Supervised Heroin Injections

What a great use of tax dollars, lets help people inject ‘safely’.

[i]
SAN FRANCISCO - City health officials took steps Thursday toward opening the nation�??s first legal safe-injection room, where addicts could shoot up heroin, cocaine and other drugs under the supervision of nurses.

Hoping to reduce San Francisco�??s high rate of fatal drug overdoses, the public health department co-sponsored a symposium on the only such facility in North America, a 4-year-old Vancouver site where an estimated 700 users a day self-administer narcotics under the supervision of nurses.

�??Having the conversation today will help us figure out whether this is a way to reduce the harms and improve the health of our community,�?? said Grant Colfax, director of HIV prevention for the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

Organizers of the daylong forum, which also included a coalition of nonprofit health and social-service groups, acknowledge that it could take years to get an injection facility up and running. Along with legal hurdles, such an effort would be almost sure to face political opposition.

Bertha Madras, deputy director of demand reduction for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, called San Francisco�??s consideration of such a facility �??disconcerting�?? and �??poor public policy.�??

�??The underlying philosophy is, �??We accept drug addiction, we accept the state of affairs as acceptable,�??�?? Madras said. �??This is a form of giving up.�??

Sixty-five similar facilities exist in 27 cities in eight countries, but no other U.S. cities have considered creating one, according to Hilary McQuie, Western director for the Harm Reduction Coalition, a nonprofit that promotes alternative drug treatment methods.

�??If it happens anywhere in the U.S., it will most likely start in San Francisco,�?? McQuie said. �??It really just depends on if there is a political will here. How long it takes for that political will to develop is the main factor.�??

Drug overdoses represented about one of every seven emergency calls handled by city paramedics between July 2006 and July 2007, according to San Francisco Fire Department Capt. Niels Tangherlini. At the same time, the number of deaths linked to overdoses has declined from a high of about 160 in 1995 to 40 in 2004, he said.

Colfax estimated that there are between 11,000 and 15,000 intravenous drug users in San Francisco, most of them homeless men. Like many large U.S. cities, the city operates a clean-needle exchange program to reduce HIV and hepatitis C infections.

Advocates plan to work on building community support for a safe-injection center, including backing from Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors.

While it�??s too early to tell what the room in San Francisco would look like, Vancouver�??s InSite program is located on the upper floor of a low-rise building in a downtown neighborhood where drug users shoot up in the open.

The site, exempt from federal drug laws so users can visit without fear of arrest, has 12 private booths where addicts inject drugs such as heroin, cocaine or crystal. They can use equipment and techniques provided by the staff, said Thomas Kerr, a University of British Columbia researcher who has extensively studied the program.

While 800 overdoses have occurred on the premises, Kerr said, none of them resulted in death because of the medical supervision provided at InSite. His research also has shown an increase in addicts seeking drug treatment and a decrease in abandoned syringes, needle-sharing, drug-related crime and other problems since the clinic opened, he said.

The results indicate the idea is worth replicating, despite the criticism it may attract, Kerr said.

�??I prefer the approach of the Vancouver Police Department, which was: �??We don�??t like the idea of this, but let�??s look at the evidence and at the end of three years we will tell you either this is something we can support or it�??s something we can�??t support,�??�?? he said.
[/i]

Gotta get that WMD! lol…

Will they be testing the drugs too? Supervision doesn’t mean anything if some junkie comes in with some coke or her-on that’s mixed improperly/too potent.

San Francisco’s liberal drug policies are already responsible for their high rate of fatal overdoses.

I am for the legalization/decriminalization of some drugs but these harder drugs are illegal for good reason.

These people should be treated for their drug addiction, not coddled.

I think this could be a great idea with a few minor modifications…

Specifically, they could bar the windows and once the place is full of addicts, slam the door shut and bolt it. Suddenly they have a packed detox facility!

[quote]tedro wrote:

Bertha Madras, deputy director of demand reduction for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, called San Francisco�??s consideration of such a facility �??disconcerting�?? and �??poor public policy.�??

�??The underlying philosophy is, �??We accept drug addiction, we accept the state of affairs as acceptable,�??�?? Madras said. �??This is a form of giving up.�??
[/quote]

Kind of like how the federal govt accepts tobacco addiction and alcohol abuse? Cmon, I dont for a second believe that lighting up on the weekends or knocking back a few every so often is equivalent to hard drugs, but responses like madras’ just dont foster any kind of dialogue. And dialogue is whats needed since ACTIONS arent working

Always great shit going on in Scum Fransisco.

Would you not consider it a social obligation for the (in this case, State) government to do everything within its realm to prevent untimely death?

You should, because it’s law. Therefore helping junkies not kill themselves, however blasphemous and illogical may be the method, is not in itself wrong.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
San Francisco’s liberal drug policies are already responsible for their high rate of fatal overdoses.

I am for the legalization/decriminalization of some drugs but these harder drugs are illegal for good reason.

These people should be treated for their drug addiction, not coddled.[/quote]

Agreed, with the exception that I couldn’t give a shit less about the junkies.

[quote]Contrl wrote:
Would you not consider it a social obligation for the (in this case, State) government to do everything within its realm to prevent untimely death?

You should, because it’s law. Therefore helping junkies not kill themselves, however blasphemous and illogical may be the method, is not in itself wrong.[/quote]

Law doesn’t = right, law just = law. If junkies want to go OD on heroin then good for them. It shouldn’t be the taxpayers obligation to save people from themselves. It’s a shame that people now see the government as mom and dad who’s there to bail them out whenever you do something stupid.

People may not like these types of measures, but there is some evidence to suggest that programs like these may lead to a net reduction in the negative impact of drug addiction on society as a whole. I can’t say that I really care much about the people in question, but I’m open to any bits of pragmatism which can make them less of a problem for the rest of us.

I like my injections to be unsupervised.

But seriously,

[quote]
Drug overdoses represented about one of every seven emergency calls handled by city paramedics between July 2006 and July 2007, according to San Francisco Fire Department Capt. Niels Tangherlini. At the same time, the number of deaths linked to overdoses has declined from a high of about 160 in 1995 to 40 in 2004, he said.[/quote]

And how much does this cost? Since the death rate went down, the level of care must have gone up (or other factors, if someone has some input I would gladly retract that). I would be willing to bet that the safe injection room is less costly than medical treatment.

It’s a problem that is not going to go away and we might as well minimize the financial impact.

[quote]etaco wrote:
People may not like these types of measures, but there is some evidence to suggest that programs like these may lead to a net reduction in the negative impact of drug addiction on society as a whole. I can’t say that I really care much about the people in question, but I’m open to any bits of pragmatism which can make them less of a problem for the rest of us.[/quote]

Precisely. I really don’t care about saving their lives, but if it costs less to do it anyway then hey, free bonus.

This doesn’t surprise me coming from SF but we already pay taxes to support methadone clinics in many states.

This is just enabling junkies. By making hard drugs less risky, you make it easier for them to continue with their addiction.

Some say these people need treatment, but the cold reality is most of these guys don’t make it. They go to treatment to get out of being homeless or what ever situation there is. Once they get out, their using again. Its best to wait till they truly have the desire to change or as AA would put it “willing to go threw any means possible to recover”

Most of these guys could go into the Salvation army, AA, or NA but they choose not to because they are incapable of being honest with themselves or others. Some people are just hopeless. Sounds cold, I know but it’s the truth.

I cant wait to get addicted to heroin…

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
I cant wait to get addicted to heroin…[/quote]

Come out to SF and stop by one of the city shoot galleries. Plenty of guys there to show you where to hook up. Heroin is great for stress. It also has thermogenic properties to help you burn fat.

How is it our job to help people who are purposefully breaking the law? So they don’t die? So what if they die, they’re dying doing something they shouldn’t be doing in the first place and they’re well aware of the risks. Their death will only improve the overall economy.

[quote]JonP wrote:
Contrl wrote:
Would you not consider it a social obligation for the (in this case, State) government to do everything within its realm to prevent untimely death?

You should, because it’s law. Therefore helping junkies not kill themselves, however blasphemous and illogical may be the method, is not in itself wrong.

Law doesn’t = right, law just = law. If junkies want to go OD on heroin then good for them. It shouldn’t be the taxpayers obligation to save people from themselves. It’s a shame that people now see the government as mom and dad who’s there to bail them out whenever you do something stupid.[/quote]

I completely agree, but to piss and cry about it isn’t going to stop anybody. I’m entirely for smaller government myself, but when it comes to complaining about state-level spending, it’s an uphill battle if the other person has the law behind them.

[quote]fireplug52 wrote:
I like my injections to be unsupervised.

But seriously,

Drug overdoses represented about one of every seven emergency calls handled by city paramedics between July 2006 and July 2007, according to San Francisco Fire Department Capt. Niels Tangherlini. At the same time, the number of deaths linked to overdoses has declined from a high of about 160 in 1995 to 40 in 2004, he said.

And how much does this cost? Since the death rate went down, the level of care must have gone up (or other factors, if someone has some input I would gladly retract that). I would be willing to bet that the safe injection room is less costly than medical treatment.

It’s a problem that is not going to go away and we might as well minimize the financial impact.[/quote]

I am not sure how the injection room would have any impact on overdoses unless there are nurses measuring the dosage and giving the injections. It saves transporting the junkie to the hospital.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
fireplug52 wrote:
I like my injections to be unsupervised.

But seriously,

Drug overdoses represented about one of every seven emergency calls handled by city paramedics between July 2006 and July 2007, according to San Francisco Fire Department Capt. Niels Tangherlini. At the same time, the number of deaths linked to overdoses has declined from a high of about 160 in 1995 to 40 in 2004, he said.

And how much does this cost? Since the death rate went down, the level of care must have gone up (or other factors, if someone has some input I would gladly retract that). I would be willing to bet that the safe injection room is less costly than medical treatment.

It’s a problem that is not going to go away and we might as well minimize the financial impact.

I am not sure how the injection room would have any impact on overdoses unless there are nurses measuring the dosage and giving the injections. It saves transporting the junkie to the hospital.
[/quote]

That was my understanding, but if that’s not the case then I question what the point would be.

This is simply enabling and the potential ruin of a community (depending on where the place is located).

SF is just fucked and tumbling downhill head over heels. They get to OD and then see the light of another day which they don’t deserve the privilege of.