“Safe injection sites” are not a valid response to the Opioid Crisis it will defeat the purpose of treatment for people looking to end their addiction. If someone is an opioid drug addict, treatment to end the addiction would not be more appealing than going to an injection site to get high without prosecution. If addiction to opioid drugs is such a hard thing to stop, then it should not be promoted in any way. The fact that safe injection sites exist should be against the law in some way. If having possession of a drug is illegal, then going to a safe injection site should be illegal. Opioid addiction is a decision, when someone does an opioid drug they are not only breaking the law, but they are putting their life and possibly other people’s …show more content…
The only things that will make someone want stop doing an addictive drug is if it affects their everyday life, if it affects their appearance, or if they are likely to die from it. Safe injection sites would eliminate two of those three things, leaving only their appearance. Safe injection sites will keep them from dying, and it will not affect their everyday life other than taking the time to go to the injection site. Bringing safe injection sites to the United States will not have the same results as in other countries because the United States and its population is like no other country in the world. People in the United States are influenced by not only their peers, but what is available to them; people here think more along the lines of, “what can I get away with without getting caught”. Safe injection sites are not the answer to fighting addiction in the United States, as Dr. Brian Johnson said, “Safe injection sites are yet another proposal that would have the government subsidize the addictive drug industry. “ ("Opioid Crisis." CQ Researcher, 7 Oct. 2016, pp. 817-840. CQ Researcher, pro cons paragraph 4). This means that the government would fund the safe injection sites, which is more money the taxpayers have to pay. Paying people to be present when opioid drug addicts do an illegal drug contradicts everything …show more content…
Also, simply increasing the number of addiction treatment centers around the United States would likely get people help with their addiction. There are people who want to end their addiction, and there are people who do not want to end their addiction. The American people should not try and help the people who do not want help because if they are forced to get help or forced to go to a treatment center. When someone gets out of the treatment center they can go back to doing drugs again. Then, it is their choice and the American people’s time and money wasted. People who die from Opioid drug addiction are also people who disobeyed the law by illegally purchasing the drug, and put themselves at risk from the
In previous years, the government has not made great efforts toward stopping opioid addiction (Global). With the vast amount of deaths, over 183,000 since 1999, and dependencies, it would be foolish for the government to not address this (Jones).
This is being done in hopes to decrease the number of overdose deaths that are occurring in West Virginia. The law does have restrictions. Those who buy naloxone OTC must be trained by a pharmacist on how to recognize an overdose, when to administer the antidote, and how to properly inject or inhale the drug. Pharmacies must also provide educational material telling customers how and where to access treatment programs (Brown, A., Para. 1, 2016). West Virginia being the number one state in overdose deaths, I personally believe that it is a good decision to pass this law. However, I think people should be trained properly on how to administer, when to administer, what to do, what signs to look for and how to respond. Narcan is a life savior and it should be readily available over the counter. Just because they have addiction or uses drug, they don’t deserve to die. If there is already a drug to save someone’s lives, why not use it. It is ridiculous how expensive the drug cost compared to other countries. Lower class and middle class people cannot afford to buy a drug for 500 to 600 dollars. I think it is a control by the big drug industries to make more money but being greedy is just hurting everyone. If country like Australia and Canada can sell cheap as a dollar, how come it costs 500-600 dollars in USA. People have stereotype belief that only druggies gets overdosed. However, it is not true. Older people who sometimes forget what medicines they took, light weight people who had never taken any drugs when started on pain medicines because of accidents or even though if it is overdose by someone trying to get high, saving life is a miracle. With the scientific achievement, people can make clone, skin graft, synthetic valves or many ways to save or repair human body, but no one can bring a soul back to a dead body. Many people doesn’t get overdosed to kill
By providing clean needles to drug addicts, are we causing another issue such as increased drug
Semaan, S., Fleming, P., Worrell, C., Stolp, H., Baack, B., & Miller, M. (2011). Potential role of safer injection facilities in reducing HIV and Hepatitis C infections and overdose mortality in the United States. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 118, 100-110.
After considering both parts of the issues I am all for methadone treatment and am about 50% on board for the needle exchange. For example, the needle exchange benefits people who get pierced benefit because the piercers must also use sterile needles even if this is not for drug use. But, at the same time needle exchange doesn’t necessarily reduce the spread of HIV and in the long run I don’t think that it’s worth it to showcase needle exchange as the top preventer of the transmittance of HIV. I am all for methadone treatment because of the fact that opiates are extremely hard to get off and at least this way it is proven that the addicts can at least try to assimilate themselves back into normal living if that is their wish.
Almost one hundred years ago, prescription drugs like morphine were available at almost any general store. Women carried bottles of very addictive potent opiate based pain killers in their purse. Many individuals like Edgar Allen Poe died from such addictions. Since that time through various federal, state and local laws, drugs like morphine are now prescription drugs; however, this has not stopped the addiction to opiate based pain killers. Today’s society combats an ever increasing number of very deadly addictive drugs from designer drugs to narcotics to the less potent but equally destructive alcohol and marijuana. With all of these new and old drugs going in and out of vogue with addicts, it appears that the increase of misuse and abuse is founded greater in the prescription opiate based painkillers.
An issue that prevents communities from allowing needle exchange programs is that they assume that it will cause more drug use in the community and that it is acceptable to use drugs as said in this article, “A lot of people seem to believe that if they allow a needle exchange program to operate in their community that they will see huge increases in the number of used syringes
Opioid’s chemical composition consist of many highly addictive substances which cause the human body to become quickly tolerant. Many opioid users become addictive to the substance because the doctors have been over prescribing. “In the United States, there were 14,800 annual prescribed opioid (PO) deaths in 2008” with the US having less restrictions (Fischer, Benedikt, et al 178). The United States have implemented more regulations so that “high levels of PO-related harms been associated with highly potent oxycodone formulas” will decrease (Fischer, Benedikt, et al 178). With the regulations, it does not change the fact that opioids are is destructive. The regulations assistance by lessening the probability of patients becoming addictive to opioid. There are numerous generations that are effected and harmed by the detrimental effects of opioids on opioid-dependent patients.
For instance, Canada is on the verge of closing the dangerous in-site injection facility in Vancouver and reallocating funds to traditional inpatient treatment—real treatment that promotes eventual abstinence. One can conclude that the effectiveness of harm reduction is a very questionable topic as not only does it aid in offender substance abuse, but at what cost. The topic of harm reduction provokes a deeper thought, what happened to prevention methods and what about them is not working?
By implementing such a program, the American population can use its money and resources to combat the problem through the legal system. Legalization will decrease violent crime associated with drug dealers, it will decrease the number of users and will lower the wasteful cost associated with the current system. Such legalization will not destroy our youth in any way and will only be accessible to adults in the country. If we continue with our current system, we will never solve the problem. Drug dealers and addicts will crown our prisons and plague our streets.
The public health model differs from traditional health practices, as its focus is on the health of the public instead of one patient. It uses a “3 prong approach to prevention and intervention” “known as the agent, host, and the environment.” This is because threats to public health require a susceptible host, an infectious agent, and a supportive environment that allows the spread of infection. By doing this, professionals are able to develop preventions against issues of public health. This would include teaching children to say no to drugs at a young age in order to prevent addiction in the future, as they are susceptible hosts to becoming addicts. Also making drugs illegal to keep the agent from being accessible to people who could become addicts. The approach is useful in all areas of public health, and has been proven to intervene in the likeliness that something will become
Before diving into the ethical issues related to harm reduction, it is necessary to attempt to define the concept. As William Miller (2008) writes, “The term ‘harm reduction’ describes a public health approach intended to reduce risks and adverse consequences of behavioral choices” (p. 41). Examples of this policy include needle exchange programs for heroin addicts, the limiting of alcohol sale in certain stores, the banning of smoking in public places, and supervised injection rooms (Fry, Treloar, & Maher, 2005). While the concept has been largely used as a type of public policy (Kleinig, 2008), it has begun to move into the individual practice arena, with profes...
About 23.5 million Americans are addicted to alcohol and drugs. But only 11 percent of those with an addiction receiving treatment. Only a few of the people get help and get better, but the ones who do not receive treatment most likely go back to prison. There 's kids 12 years old and older that are addicted . They need to help all these people get better and get drugs out of the streets.
The Journal of Neuroscience Dobler-Mikola, A. Gschwed, P. Gutzwiller, F. Steffen, T. Rehm, J. Uch engagen, A. Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy of Injectable Heroin Prescription for Refractory Opioid Addicts: a follow-up study. The Lancet, volume 358, pg. 1417-1420. Everitt, B. Robbins, T. (1999) Drug addiction: bad habits add up. Macmillian Magazines, volume 389, pg.
There are many other options and treatment plans for people to consider before handing their life over to drugs. Drugs are not meant to be legalized without proper information and education about the drug for the public. Educational programs in the school system are a way of teaching the youth of how harmful these substances are. Even though some may be effective in treating pain, there are long-term side effects associated with these drugs that people need to consider. Pain is inevitable and suffering is