But in comparison to a physical location, outreach teams are limited in the resources they can offer, says Mia Hershkowitz, a harm reduction worker. For instance: Hershkowitz describes how outreach teams can only carry small amounts of oxygen due to its weight. But as terrifying amounts of veterinary tranquilizer poison the unregulated supply of drugs, Naloxone, the medication commonly used to reverse opioid poisoning, is simply not strong enough. People who are overdosing often need oxygen to help bring their heart rate back up – but outreach teams rarely have access to it.
According to Toronto’s Drug Checking Service, more than half of all fentanyl checked in the first two weeks of April contains some form of toxic tranquilizer.
That situation would become more severe under the Safer Municipalities Act, a new bill proposed by the Ford government. If passed, it would let police ticket and arrest people using illegal drugs in public, slapping them with harsher punishments including a fine of up to $10,000 and being jailed for up to six months.
Safe consumption sites are intended to prevent overdose deaths. If you’re using by yourself, or somewhere where help is not readily available, and something goes wrong…you die. If you are in an environment where there is a professional nearby, equipped with the tools needed to save your life…you don’t die.
Removing that from the system, is basically as stupid as removing all the seatbelts from your car, all to prove some point about how good drivers shouldn’t need them.
I don’t disagree that having professionals nearby can prevent overdose / accidental death.
My concerns are: Safe consumption sites are controversial, and their support causes broader backlash. Usage rates are low and not a good use of resources.
Proponents are misusing data:
users of SCS would tend towards wanting help anyway and don’t speak to broader efficacy.
‘Lives saved’ don’t take into account any increase in use from a system perspective. That is to say, reduced stigma I believe increases drug use and death. Studies I’ve seen look at a micro level but not macro level. Example, “we prevented 10 deaths”, but they dont take into account any increase in drug use from its normalization.
It’s OK to feel shame for being addicted to drugs. But I also get we don’t want people hiding away and dying. Stopping use should be the goal.
The people on the front lines have an important perspective, but they aren’t seeing the whole story.
Aren’t cities moving away from SCS because it’s not working?
Cities aren’t moving away from SCS because they aren’t working…they’re moving away from them due to public backlash. All of which is based on ignorance and the effects of negative propaganda campaigns.
Everything you said can be countered using the same analogy I used before. You seem to be focusing on “preventing car accidents” as a way of justifying the removal of safety features. That is not realistic. Your argument that wearing seat belts will only encourage more people to crash their cars, is bizarre. Removing the brakes from a car, also will not lead to people driving slower.
All these things are still going to happen, to one degree or another. Pulling out all the safety precautions does nothing to deter drug use. Prevention is a completely separate issue. But they are both necessary parts of the solution. It isn’t a “one or the other” issue.