Safe Injection Sites: Exploring the idea of safe spaces for homeless individuals with addiction issues.
- Rosemarie Ibarra
- Jan 20, 2024
- 2 min read
Safe injection sites for those addicted to substances and homeless are controversial. These supervised injection sites are facilities where one can use pre-obtained illicit substances in a safe environment, with clean needles and supervised consumption. The idea behind these sites is to reduce overdoses and to provide healthy practice alternatives for those struggling with addiction and homelessness. These locations offer clean and sterile needles; a secure environment off the streets for substance use; overdose reversal; and treatment services referrals (Footprints to Recovery, n.d).
Proponents of supervised injection sites for the homeless argue that these facilities reduce the number of deaths, and influence addicts to go on and obtain help to change their lives. They see their services as a type of “Harm Reduction”. Supporters provide services such as overdose-reversal medications like Naloxone; healthcare options for those who use drugs; and supervision of substance use. These locations offer wide positive implications to society by reducing the prison population, reducing the cost to taxpayers for hospitalizations, emergency services etc., and reducing the amount of used needles in public (Footprints to Recovery, n.d).
Critics of SIS argue that these facilities normalize drug abuse; enable drug addiction; provide addicts with less incentives to quit using drugs; fail to treat the underlying issues behind addiction; and increase the rate of homelessness. Approximately half of drug abusers and homeless also have mental illness. These sites are not able to treat dual disorders. These disorders are so intertwined that it is futile to treat one and not the other. If one disorder is treated and the other left untreated, relapse for both is imminent (Footprints to Recovery, n.d).
Moreover, SISs have negative effects on their surrounding communities. Neighbourhoods near these sites have become open markets where drug dealers conspicuously sell illicit substances. Needles have been found in playgrounds where children frolic. Critics argue that addicts need help overcoming their illness – not to sustain it. There is also a contradiction in that the U.S. bans cigarette use to protect nonsmokers from poisonous secondhand smoke, but we allow communities to be overdriven by the effects of open drug abuse (Steeb, 2022).
The pros and cons of the idea of safe injection sites for the homeless are myriad. Advocates propose that SIS minimize overdoses, and prevent the spread of disease and criminal actions. Critics of SIS argue that these facilities endanger communities and make drug use more prevalent. Harm reduction in substance abuse remains a divisive issue. The homeless population, who are already a marginalized group, have the most to gain and lose in this battle. Politicians are trying to stop the creation of SISs in their states, while others like in New York, are battling to expand these facilities in all five boroughs. Those who are homeless and addicted have a dual conundrum which to overcome and more resources should be allotted to these individuals. It not only saves them but also society.
Works Cited
Steeb, M. (2022, December 12). Why so-called ‘safe injection’ sites put NYC communities in danger. Texas Public Policy Foundation.
What is Harm Reduction in Substance Abuse? (n.d). Footprints to Recovery. Retrieved January 1, 2024 from https://footprintstorecovery.com
