Safe Injection Sites

safe injection sites

So much for saving lives by decriminalizing drugs and funding safe injection sites. That, of course, was the political and sentimental argument for creating these sites. The Economist makes this claim:

The aim was to contain open-air drug markets and combat diseases spread by dirty needles. Since then, dozens more have opened across the continent (by 2018, the Netherlands led the way with 31 sites in 25 cities). Most offer clean needles and have medical staff on hand to treat those who have overdosed on heroin with naloxone, which temporarily reduces the drug’s effect on the brain and kick-starts breathing. 

The Economist

As a long-time skeptic of their steady influx across our country, I read this latest news with frustration and dismay.

Vancouver News

CTV News, Vancouver claims it’s not just fentanyl anymore in this article after British Columbia recently set the record for the most overdoses in one day.

Pierre Poilievevre has my support on this Twitter stance. His suggestions make much more sense than the status quo that’s obviously not very effective:

Conclusions for Safe Injection Sites

I believe by enabling addicts with (so-called) safe, supervised sites to shoot up illicit drugs, albeit with clean needles, we are instead helping them dig their own graves. Instead of fixing/treating the underlying problem (addiction), we are helping the addicted get more/remain addicted. Does that make any sense? I would much rather subsidize (with our taxes) rehabilitation and treatment centers so addicts could someday become integrated into healthy and stable contributors to our society.

Where do you stand on this issue?