Drug Policy: Safe Injection Sites (SIS)

Brandon Castillo4, Willard, Alex, just 🙏

Once again, Atlantis has proven just how narrow-minded they are, along with a few others who caught me completely off guard. Treating addicts like the absolute bottom of society—without even considering the million other factors or the actual roots of their addiction—is nothing short of pathetic. As Willard pointed out, not everyone starts with the same willpower, circumstances, or access to information.

And yeah, I’ve dealt with plenty of people hooked on heroin myself; most of them screwed me over for money, and I'm not talking about pocket change. But for God's sake, what then? We absolutely need to work on demystifying addiction here in the States, because from what I've gathered over the last few years, far more people are using heroin than I ever could have imagined in my wildest dreams.

That’s actually one of the points Alex was making. Most of them function perfectly fine; you’d never even guess they were addicted. And honestly, those are exactly the types of people who end up footing the bill for your medical treatments after a car accident or an illness caused by excessive alcohol or nicotine consumption.

A real lovely little group of self-righteous crusaders has popped up here. Truly lovely. I don't even know what else to write on this topic; a few of you have covered it, and Brandon Castillo4 summed it up brilliantly. Addiction is a problem, period, but treating these people like subhuman beings just because they got caught in a grip that's damn hard to break is sick—it's much more twisted than some junkie shaking through withdrawal.

First and foremost, we have to demystify heroin use, because doing that makes it much clearer that it's a serious issue. Every single person hooked on heroin knows it's a nightmare; they just don't know how to get out. By allowing controlled environments for usage, we can take the first step toward fixing the crisis. Seriously, put 100 people in the same room to use, and they’ll feel a much stronger sense of accountability than when they're doing it at home or at a friend's place. Then, the addicts themselves could be the ones sending a powerful message to society: "No."

So, since they already know they're in deep trouble, if we provide the necessary medical and psychological support—along with those other situations Brandon Castillo4 mentioned—this whole thing could actually work quite well.

I haven't slept in about two days. Anyway, I'll jump back into this discussion tomorrow when I'm a bit fresher. 😢

Scarlet Rose said:So, addicts apparently have supercharged immune systems, right? 😁

I’ve never once dealt with an immune system issue, even though I've been using hard stuff for 14 years straight.

amberorca192 said:I have honestly never dealt with an illness that was linked to my immune system, even though I’ve been using hard drugs for fourteen years straight.

The thing is, meth basically wipes out all the bacteria and viruses in your bloodstream, so it makes sense that you usually get sick right when you finally stop using.😬

William White2 said:alcohol wipes out all the bacteria and viruses in your bloodstream, which is why you usually get sick right when you stop hitting it hard😬

Yeah, we've always played it that way. Once the bacteria show up, they're basically like, "screw this, where the hell are we? Let's get out of here"🤣

Synod said:When was the last time we saw some story on TV about someone using drugs who actually seemed totally fine—like, a normal, functional, social person just fitting right into society?

Never.

Actually, I don't think that's true. I'm pretty sure Madeleine Albright (correct me if I've got that wrong) hosted a couple of shows recently where she had public figures come on to talk openly about their drug struggles. I know Paola Valić was one of the guests, but the rest slip my mind.

I’m a little late to this discussion, but I suppose I should weigh in. In a city like Cleveland, there are places similar to that drug user community over in Terra where you can pick up free supplies, condoms, and that sort of thing. Every user is registered under a specific code, I guess, just so they can keep track of the statistics. Generally speaking, people tend to gather there without much trouble—you don't see a lot of fighting or threats once you're actually inside the facility. The real issues usually happen out on the sidewalk in front of a nearby "Nine," where everyone ends up congregating just to smoke outside.😬

Brandon Castillo4 said:So, I only made it through the first few pages. Honestly? I just didn't have the energy to slog through the whole thing. 😁Honestly, there’s just too much of it. First off, I haven't had any direct run-ins with addicts, and thank God for that. It’s not because I think they’re bad people—it’s just because having someone close to you end up in that kind of hell is a nightmare. I know a few people who struggled with those kinds of issues, but I wasn't exactly in the trenches helping them through the recovery process.
So, I might as well start by quoting Willard: Just beating it against the table with zero effort. Easy.

Look, this is a sensitive topic, and honestly, the biggest mistake people make is jumping straight to instant judgment and moralizing nonsense. We all love to act like we're above it until it hits close to home. Then, suddenly, everyone’s criteria for what's acceptable changes overnight, right?

Look, I get the whole harm reduction angle. It makes sense on paper. But is it a long-term fix? Not really. In my book, there needs to be a real path out—a way to actually pull someone away from that cycle and help them realize they’ve got no choice but to quit. That only happens if we get serious about prevention, real education, and actual, effective treatment.

I'm not buying what some people are selling when they try to draw comparisons to alcohol. Look, I get it—an alcoholic is just as much of a threat to society as any drug addict. But alcohol itself? It’s different. You can have two beers and be fine, but once you start chasing those heavy shots, that's when the real damage starts. And don't even get me started on cigarettes. They aren't psychoactive; they don't push someone toward a life of crime or drag them to the edge of existence. There's a massive difference.

I’m not really on board with legalizing soft drugs. And let's be honest, there’s no such thing as a "soft" drug besides marijuana. As far as I can tell, they all just end up doing permanent damage.

Honestly, I think those kinds of rooms could totally exist. People love to play dumb with arguments like "who would even pay for that?" as if we aren't already footing the bill for all the other nonsense this country insists on funding. It’s ridiculous. If we can't even get basic primary healthcare sorted out properly here in the States, how are we supposed to tackle something like this? We're miles away from actually fixing the essentials.

Look, let's say the funding is actually there. It would be a great move, but ONLY if we had a real roadmap—I mean a legitimate strategy that skips all the fake moralizing and threats. We need to win people over through cooperation, not intimidation. At the end of the day, this is for their own good. The ultimate goal should be getting them off the stuff entirely. The first step? Just controlled dosing—clean needles, strictly regulated. From there, you actually start helping them get better.

I’m worried that if we set up rooms exclusively for sanitizing gear, we might be sending the wrong message. Sure, it lowers the risk of spreading things like HIV or hepatitis, but doesn't it also send this weird subliminal signal to society? It almost makes it seem like these issues—as bad as they are—are just something manageable and "understandable." Look, I get it, banning something doesn't mean people will magically stop doing it; if anything, it might do the opposite. But I can't say I agree that the public message should be that liberal.

When it comes to drug policy, there’s no room for compromise. Period. If we’re talking about people struggling with addiction, they need support and resources. But that only works if they actually want it. That should be the ultimate goal.

So, we're talking about dedicated injection rooms? Yeah.,

But when you pair it with:
Hit dealers with everything they've got. Seriously.
With the right kind of training, you know?
Prevention, right?
Mental health support? Psychological help? You know, that whole scene.
With a highly developed system of communes...
So, we're just going to go ahead and ban drugs from society entirely? Just like that? Total blanket ban. Is that really how we're playing this?

Just from me, for now.

I’m with you on this one. Especially that last part about what actually happens inside those rooms. It shouldn't just be some place where people go to get high. There needs to be a real program in place—something that offers actual incentives for getting clean and finding help.

Honestly, some of the stuff people have been posting on this thread is just straight-up disgusting. Instead of actually contributing anything meaningful to the conversation, they’re just spewing hate because they clearly don't get the issue. Maybe if they took a second to actually think about what they wrote, they could find a way to move past it. 🙂

amberorca192 said:That isn't actually how it works. I believe Madeleine Albright (correct me if I'm wrong) recently hosted a few segments where she invited public figures to open up about their struggles with drug addiction. I know for certain that Paola Valić was one of the guests, though I can't quite recall who the others were.

Bare, honestly, even if you think Valicka is impressive, I doubt she's ever seen anything like it in her entire life.

Legally, it’s doable, but there's zero way they're getting a cent from the federal budget. Let them set up a private account where these humanitarian wannabes can just chip in from their own paychecks. Just a clean account, pure love.

So, if I'm gonna try to summarize what’s been said over the last nine pages—and just so we're clear, unlike Brandon Castillo4, I actually read the ENTIRE thread 😉
...
There are a few people here who are dead set against setting up organized safe injection sites. Aside from some pretty weak reasoning (check out all of Professor McGonagall's posts), the big one seems to be that it’s too expensive, and basically—who's footing the bill?
Look, I consider myself a liberal, open-minded person, and I try to be empathetic toward everyone's struggles, but I absolutely have to admit—that's a fair point! I genuinely get why people wouldn't want their tax dollars going toward helping addicts. But for those of you thinking that way, let me be as SINCERE as possible: I most certainly do NOT want my money funding the Catholic or Orthodox churches here in America, and I definitely don't want $350 million of taxpayer money going toward the University in Mostar and stuff like that every year... so see how little that matters?! I don't want it, but the people making the laws do, and all I can really do is vote for someone else at the polls (not that I think anyone else would act any differently)...

But what about everything else? What's your actual reason for saying these rooms are a bad idea? The only real counter-argument I've seen came from Willard: that the filth could become an issue, but honestly, I feel like that's something that could be easily managed.

So, a question for the opposition: What if these safe injection sites in the US were funded by the government in Norway? Or Sweden? The Netherlands? Denmark? And please, don't give me that "it won't happen" line. Of course it won't. But I—and I think everyone else here—would love to hear a single valid argument that isn't just "my money shouldn't be spent on junkies."

PS: Even as we speak, a massive amount of your money is being spent on drug rehabilitation. A huge pile of cash. So why aren't you out there protesting in Times Square if it bothers you this much?

Jose Miller3 said:So, if I can just wrap up everything written over the last nine pages (unlike Brandon Castillo4, I actually read the WHOLE thread 😉 ).

There are a few folks who are strictly against setting up these organized safe injection sites. Aside from some pretty weak points (check out all of Professor McGonagall's posts), the main gripe is that it’s expensive—so, who’s footing the bill?
Look, I’m a liberal, I'm open-minded, and I get where everyone is coming from, but I totally admit this is a valid point! I honestly sympathize with people who don't want their tax dollars used to fund help for addicts. But, for those who feel that way, let me be super clear: I most sincerely do NOT want my money going toward the Catholic or Orthodox churches in America, and I don't want $350 million a year funding the University in Mostar and stuff like that either. So, see how much that matters? It doesn't. I don't want it, but the people making the laws do, and all I can do is vote for someone else at the polls (not that anyone would be any different)...

But what about the other arguments? What’s your actual reason for thinking these rooms are a bad idea? The only real counterpoint came from Willard: trash disposal might be an issue, but I think that could be handled easily enough.

So, a question for the skeptics: What if these safe rooms in the US were funded by the Norwegian government? Or Sweden? The Netherlands? Denmark? And don't tell me "that won't happen." Of course it won't. But I, and I think others too, am dying to hear a solid argument that isn't just "my money shouldn't be spent on junkies."

PS: Even now, a massive amount of your money goes toward rehab for addicts. A huge pile. So why aren't you protesting on Times Square if it bugs you that much?

Maybe because that's REHAB, not helping them kill themselves?
If they don't want to get clean, I wouldn't give them a dime—there are plenty of easier, faster ways to go. If people don't want to help themselves, why should I use my own paycheck to support their plan to drug themselves to death? Just for some fake sense of humanity? Let them kill themselves then.

Rose Petal said:True, but we have to address other issues first. 😉 We don't exactly have money to throw around—and I doubt "safe injection sites" would be at the top of our priority list.

My, how narrow-minded.
Yes, apparently setting up small spaces and handing out free kits to addicts is more expensive than actually treating them for HIV, hepatitis, and everything else.

I've lived in five different countries, one of which was the Netherlands.

For instance, there was this area near the train station that was a notorious hotspot for junkies—theft, breaking into cars, all that... things caused more damage than what they even stole.
So, the smart people in the Netherlands set up a large mobile unit right by the station to provide free supplies, medication, food, and blood tests...
The users responded quite well to it and started congregating there instead.
Eventually, they just moved that little service center away from the city center, which effectively relocated the addicts too—saving countless lives in the process.🙂

Synod said:I have to admit—I feel a certain amount of regret for starting this thread, as it has merely highlighted how a small but incredibly loud minority can be so heavily burdened by the prejudices fed to them by media outlets that stigmatize drug users at every opportunity.

Anyone posting that they hope "scum just die," or those who take immense pride in their supposed "intelligence" because they haven't succumbed to addiction themselves—well, I suppose they really ought to re-evaluate their basic values. One would expect a minimum level of human decency toward people facing severe health and existential crises, regardless of how they got there; and perhaps, with a little more upbringing, some restraint from making such comments.

Instead, we see an overt celebration of our fellow citizens' deaths.

Ultimately, it makes me wonder what kind of people hide behind the anonymity of this forum—people capable of wishing death or an overdose upon an addict.

Regarding a more specific point... (the thread is so cluttered with verbal posturing that finding anything substantial is difficult)...this is the core issue with SSI, and I agree that in the US, implementing it would be nearly impossible due to current policies that focus on arresting users rather than treating them. In countries that have adopted SSI, a sort of "tolerance policy" is practiced because it is believed the benefits outweigh the harms.

Given that any form of tolerance is a foreign concept to American police trained on tribalistic playbooks, feasibility becomes a massive hurdle. The real issue lies with biased media that the naive simply swallow whole. Have we ever actually seen a story on American TV about someone using drugs who is perfectly normal, functional, social, and integrated into society?

Never.

And there are many such people, because there is a fundamental distinction between use and abuse.

Just as alcohol can be used or abused, drugs can be used or abused. Though, I suppose with certain substances like heroin, or to a lesser extent cocaine, control is either non-existent or significantly diminished.

Life is full of diverse stories, and the generalizations promoted by this handful of uneducated, prejudiced individuals in this thread are anything but true.

As history shows, the loudest moralists are usually at the bottom of the moral ladder.

*to everyone asking for more info — the opening post contains enough links to answer 80% of the repetitive questions here; demanding information when it’s already provided in the first post seems somewhat pointless if you're just too lazy to read it.*

Excellent post!
👍 👍 👍 😘

Leonard Nimoy said:I don't quite agree with those drawing parallels to alcohol—though I suppose an alcoholic poses just as much of a threat to society as a drug addict does—but alcohol itself isn't quite the same thing. You can have two beers and be fine, whereas a few shots might lead to much greater damage. Then there are cigarettes... they aren't psychoactive substances, nor do they drive a person toward crime or the edge of existence.

Why bother posting at all—when one clearly lacks any actual expertise on the subject? I suppose it’s just a matter of preference, I guess.

Have you ever actually looked at an opioid mortality chart—the kind that shows the true scale of the crisis?

First, there are cigarettes—then alcohol—and I suppose heroin comes third.

Rose Petal said:it's unclear to me—if one is actually concerned about prevention, why not just perform the actual preventative measures?

Because then those people—the ones YOU chose to make the decisions—would likely lose their ability to buy luxury real estate in major global cities.😉

John Adams4 said:Why even bother posting if you don't actually have a clue what you're talking about?

Have you ever actually looked at a mortality chart regarding opioid-related deaths?

At the top of that list, you've got CIGARETTES, then ALCOHOL, and heroin doesn't even hit third.

And let me ask you this—has anyone ever broken into your house or swiped your car stereo just so they could fund a pack of smokes or a bottle of whiskey?

Look, I’m all for saying alcoholism is a serious societal issue, but cigarettes? Who's out there beating their wife, terrorizing their kids, or tearing apart the family cat just because they ran out of Marlboros...😕

Besides, nobody is handing out cigarettes or booze right outside the local high school just to pad their own pockets!!!!
If my kid ever started using drugs, the very first people on my list would be the dealers who made it possible! I'd gladly feed those bastards to the stray dogs in the neighborhood.😈

The resident moralists are probably going to come for me, but honestly, I don't care.

I feel zero sympathy for gang members—actually, I couldn't care less about them. I can only look at them with contempt. Anyone who dives into that lifestyle knows exactly what they're getting into and where it leads. I’m not interested in hearing all those excuses about "problems" or circumstances that supposedly pushed them toward that path... as if everyone else doesn't deal with much worse issues without choosing to throw their lives away.
I know a few former gang members personally, and believe me, they ended up that way simply because they were bored out of their minds... and both 😁 guys I actually knew came from stable, middle-class families. Their parents weren't alcoholics, their homes weren't abusive, and they weren't neglected growing up. Yet, they still chose that life. It's pure stupidity.

If it were up to me, I’d round them all up and lock them away... let them sober up and get their heads straight without any drugs involved. Once they're ready, I'd release them, but with one condition: they’d be subject to mandatory testing for the next year. If we find even a trace of heroin in their blood—it's game over.

Kimberly Moore90 said:Has anyone ever actually broken into your house or swiped your car stereo just to fund a pack of smokes or a bottle of whiskey?

Look, I get it—alcoholism is a massive social issue. But cigarettes? Who on earth beats their wife, kids, and even the family cat just because they ran out of Marlboros?😕

Besides, nobody is out here selling booze or nicotine right outside American schools just to pad their own pockets!!!!
If my kid ever started using drugs, the dealers who handed them over would be the first ones on my list. I'd feed those lowlifes to stray dogs.😈

It’s not being sold at schools; it’s everywhere in public, and the government makes a killing in tax revenue off that poison. 😉

alexxx said:those people tearing up the streets, the ones driving drunk, or dead tired, or just totally emotional wrecks behind the wheel, plus everyone hooking up with random strangers without protection, smokers, and honestly, a whole bunch of other folks... by those same standards, they're all just idiots.

Does it also gross you out that Blue Cross Blue Shield covers their medical bills?
I mean, what's the logic there—that it's harder to fund a clean needle than it is to save someone's life after an overdose?

* but hey, I guess we could start opening "safe" hookup rooms with condoms or separate spaces for getting wasted versus sobering up, right? Or is that not how this works?

* I don't get why none of you guys advocating for these rooms thought about how much smarter it would be to put that money into education, prevention, catching addiction early, and actually managing high-risk areas... because if we did that, maybe there wouldn't be so many people needing the rooms, the treatment, and rehab in the first place...

So, why am I the bad guy for thinking it's better to prevent stuff rather than encourage it and then try to fix it, while you guys who are okay with providing injection sites are considered these wonderful, super compassionate people?

Some people can't even manage to write a single post that actually stays on topic... fascinating. 🙏 🙏 🙏