Introduction
Injecting rooms have drawn sharp criticism as well as support from society. The idea of establishing injecting rooms is a relatively new one around the globe as there are not so many of them in the world. This essay examines the idea of governments setting up injecting rooms. Drawing proofs from various researches and making logical and philosophical arguments, this essay aims at discouraging governments from setting up injecting rooms. The essay will show that injecting rooms will actually cause more harm to society that the perceived benefits they are likely to bring.
Criticism against Injecting Rooms
Vague arguments and researches
Supporters of injecting rooms claim that injecting rooms are beneficial to the society and that the ones which are in existence have saved many lives especially from the dangers of drug overdosing (Moore 2011). Power (2010) narrated the story of Lotte a regular user of Sydney’s supervised injecting room. Power (2010) claimed that she overdosed once and passed out: “She’d injected in a hurry, in a car, concerned that police were close by. The heroin was too strong and she passed out” (p. 1). Power (2010) went on to argue that injecting rooms have saved the lives of many drug users most of whom are marginalized and stigmatized.
It is as much as Power’s arguments have some sense, it is important that some facts are pointed out. The story on Lotte injecting herself hurriedly in car because the cops were around does not make sense as she should have simply moved to an isolated place. It makes more sense for the marginalised to use rehabilitation centers than to rush to injecting rooms for more drugs. With rehabilitation centres, drug users have more chances to improve their lives.
It has emerged that some of the studies carried out to show that injecting rooms are saving lives of drug users have in some cases been carried out in an unprofessional manner. Glaring errors have been pointed out in such reports and this has gravely cast doubts on the significance of injecting rooms. Mangham (2007) offered a sharp critique on Canada’s Insite Injection Site reports and indeed proved that evaluations made by this facility were unreliable. In another instance, Pike et al. (2011) showed that an article titled “Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study” published in The Lancet failed to take into account various important aspects which have changed the results of the study. Though the article argued that Vancouver’s Insite Supervised Injection Facility had led to a decrease in overdose deaths by 35 percent, Pike et al. (2011) have argued that “the article contains serious errors which make that claim unsustainable” (p. 1).
Promotion of wrong values and drug addiction
Injecting rooms provide a safe place for drug users where they can feel at home. These facilities help the drug users to use their drugs freely without any feeling of insecurity or even guilt. According to the Drug Advisory Council of Australia (2010), most of the drug users who use injecting rooms are not referred to rehabilitation centers but rather are put on drug maintenance programs. Engaging in such kinds of behaviors towards drugs user compromises the fact that drug abuse is wrong. It is further a gesture that one is accepted and encouraged to engage in drug use. Logically, with such kind of treatment, it will be very hard for drug abusers to quit abusing drugs. It is also very obvious that injection rooms are promoting drug addiction by the fact that they make it very hard for drug abusers to stop abusing drugs.
Luring people to drug use
Promotion of injection rooms will finally lead to acceptance of drug abuse in the society. Injection rooms make one feel that drug can be abused in a safe manner without affecting one’s health or causing death. This is what the promoters of injecting rooms are trying to do by showing statistics and arguing that these facilities have decreased the number of deaths that would have resulted from drug overdoses. Such sentiments will make the youth vulnerable to drug abuse as they will view the injecting rooms as their safe-havens.
Conclusion
Opposing injecting rooms does not imply that the problem of drug abuse is not acknowledged. It is true that some of the drug abusers die due to overdoses. The main objective in opposing the setting up of injecting rooms is to discourage continued drug use. There is no point in arguing that drug users at one point become ready to stop using drugs. This is because a continued abuse of a drug makes it proportionally harder to stop thus if one cannot stop at the present, it becomes harder to stop in the future. This is logically the reason why setting up injecting rooms is a bad idea as they encourage drug abusers to continue in the habit and this eventually makes it harder for them to quit. Government should therefore discourage the idea of setting up injecting rooms. Funds and efforts should instead be channeled to drug rehabilitation centers.
References
Drug Advisory Council of Australia 2010, Injecting Rooms Are Not The Answer, Web.
Mangham, C 2007, A Critique of Canada’s INSITE Injection and its Parent Philosophy: Implication and Recommendations for Policy Planning, Web.
Moore, T 2011, ‘Brisbane injecting room a must’, Brisbane Times, Web.
Pike, G, Joe, S, Stuart, R, Dupont, R, Mangham, C & Gary, C 2011, Analysis of the 2011 Lancet study on deaths from overdose in the vicinity if Vancouver’s Insite Supervised Injection Facility, Web.
Power, R 2010, ‘Injecting rooms benefit all, not just drug users’, The Age, Web.