Who Can Claim the Voice of Reason?

With the controversial nature of the safe injection sites (SIS), it can be expected that there will be as strong an opposition as there is advocacy. These conflicting opinions take on two different frames, one consisting mainly of morality and the other from a harm reduction perspective as well as a being fed up with the failure of current “war on drugs” type policy.

First, in support of the SIS there are a plethora of experts including Dr. John Collins, the coordinator of the London School of Economics’ International Drug Policy Project, Dr. Rick Lines, head of Harm Reduction International, Dr. Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of Drug Policy Alliance, and Tony Duffin, the director of the Ana Liffey Drug Project. All of these men have asserted that the program is a step in the right direction, is cost effective, and a welcome approach after the abysmal failure of prohibition type legislation. There is support for the measure on account of precedent set by other countries and their success with the programs, such as Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. At the site in Vancouver, Canada, their operating costs are $3 million, with conservative estimates of 3 deaths and 35 new cases of HIV prevented a year, saving over $6 million. This is a benefit- cost ratio of 5.12:1.

However, there is strident criticism of the effectiveness of SISs in general from Drug Free Australia and of Ireland’s proposed SISs in particular from Grainne Kenny, former president of Europe Against Drugs. Drug Free Australia makes the argument that the cost of running the centers is not worth the “handful of lives saved.” This is in addition to criticism of the role of SISs in reducing public injection in Sydney, attributing it to tougher law enforcement and reduction in heroin supply. Kenny asserts that this will not solve the problem and the focus needs to be on prevention and getting people off the drugs.

In addition to the numbers being set against the assertion of Drug Free Australia that the centers are not cost effective, it is abhorrent that they would dismiss the lives saved. Overdoses, and deaths by overdose, overburden the health care system and cause untold damage on the families of those affected. In addition, preventing new HIV cases mean 35 people who will not be able to spread HIV, resulting in an exponential effect. In addition to the cruelty of such a statement, it just is not true. Also, the role of the SIS is not confined to these functions, it also reaches a marginalized community (especially the homeless), connects them to resources, and works to normalize treating addiction as a health issue not a criminal issue as well as working to change the societal stigma attached to addiction. Kenny’s assertions are also flawed. They align with decades of drug policy that simply is not working. The SISs are not a cure all, but they are a huge step in the right direction.

Works Cited

Andresen, Boyd N. "A Cost-benefit and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Vancouver's Supervised Injection Facility." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.

"International Experts Back Irish Drug Injection Centre Plan." TheJournalie. Journal Media Ltd, 21 Sept. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.

"Should There Be a Safe Place for People to Shoot Heroin?" Dublin Inquirer. Dublin Inquirer, 25 Aug. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2016