As drug-related deaths rise to record numbers, at least a dozen U.S. cities are considering opening supervised injection sites, where people can use illicit drugs with trained staff present, ready to respond in case of an overdose.
The future of such proposals in the U.S. is uncertain. A California bill that would greenlight a pilot injection site in San Francisco awaits the governor’s signature, but a representative of the Justice Department vowed to crack down on any such site in recent public statements.
Critics say supervised injection sites encourage drug use and bring crime to surrounding communities. Proponents argue that they save lives and can help people in addiction reconnect with society and get health services.
But what does evidence say? If the policy goal is to save lives and eventually curb opioid addiction, do these sites work?
Discussion Directions:
Research the closing question above “But what does evidence say? If the policy goal is to save lives and eventually curb opioid addiction, do these sites work?” Support your position with a minimum of 2 reputable sources (peer reviewed journals, government or educational sites ending in .gov or .edu, textbooks, etc). *Make sure to provide your references at the end of your post.
*Must be a minimum of 500 words & reference a minimum of 2 credible sources.