San Francisco is considering a facility like Vancouver’s InSite program. Vancouver’s program, “[is], 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, and then relax with a cup of coffee or get medical attention in the ‘chill out’ room where they are observed, said program coordinator Sarah Evans.” Addicts would be able to “shoot up heroin, cocaine and other drugs under the supervision of nurses.” (Continue reading…)
There does appear to be some promising results that show that Vancouver’s site may in fact be increasing the amount of people seeking drug treatment while decreasing drug-related crime.
My gut instinct was “what a waste of taxpayer dollars!” Why would anyone think that giving people the right to take illegal drugs and then expect nurses to care for them is an appropriate thing to do? Part of me feels that they screwed up their life and should have to deal with the consequences. Society shouldn’t have to pay to provide care for the people that abuse the system. It just doesn’t seem right. And I, for one, would sure as heck not want such a site anywhere near where I live. I guess, though, that in some parts of the country/world, it would be much better to have a safe area for drug users to take their drugs than have the whole neighborhood “shot to pieces” by a bunch of homeless HCV+ men walking around tossing contaminated needles all over the place. This way the homeless men get their place to stay (hey, why not allow them to sleep there too; it would keep them off the streets) and the city can keep the streets safe. I thought the section about using equipment and techniques provided by the staff especially funny. And then the fact that they can get a cup of coffee while they are “chilling out” even more ludicrous.
On the other hand, we are spending a lot of money on the “war on drugs.” And, without spending much time researching the issue, it seems that much of the reason for drug trafficking into the US is an economic issue. The street drugs that a minority of the citizens want is illegal. It is this very illegality that makes it expensive to run the operations necessary to covertly bring them into the US. The more difficult it is to bring the drugs into the US, the more the drug dealers can charge the end users. This results in more profits for the people that finance the drug trafficking business and more of a financial hardship on the users of the drug. Also, the drug money leaves the general economy and does not get taxed. If the US were to end its war on drugs, the profit incentive for bringing drugs into the US might decrease, forcing drug dealers out of business. The drugs would become relatively “cheap” and the incentive to bring them to the US would go down. Hopefully this would result in less drugs coming to the US and then less people starting or continuing to use them.
I do worry that if this were to happen then people may begin experimenting with drugs because a) they are no longer illegal, and b) the drugs are more affordable. I personally would have no inclination to begin using drugs because I understand the neurochemical long-term damage they can cause. (And I don’t need drugs to help me have fun in my life.) I also find smoking to be a horrible thing and despite it being legal, tend to stay as far away from it as possible. Just because it is legal doesn’t make it safe. Part of me doesn’t want the government to interfere with our lives. Yet, banning smoking in public places would go a long way to protecting my right to have a safe and clean environment.
It will be interesting to see how or if the San Francisco facility will go. After thinking through it, I kind of hope it does go through so that the Freakonomics guys will be able to analyze it. Maybe the government could even use its buying power to purchase drugs in bulk at less than cost for the users of this facility. Do you think that would work?? 😉
