Drug Policy: Safe Injection Sites (SIS)

The bottom line is that the government isn't going to cut checks for everyone.

So you end up in a situation where tax dollars are being funneled toward all sorts of people—like subsidizing bailouts for drunk drivers or whatever else—
while there’s absolutely no funding left for others, like a kid battling a devastating illness.

Megan Reed said:oh yeah, sure, because diabetics are just straight-up bad people who basically chose this life through their diet and now they don't deserve insurance coverage for insulin strips 😍 since we should probably just take that money and build some kind of legal shooting range instead... 😍

Correction—the folks actually drowning in medical supply costs are usually Type 1 patients. I really hope I don't have to break down autoimmune etiology or the typical age of onset for you... but anyway, getting Type 1 has absolutely zero to do with what you eat.

I think they were being ironic 😉 😬

I get it, I really do. That was meant to be sarcastic. 😉 Look, people don't just wake up and decide they want to be sick.
But let's be real—who exactly is handing out the needles to those addicts in the first place? 😕

That's the point I was trying to make.

Megan Reed said:Look, I get it. It was meant to be ironic. 😉 Like, they don't exactly choose to be sick.
but who's actually out there handing needles to junkies? 😕

that's my point.

Nobody's handing them anything; but that doesn't mean we should just write them off.
Besides, there are a bunch of kids in that mix; are we really gonna tell them it's all their fault too?

Yeah. ☕

Providing rehabilitation support versus just saying "let's let them crash more safely" aren't exactly the same thing.

stormywolf39 said:rehab support and just letting them "feel safer while they hustle" aren't exactly the same thing

oh really? so how exactly are you gonna rehab someone who's overdosed? or maybe it'd be better if they just catch some random infection, then instead of just paying for rehab, you're stuck footing the bill for the infection treatment too. i guess that's your plan.👍

I’ll be blunt: those overdosing will die, but at least there'll be more funding left for rehab programs and actual medical treatment.

Megan Reed said:oh sure, because diabetics are just bad people who chose this life through their diet, so they don't deserve any help from the government 😍 since we should probably just spend all that money on some VIP lounge where people can shoot stuff without a care in the world. 😍

right, because I've definitely never heard of a single charity drive, concert, or whatever else people do to raise money for a kid's surgery. 🥳

I guess the government covers everything for them, huh?

Look, the government pays for all sorts of nonsense, especially right before an election... and this doesn't even look like a real investment, considering how much cash gets wasted on total garbage.

stormywolf39 said:I’m gonna be blunt: those overdosing will die, but at least there'll be more money left for rehab programs and medical care.

That’s not even being mean.
If they actually get help, they don't have to die, and who knows, maybe one day they'll actually start paying into Medicare instead of just taking from it.
Dead people aren't exactly contributing to the system, I guess.

It’s easy to talk big when it isn't your problem. 👍

People would change their tune real quick if they actually had someone close to them caught up in this mess.

Honestly, I’d much rather have addicts using in some kind of safe space where used needles don't end up right outside my apartment building. Or maybe in a park where I take my kid for walks. I'd way rather they get access to clean needles and just do their thing, whatever, than have them spreading Hepatitis B, C, or HIV all over the place. A ton of those sketchy junkies have partners who are totally clean.

That's just the objective reality of the situation. As for the idea that junkies should just be sent to a construction site or wherever—I’d love to see what you'd say if someone you actually loved was struggling with addiction.🙄 A friend, a relative, a brother, a sister... anyone? Would you still be sitting there saying, "Just die already, you're useless to anyone else"?

Btw, I know a doctor who's been a heroin addict for the last 20 years. Makes you wonder, huh?🙄

Noah Myers8 said:I know this doctor who’s been hooked on heroin for like the last 20 years. Makes you wonder, I guess.🙄

So, I actually know an anesthesiologist.
I'll let you in on a little secret; they're everywhere. All around us.
😲

Hannah Davis18 said:If they get help, they don't have to die. And hey, maybe one day they'll actually start paying back into Medicare.

That part is highly debatable, especially with the hardcore types... their chances of full rehabilitation are pretty questionable.

Look, Captain, if someone close to me was in that spot, I’d be dragging them from one specialist to the next—psychiatrists, rehab centers, high-security recovery communes. I wouldn't take "no" for an answer. No more "Listen, kid, go into that room, you can beat your head against the wall all you want, the good doctors are watching over you."

I find it quite fascinating how everyone here seems so intensely polarized—either completely for or vehemently against the idea—convinced that addicts would actually flock to those places, specifically that room. Personally, I don't see it happening. Perhaps half might consider it, and even then, it’s a stretch. The rest would simply continue finding ways to get by, just as they do now. In my view, people would likely end up losing more than they gain by trying to force this change.

stormywolf39 said:that part is pretty sketchy, especially with the hardcore types... I doubt they can ever be fully rehabilitated.

Look, captain, if someone close to me was going through this, I’d be dragging them to testing, then a psychiatrist, then rehab, maybe even some closed-off recovery commune. And they wouldn't dare complain about it either—just like, "Hey kid, go into that room, you won't get hurt because the good doctors are watching over you."

Well yeah, it's questionable; I don't know a single person who isn't totally messed up right now.😉

you wouldn't achieve anything that way😳 those locked-down communes just maintain abstinence, they don't actually cure anyone.

obviously I'd want a better place for them to use drugs; because honestly, they'll find a way to do it no matter where I take them, unless they decide for themselves what they're gonna do next!

Anthony Miller13 said:Personally, I find it fascinating how all of you are so incredibly convinced about whether you're for or against opening these places—like, as if addicts would actually show up to those rooms. I don't think they would. Maybe half of them might, and even then, it's a stretch. The rest would just keep doing what they're doing now. So, in my opinion, they'd probably lose more than they gain by having them.

Oh, really?
Look, there aren't just two junkies in all of NYC, so those rooms would just sit there empty if only half of them showed up.
We're talking thousands of people here; even if only half show up, that's a pretty solid percentage.
Just because we leave them on the margins to fend for themselves doesn't mean it's okay or that things should stay this way.
And look, the point of these centers isn't so addicts can just party for fun, it's about harm reduction. That's the whole idea.

Hannah Davis18 said:Oh, really?
Look, you won't find just two addicts in all of Chicago; those rooms would be sitting empty if even half of them showed up.
We are talking about thousands of people; if even half of them walk through the door, that is a significant percentage.
Just because we leave them on the fringes, left to fend for themselves, doesn't mean that's a good way to live or that it should remain the status quo.
The purpose of setting up these facilities isn't to provide a playground for users out of pure whim; it’s about damage control. That is the essence of the harm reduction approach.

Fine, let’s look at it this way. Suppose you open one of these centers in a city like St. Louis, maybe near an old paper mill for the sake of argument. Now, imagine I show up with a slightly larger dose, given my long history in this "business." I walk in, do whatever I'm going to do—inject, smoke, snort, whatever—and then I just walk right back out? I might run into some lady working there who tries to help me and tells me this shouldn't be happening. For what? I can do the exact same thing in a bathroom stall or at home. And what about the police? Does the police department know where this room is located? Can they arrest me right in front of them, or while I'm walking in or out? It doesn't seem like a particularly practical scenario.

To be clear, I am not opposed to these things if they serve a meaningful purpose. However, I would much rather see our focus directed toward prevention and the decriminalization of softer substances.

Hannah Davis18 said:Well, I actually know an anesthesiologist.
And I'll let you in on a little secret; they're everywhere.
😲

I know.
And honestly? My paranoia doesn't come from drug users.

It comes from being around exclusive, angry people who just don't have a heart. (not talking about you).