In fact, I can't find a single study showcasing safe injection sites as a tax payer burden, nor can I find a study showcasing increased overdoses in surrounding areas, nor can I find studies of increased crime.
I will even go so far as to say, I understand the NIMBY argument. I don't line the tent cities in Seattle and would rather they were not there. I would even agree with, "don't put these facilities in city centers, put these facilities in isolated remote locations with free transport to and from". Ideally, also colocate shelters, housing first (a debate for another day), and rehab in those remote areas.
That said, the location of these facilities is a reasonable thing to debate, there are pros and cons to putting them in city centers, but please let's end the fallacy that "safe injection sites are a tax payer burden", when all of the data showcases otherwise.
> Overdoses that happen at the sites are overdoses that don't happen on the street.
The problem is we're continuing to encourage open air street usage of drugs (for example by giving out bags of needles). For safe consumption sites to be accepted, that should stop.
Additionally, it helps to have more frequent cleanups of trash around the site, giving local residents a hotline, more regular police patrols of the surrounding blocks, etc.
European countries have different systems in place. Some of them, you can actually get drugs prescribed by a doctor. This is more sensible than relying on the "market" to provide drugs.
> The problem is we're continuing to encourage open air street usage of drugs
Ok, so we agree. We need safe injection sites to get any and all usage off the streets.
> it helps to have more frequent cleanups of trash around the site, giving local residents a hotline, more regular police patrols of the surrounding blocks, etc.
Cool, so we agree. We need to ensure amazing execution of safe injection sites.
> Some of them, you can actually get drugs prescribed by a doctor. This is more sensible than relying on the "market" to provide drugs.
I’m not sure what you mean by “market” here. In this thread we were talking about the state sponsoring free drugs for consumption at safe injection sites. There is no “market”.
Overdoses that happen at the sites are overdoses that don't happen on the street.
More studies:
- https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/2734/...
- https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2022/0500/p454.html
- https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2015435
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34218964/
More articles:
- https://psmag.com/economics/how-supervised-injection-sites-c...
- [Highly Recommended] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/09/07/6456092...
In fact, I can't find a single study showcasing safe injection sites as a tax payer burden, nor can I find a study showcasing increased overdoses in surrounding areas, nor can I find studies of increased crime.
The only articles against, that I've found are 1. religious/moral arguments; 2. "We need more data", "studies aren't robust enough" 3. NIMBY arguments like this(https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/safe-injec...).
I will even go so far as to say, I understand the NIMBY argument. I don't line the tent cities in Seattle and would rather they were not there. I would even agree with, "don't put these facilities in city centers, put these facilities in isolated remote locations with free transport to and from". Ideally, also colocate shelters, housing first (a debate for another day), and rehab in those remote areas.
That said, the location of these facilities is a reasonable thing to debate, there are pros and cons to putting them in city centers, but please let's end the fallacy that "safe injection sites are a tax payer burden", when all of the data showcases otherwise.