City Councilors Annissa Essaibi-George (at large) and Frank Baker (Dorchester) say that with opioid deaths continuing to rise, it's time to look at possibly setting up a place where addicts could inject themselves while under the supervision of healthcare workers who could administer emergency aid.
In a request filed today, the two are asking their fellow councilors to let them hold a hearing on a possible "safe injection site" in Boston. Boston Medical Center already has a room where addicts can go after they've shot up on the street.
In their request, the two admitted to mixed feelings:
A study of the Safe Injection Site in Vancouver, Canada demonstrated a 35% reduction in opioid related overdose deaths and a significant increase in access to drug treatment. However, impacts of Safe Injections Sites on host communities have been mixed. ... Safe Injection Sites are controversial and wrought with medical, ethical and legal
questions for communities. Furthermore, the Boston City Council has a responsibility to promote thoughtful conversation that represents all perspectives while working to promote the safety and wellbeing of all
But with opioid deaths up and Boston having collected 20,000 discarded needles from streets, parks and playgrounds since March, 2015, the city may need to do more than it has so far, they write. They note that the Massachusetts Medical Society recently urged the state to set up at least two pilot safe-injection sites.
The council will consider the request at its Wednesday meeting, which begins at noon in its fifth-floor chambers in City Hall. Typically, councilors make only brief comments before the measure is sent to a council committee, which then holds a public hearing.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Horrible concept
By anon
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 2:33pm
Horrible concept
Care to share ...
By anon
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 3:22pm
... any links or sources of medical data to support your contention?
These facilities have been modestly successful in other communities, should you like to read actual information rather than spew reactionary opinion:
Google Scholar search on "supervised injection facilities".
Pub Med search on "supervised injection facilities".
Smh
By Candybulletz
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 4:18pm
I absolutely agree this is a horrible concept and more so because we want to put all these unorthodox methods in play when this heroin fentanyl addiction opioid crisis is affecting the white community but for years we have enprisoned members cut funding for drug rehabilitation centers and basically shamed the junky oppose to offering assistance mainly the people of other ethnic backgrounds particularly the black community but now we're seeing all this overdosing in "specific communities" now we pretty much want to legalize it and assist and provide drug safe houses like they used that same exact method on the wire season 3: where they referred to the drug sanctuary as hamsterdam smh
You're right!
By anon
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 7:38pm
Great contribution! We should let them use on the streets where they will OD and get picked up by EMS which will definitely help your health insurance costs go down
Consider all options
By PeteRose
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 2:34pm
Good for the council for leading on this. There are definitely a ton of potential issues but there could be lots of positives (reducing overdoses, if there's some path to recovery for folks, reducing needles in neighborhoods, etc.). Boston has to be a leader on this issue for the region and beyond.
And when a person dies
By anon
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 7:29am
for whatever reason while in this controlled environment or after having shot up in the controlled environment, the City will be sued for millions by the person's family.
Nope
By anon
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 9:55am
They sign a release saying that they take full responsibility before entering the facility.
Nice try, though.
So someone addicted to heroin
By polarbare
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 12:17pm
must be of sound mind and body to sign that right? Yeah, no chance of a lawsuit there.
TBH, I don't think this is a terrible idea, just that "they signed a waiver" is somehow going to keep lawsuits from happening. You might as well cast one of these:
Cave inimicum
Disillusionment Charm
Fianto Duri
Muffliato Charm
Muggle-Repelling Charm
Protego horribilis
Protego Maxima
Protego Totalum
Repello Inimicum
Salvio hexia
Your comment makes no sense.
By bostonbob235
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 6:34pm
Your comment makes no sense. They're going to this location to shoot up and get high. That would mean they were sober when arriving. Which means they would be sober at the time they signed the ICF.
Are you suggesting they go in, shoot up, then sign the ICF? Because that makes no sense.
It could be argued
By anon
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 1:14pm
that a person high on heroin or whatever is not of sound mind so didn't understand what they were signing. It wouldn't stop a family from suing anyway. It may just lead to a settlement instead of actually going to court.
Strawman
By anon
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 9:57am
Strawman.
I like it
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 2:50pm
The War on Drugs is obviously a crock of (expletive). Maybe the More Peaceful on Drugs will work better.
I Like Their (His) Last Album
By John Costello
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 3:08pm
Just got really good tickets for his September show at Blue Hills Pavilion.
Is More Peaceful On Drugs on Bandcamp?
I disagree
By Waquiot
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 3:18pm
Particularly as far as drugs this heavy go. It would appear that there is a group of heroin addicts that in fact are chasing the extremely close to death experience. Legalizing and regulating heroin will not help since some people are not looking for safe heroin. Do we just allow people to sell, buy, and inject fentanyl?
I am 100% in favor of good treatment, but by making this "safer," we are essentially giving up on these people. I know this is going to sound harsh, but there comes a time that a final OD might be the only option.
Not giving up on people
By anon
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 3:23pm
Giving them an incentive to take their habit off the streets and have daily contact with people who can get them into treatment.
I mean...
By erik g
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 3:25pm
What's the alternative? If you throw them in prison for drug offenses, you get to spend $40K+ a year per person to keep them away from society, and you have one fewer cell for someone who's actually committed a crime. If you leave them to their own devices, you get needles scattered in public parks, and you get a public health crisis when EMTs have to respond to overdoses caused by bad batches of heroin. If you give them somewhere safe to go, and make it legal to buy their drugs from regulated entities, you at least have some control over the problem.
So you think we should
By RoseMai
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 3:30pm
So you think we should structure our treatment programs to apply only to the most far gone users? What about all the addicts that are trying to get clean and need more resources to do so? I don't see why we would deny them this service just because there might be some people that are too far gone to help.
Besides, addiction is a disease. You don't turn your back on sick people and say "maybe they'll die and that'll solve the issue". Let's try to help, first. There's no downside to piloting this program, and at the very least it'll likely get some used needles off our streets.
Good points, until
By anon
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 4:53pm
You make good points, but you lose me with the "addiction is a disease" model.
I suggest reading a bit more
By RoseMai
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 5:10pm
I suggest reading a bit more into it, then. Here's one article to start:
https://www.centeronaddiction.org/what-addiction/a...
There is actual science behind this. It's not just a saying.
Addiction is a disease
By Waquiot
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 6:55pm
And so is lung cancer. But I don't think enabling people to smoke 2 packs a day is a good idea, either. Heroin is a horrible drug, and I've known that from my youth without knowing any junkies (at the time). If you have a propensity for addiction, the best prevention is staying away from that shit.
I think we can all agree that treatment is key, and more resources should go into that. But normalizing heroin, in my view, is the opposite of good.
Normalizing heroin?
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 7:00pm
Explain, using factual information. Please try to leave out your own squeamishness and moralizing tendencies.
Compare and contrast with the normalization of oxycontin to the point that there are prime time television ads for meds that combat the associated constipation.
A couple points
By ZachAndTired
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 7:56pm
We have ample evidence at this point that the "Just say no" approach to discouraging drug abuse does not work.
With regards to your point about normalizing heroin use, I honestly don't understand that argument. It's not as if there are a bunch of people out there who want to start shooting heroin, but haven't just because there isn't a monitored safe space in which to do so.
There is an opioid epidemic in this country and the traditional methods of combating drug abuse have been ineffective at best and detrimental at worst. I think it behooves everybody to look at alternatives to simply locking up addicts. Supervised injection sites have been successful in other places (e.g. Vancouver, Seattle, Sydney, Germany, etc.) and I don't see any reason that they couldn't be effective here as well.
People who are addicted to heroin are going to do heroin whether these places are there or not. Why not provide a facility that can administer narcan, provide and safely dispose of clean needles, test drug purity to prevent accidental overdoses (I know at least some SIS's do this), and assist those who want to get clean with contacting treatment facilities? To me this sounds like a much better option than forcing people to shoot up with puddle water in Newmarket Square.
The normalization argument is this
By Waquiot
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 10:34pm
And it goes back to my "addiction is a disease" retort. There are a few years between the missus and myself, and she grew up ahead of me going to a public school on the west coast while I attended a Catholic school on the east coast. At her high school, there was a place on campus where kids could go and smoke cigarettes. A few years later when I arrived at high school, smoking was banned on campus (aside from the priests' residence, of course, and I'm sure the teachers had a place.) The approach to tobacco over the years has been to actively reduce use through both education and marginalizing use (i.e. you can't smoke in bars or restaurants, and there are government programs to assist landlords in banning smoking in housing.) Now, the two addictions are different, as one could slowly kill you and perhaps people around you while the other can take you very quickly, but imagine if the Boston Public Health Commission decided that there could be smoking bars so that those who want to smoke and drink can do so in public while those who don't want to be exposed could go to nonsmoking bars. That would be a nonstarter.
Same thing with this. How does it make sense to tell people that heroin can kill you, then turn around and say "however, here are some places where you can go and shoot up where your life might be saved if you OD"?
If users aren't going to care about themselves and want to kill themselves on heroin, I think they should be able to do it. There is no saving grace to heroin. I do feel bad for junkies and their families, but the junkies are doing it to themselves.
Are you opposed to smoking
By RoseMai
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 5:07pm
Are you opposed to smoking cessation programs as well? Against Alcoholics Anonymous? Do you think that once you've slipped and made the mistake of getting addicted to something, we should say "too bad for you" and wait for you to die (of an OD, liver disease, drunk driving, emphysema)?
I think all these people deserve treatment. The proposed centers have been shown effective in several other cities- there is no reason to not try it in MA, where you can see how ineffective our current programs are by walking by DTX or Methadone Mile anytime of day.
Am I opposed to treatment?
By Waquiot
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 9:53pm
No.
Did I write anywhere that I am opposed to treatment? No.
Then I'm not sure why you're
By RoseMai
Wed, 06/07/2017 - 10:26am
Then I'm not sure why you're against these spaces. Sure, research is ongoing in their effectiveness, but this article has a very promising quote,
In Massachusetts, state Sen. William Brownsberger (D) recently introduced legislation to permit safe-injection sites throughout the state. Currently, Boston Health Care for the Homeless offers medical monitoring to people who have injected illegal drugs, but they are not permitted to use drugs onsite.
The program, which started in April, has 10 chairs where addicts can sit while a nurse monitors vital signs and administers Naloxone in case of an overdose. Gaeta said 400 people have used the facility 2,679 times. About 10 percent of them have gone directly from the room into treatment, a number she called “miraculous.â€
Geez
By Waquiot
Wed, 06/07/2017 - 11:40am
Perhaps I should have stated my position on the matter somewhere in this thread.
And the other 90%? Do you want 360 heroin addicts by your house every day. Not I.
Frankly, I thought what they did (or hopefully do) in Gloucester is a much better idea.
Yes, I read your previous
By RoseMai
Wed, 06/07/2017 - 3:26pm
Yes, I read your previous statements. I agree that Gloucester's program is a good idea, but I also think we don't have to only have 1 method for handling this crazy opioid crisis. Agree to disagree, anyway!
Very cold comment. I hope you
By Barbara
Fri, 07/14/2017 - 7:35pm
Very cold comment. I hope you never have to experience a Son or Daughter addicted to anything. You show no compassion. Read the Bible again.
"To me this sounds like a
By anon
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 12:41pm
"To me this sounds like a much better option than forcing people to shoot up with puddle water in Newmarket Square."
Or shoot up and die in restrooms across the city.
Not exactly
By Hamsterdam
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 3:59pm
I think you're assuming a much higher level of awareness/decision-making than is present in heroin addiction. No one is "chasing" some sort of fetishized, higher-stakes experience. I think they're just trying to not be dope sick. The fact that an addict may OD multiple times speaks more to the nature of addiction than to a specific desire for a near-death experience.
"I know this is going to
By anon
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 12:39pm
"I know this is going to sound harsh, but there comes a time that a final OD might be the only option." In that case, why not just shoot them like in the Philippines?
That is a dark statement. I wonder if you've ever had anyone close to you in your life addicted to heroin, or to die by overdose? What if it was your child? Your sibling? Would you feel the same way?
There's a not so subtle difference
By Waquiot
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 2:02pm
In the Philippines, you are talking homicide, someone taking another's life. When someone injects a drug they know can kill them, that's suicide.
If someone close to me was addicted to heroin or died from an overdose, I would be a wreck. I would ponder how I could have stopped them from using or even getting started. From a public policy perspective, how many people would be looking at treatment if they knew that someone they knew died from the shit they're sticking in their veins? My belief is that the goal of society should be preventing people from using and getting those who are addicted off the smack. Throwing up our hands and just letting people use, again in my opinion, is not a solution.
This is
By TheGrovehaller
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 4:26pm
different because white lives are being lost and at stake. We can't have that! All hands on deck because this is the first drug epidemic that matters.
Your race angst doesn't glom onto this well
By Jeff F
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 11:17am
There is no drug epidemic that our culture has ever faced that did not significantly affect the majority 'racial' segment of the population.
Folks are concerned about the opioid epidemic because it is afffecting a large and apparently growing number of people - of all colors. For decades, the demographics of the user/victim/addict population have been a fairly close analog to the more general population. Ie, it's been mostly white folk dying from ODs for a looong time (in fact, whites have been slightly over-represented there since at least the 70s), so the idea that people only care once it affects those who share their skin tone is unsupported by historical data.
Good Idea
By anon
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 3:18pm
Get them in the door and in contact with help. Contain the problem to a supervised setting until they are persuaded to change. Reduce barriers to treatment and treatment will happen.
Seems like it's worth a try
By erik g
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 3:20pm
I know y'all would rather round up every addict in the city and grind them into fertilizer, but since they're actually human beings whose behavioral consequences we have to deal with, why not at least aim for harms-reduction? Clearly the approach we're trying now isn't working, and Methadone Mile is approaching uninhabitable.
Fun story: A friend of mine works at Orchard Gardens, the school over on Melnea Cass near the methadone clinic. After the city closed its largest Long Island last year with no warning and no alternative housing provided, the school had to give some of its teachers and janitorial staff a crash course in hazardous waste disposal procedures, because they have to do two circuits of the playground every day looking for used needles before the 8-year-olds head outside for recess. (One circuit a day quickly proved to be insufficient, which means there are a nontrivial number of folks shooting up on the playground during daylight hours)
But yeah, treating the opiod crisis as a moral hazard and not as a public health emergency is a great plan. Let's just bury our heads in the sand and wait for the problem to go away on its own.
This proposal isn't a fix, its a bandaid
By Scauma
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 4:21pm
And it's a stupid one at that. Education, and keeping people off prescription pills in the first place is a much better use of resources. Otherwise you might as well just make a new combat zone and let the people their do whatever they want.
Education is great
By boo_urns
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 5:11pm
But remember abstinence only sex education? Surely that did a great job at preventing teen pregnancies... Not a knock against educating the populace, but it only goes so far. Despite education, people still find themselves in trouble with addiction either by pain meds, or in other cases bad decisions.
I get the impression that you're not exactly very well read on these facilities. Considering that these people would be administered to in the facility, I'd have to imagine that they would be monitored after the injection, as well as the needles properly disposed of. Literally keeping all of the undesirable aspects of addiction off of the street, not turning whatever neighborhood it was in into a "combat zone", or more appropriately, Amsterdam a la The Wire.
Ahem
By Hamsterdam
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 6:55pm
It's Hamsterdam ;-)
No I'm not well versed on drug facilities
By Scauma
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 9:32am
Thankfully. But this is classic treat the symptom not the problem thinking. What difference does it make if there's a safe place shoot up, but no deterrent to stop new users in the first place? They over prescribe pills and then wonder why people get hooked. In my experience very few people just pick up heroin or fentanyl use with out a reason they were introduced to it in the first place.
Here's the thing
By boo_urns
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 10:25am
You're approaching it from an either/or perspective. Or at least that's how I'm seeing you frame it. We need to, or should do both.
I was, but you are right
By Scauma
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 10:27am
So I wonder what prevention methods they're coming with, an addition to basically giving it the ok, in a 'safe environment'
JFGI?
By anon
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 11:09am
Seriously - it is is sfh to google this?
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dph/prog...
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/feature-story/end-opioid...
Much easier than putting up the same DUH I HAVE AN OPINION! YOU HAVE TO DO MY WORK FOR ME! post over and over again.
I mean, I don't think there's
By anon
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 11:51am
I mean, I don't think there's anyone out there going "wow I'd super love to start doing heroin but there's just not an easy dope den close to my house." It's not a flipping gym membership.
It will always be an issue
By anon
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 6:17pm
There will ALWAYS be a subset of people who will get addicted to substances, either legal or illegal, that make them feel better. Regardless of what else you do. And you need a way to deal with these people. Even if you're someone who believes they do not deserve help, it's still a public health issue that needs to be addressed.
We don't need to condone and reinforce
By Scauma
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 9:33am
Bad behaviors. Everyone who needs help should get it. But I don't think basically encouraging them to continue using drugs is that helpful.
It's not encouraging them to
By RoseMai
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 5:13pm
It's not encouraging them to continue using drugs- they were going to use them anyway. It is giving them a safe place to use them, a place to properly dispose of needles, and most importantly it is giving them an opportunity to speak with someone (the nurse) about treatment options if they are trying to overcome their addiction.
both/and world
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 06/05/2017 - 6:53pm
This isn't a zero sum game - we need ALL these things right now.
We need to keep people from getting hooked, yes.
We also need to deal with the damage done.
I haven't heard much about
By Scauma
Tue, 06/06/2017 - 10:28am
I haven't heard much about prevention, but this isn't something I follow generally so please enlighten me if you can. And no sarcasm.
Pages
Add comment