore minimizing the danger of spread of disease from one addict to another. Another benefit from this facility is that they allow their users to enter into a Detox program. The facility prevents patient frm overdosing and even if they do they are under supervision and good health care. (RCMP, 1969) Vancouver’s Insite was the first supervised injection sites in North America. It was set up in 2003 to serve the injection drug users in large number. They serve by providing sterilized needles and a hygienic place for the drug addicts to use hard drugs. The room in Insite consists of 12 booths where nurses assist you to find vein and inject properly under medical supervision. Nurses further help patients to filter drugs so that they can avoid overdoses. They provide health facilities to the homeless and sufferers.400 overdoses have been reported in the clinic but none died. Counselors are present to help patients who want to change their lives. Vancouver’s Insite has 275,000 visitors yearly costing federal government around $500,000 in addition to budget allocated provincially. (Anthony, 2006) The Canadian Expert Advisory Committee in 2008 evaluation of Insite concluded that each year 108 lives are saved by the facility. Drug Free Australia declares that the European Monitoring Centre EMCDDA technique, applied with Canadian assumptions and data give way to the same findings. Canadian heroin deaths in 2002-3 was almost the same as Australia’s (958 fatality from over 80,000 marginalized heroin users) and death percentages for 2006-07, according to Drug Free Australia has been changed drastically. Furthermore, Expert Advisory Committee assumes that a typical Canadian heroin addict injects 4 times in a day so 100 Canadian heroin addicts would collectively inject 146,000 times in a year. Insite would turn away the fatality of the one injection in 146,000 injections which would most likely be fatal. (Popova, 2006) Insite was given a constitutional exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in 2003, by the liberal Government permitting the customers and the workers to stay away from criminal offenses while working at or availing the facility. Health Canada provided financial support to the program evaluating it as a pilot scheme in harm reduction. This exemption expired in 2008 where the conservative government refused to extend the exemption from the act. Health Minister Tony Clement argued that the safe injection sites are diversions from treatment. (Anthony, 2006) The Supreme Court in September 2011 announced that Vancouver's Insite can stay open. The court stated that it would be a violation to the Charter of Right and Freedom if they don’t allow the Insite clinics to operate. Order was passed for the Federal Minister of health to grant an exemption from Controlled Drugs and Substances Act immediately. The Supreme Court was convinced by proof that drug addicts are significantly safer managing their injections in medical observation rather than acquiring and inserting hard drugs on the roads of the city. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin stated that “the benefit of insite has been proved. During its eight years of operation in Canada no negative or harmful impact has been observed on the health objective and public safety”. ( Pearshouse, 2007) Safe injection sites argue that by providing the illicit users a facility where illicit drugs can be safely injected, under medical care supervision, mainly overlook the criminal act. Research revealed that Insite will save a $14 million from the health care system over ten-year period, and the deadly overdoses of drugs in the area surrounding Insite has reduced by 35percent in 2 years. BC’s Provincial Health Officer is planning expansion of safe injection sites into clinics. ( Weinstein, 2009) Supporters of Supervised injection sites argue that these sites save lives, saves money and lessen the sharing of equipments and spread of disease. Since 2003, no overdose deaths have been seen in Insite. According to the published paper in lancet, within 500 meters of the clinic, fatal overdoses have reduced by 35 percent since the clinic is in operation. (Weinstein, 2009) Supporters further believe that the site serves as a bridge to healing and treatment. They enhance the access of treatment to common people. Insite is visualized as a four-pillar method namely: harm reduction, prevention, treatment and enforcement. Insite allow its patients to join other services be it drug related treatment or dental services. (RCMP, 1969) Supervised injection site helps public health care and enlarged community. Many papers published on the issue concluded that the clinics including Insite has lead to a decrease in drug related offense, has proved to be a positive power for those seeking opportunity to discontinue the drug use and has also proved to lower public injections. After the establishment of the clinics’, researches have shown remarkable decrease in acts like needle sharing, HIV injections etc. The provincial government in struggle to keep Insite open argues that millions of addicts died unnecessarily on streets before Insite was set up. (Weinstein, 2009 ) Insite has directed to reduce public syringe and public injection disposal, physical attacks and robbery, minimal increase in drug trafficking, and a decrease in vehicle snatching in the vicinity of the Insite clinic. Insite has not only helped the drug addicts but is helping by making the neighborhood safe as well. ( Pearshouse, 2007) Few other steps need to be associated with the harm reduction program for drug users. It includes drug awareness in colleges, public services and hospitals. There should be strict tax policies in order to stop usage of drugs. Enforced programs and voluntary actions to quit drugs and police and policy intervention to allow drug usage in particular places. ( Pearshouse, 2007) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS agreed to the researches that demonstrate the “positive impacts” and “benefits” of the safe injection sites. The cops with red uniform supported the set up of the supervised safe injection sites. (RCMP, 1969) The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition (CDPC), “a new drug reform umbrella group”, has launched its website last month which enlists several Canada’s leading drug policy experts which includes public health officials, researchers, front-line harm reduction and treatment providers, people who use drugs, youth organizations, parents, HIV/AIDS service organizations, community members and all those who are concerned with the health and safety outcomes of Canadian drug strategies. This coalition is being headed by the former head of “Vancouver’s ground breaking Four Pillars approach to the drug problem”, Donald Macpherson. This coalition intends to grow and introduce a public health and human rights perspective on drug policy in Canada. They are of the opinion that “how public health oriented regulation of alcohol, tobacco, prescription and illegal substances can better reduce the harms that result both from substance use and substance regulation than current approaches”. (Marcel, 2008) I agree with Holmes, member of coalition, when he says that "People routinely get put in jail for conduct related to active drug addictions, but the criminal justice system is hardly a surrogate for medical care. It is plain that we have inadequate treatment and detox available for people with addictions to help them cope, recover or quit," noted Holmes. "By making cannabis taboo, our society both prohibits and makes more alluring its use. It is, of course, widely used. But instead of recognizing that and taxing it like tobacco and liquor products, with the tax revenue going to the cost of education and care, we leave the massive profits of this industry to organized crime and leave taxpayers with the bill for police efforts to contain it." The CDPC perceive itself as assisting the dialog, Macpherson said. (Pearshouse, 2007) “Change in the drug policy involves political leadership, though politicians also require support in taking those brave steps, such that when you gather people to talk rationally in a knowledgeable way and get the evidence to put up with, you can then move ahead. It can be seen that regardless of their doubts about safe injection sites or cannabis rule, these are actually sound ways to go that make their society a safe place in the long-run than the way we're going currently," he said. "We're trying to place ourselves as the organization that can assist in finding the response by the help of our expertise and by analyzing what has turned out to be useful and what hasn’t in other jurisdictions, and by calling together people who actually care about these problems to search for solutions that work instead of the same old " (Marcel, 2008) I reckon that supervised drug injection sites must continue to be funded because such an attempt will help endorse: “A health, communal and human rights approach to substance use.” “The significant part harm reduction approaches play” “eliminating the disgrace of criminalization for people who use drugs” “Moving ahead of the existing way to drug prohibition” “A national dialogue on policy on drugs for Canada” ( Pearshouse, 2007) My recommendation has been based on a four-year research conducted by Dr. Ahmed Bayoumi of St. Michael’s Hospital and Dr. Carol Strike of the University of Toronto which clearly endorse the need of supervised drug injection sites which would reduce both, harm to drug users and to the public. Any specific locations were not recommended but they proposed more than one centralized spot, this is what Vancouver has done with its Insite program. The study suggests that it is upon the society in both Toronto and Ottawa to decide when, if and how to continue with the given recommendations (Marcel, 2008). I emphasize on the fact that supervised drug injection sites are more than just a public health and human rights approach. It underlines social and human rights issues as well as talk about alternatives to the failed war on drugs. (Marcel, 2008) In spite of the idea having a lot of positives, it has received criticisms from several conservative circles. Polling signifies that more than 50 percent of Ontarians were in favor of the idea, however only 37 percent said in a survey conducted in 2009 that they strongly opposed it, where as 53 percent people had mixed opinions and 19 percent were opposed. (Marcel, 2008) In a nutshell, supervised drug injected must continue to fund and support supervised drug injection sites such as Insite in Vancouver. They must come out of their conservative mindset to embrace a much better outcome. All the previous methods to drug control have not delivered favorable results. This alternative have proven to reduce harm, minimize stigma of criminalization for people who use drugs and is more than just a ‘drug prohibition’ approach. This will put Canada in to a much better position to put an end to drug abuse and serve community in general. The concept of safe injection sites are based on harm reduction. Instead of just punishing or penalizing wrongdoers, the philosophy emphases on reducing the horrible side effects of illegal activities like drug use. (Marcel, 2008) References Csiernik, Rick. Responding to the oppression of addiction: Canadian social work perspectives. Toronto : Canadian Scholars' Press, 2010. De Sousa, Anthony. Injection drug users' experiences with supervised injection sites. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 2006. Pearshouse, Richard. A helping hand : legal issues related to assisted injection at supervised injection facilities. Toronto, Ont: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2007 Weinstein Tamar. Staying alive: Canada's controversial safe injection site. Toronto, Ont : Canadian Broadcasting Corporation : CBC Learning, 2009. Martel, Marcel. Life before pharmacare : Canadian Health Coalition's hearings into a universal public drug plan. Ottawa, Ont : Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2008 Sanderson, Alicia. Insite As Representation and Regulation: A Discursively-Informed Analysis of the Implementation and Implications of Canada's First Safe Injection Site, 2011 Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969. Popova. An overview of illegal opioid use and health services utilization in Canada. Public Health, 2006. Read More