Tag: supervised injection sites

  • Legal Battle Over Safe Injection Site Could Be Game Changer For US

    Legal Battle Over Safe Injection Site Could Be Game Changer For US

    Safehouse is engaged in a historic legal battle with the government over their attempt at opening the country’s first safe injection site.

    The outcome of a legal battle over whether to open the nation’s first supervised injection facility (SIF) rages on in Philadelphia. The result could influence other efforts to do the same elsewhere in the U.S.

    In February, Pennsylvania prosecutors and the federal Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit attempting to stop a local non-profit organization, Safehouse, from opening SIF locations in Philadelphia.

    They cite the “crack house statute” under the Controlled Substances Act, which made it a crime to “knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily… for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.”

    In response, Safehouse is countersuing the government in federal court. They argue that the “crack house statute” does not apply to SIFs. “Safehouse is nothing like a ‘crack house’ or drug-fueled ‘rave.’ Nor is Safehouse established ‘for the purpose’ of unlawful drug use,” stated Ilana Eisenstein, a lawyer for Safehouse.

    They argue that SIFs are less about drugs and more about providing a medical service. By giving people a safe place to use under medical supervision rather than alone on the street, SIFs save lives. Another important feature of SIFs, proponents say, is that they offer access to treatment and support. 

    “If you find a place that accepts the fact that you’re going to be consuming drugs and still offers you services in a non-judgmental way, you’re going to start to trust them,” says Ronda Goldfein, vice president and co-founder of Safehouse. “And once there’s a trust relationship, you’re more inclined to accept the range of treatment they’re offering, which includes recovery.”

    Safehouse also cites the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 in its countersuit. “[This] service is an exercise of the religious beliefs of its Board of Directors, who hold as core tenets preserving life, providing shelter to neighbors, and ministering to those most in need of physical and spiritual care,” stated Safehouse lawyer Eisenstein.

    Seattle, New York, Denver, Maryland, Maine and more are also considering opening supervised injection facilities, as opioid abuse and overdose have become increasingly problematic throughout the country.

    William McSwain, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania who is suing Safehouse, says the outcome of the legal battle could have a ripple effect across the U.S.

    “This is something that I think people will be looking at as, in a sense, a test case that will have implications in other districts,” he said.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Planned Safe Injection Sites Put On Hold In Canada

    Planned Safe Injection Sites Put On Hold In Canada

    Advocates of safe injection sites called the Canadian health minister’s decision to halt the opening of the facilities “horrifying.”

    A trio of planned safe injection sites in Ontario, Canada have been put on hold while the province’s new health minister conducts a review to determine if such facilities “have merit.”

    Health Minister Christine Elliott said that she remains unconvinced that such sites are effective in reducing drug overdose deaths and the spread of HIV infection; she also cited concerns from neighboring businesses over security and biohazard refuse as core reasons for the review.

    Advocates of safe injection sites and harm reduction policies called the health minister’s decision “horrifying,” that runs contrary to the needs of individuals in the midst of Canada’s opioid epidemic.

    The CBC reported that in a letter sent on Friday, August 10, to health integration networks and health units in the province, Roselle Martino, assistant deputy minister of the population and public health division, said that the approval process for new safe injection sites in the cities of Toronto, Thunder Bay, and St. Catharines would be halted immediately.

    The sites would allow for supervised injection of opioid drugs, grant access to harm reduction support and allow users to safely dispose of needles and other paraphernalia.

    In the letter, Elliott wrote that she will be “reviewing the evidence and speaking to experts to ensure that any continuation of supervised consumption services and overdose prevention sites are going to introduce people into rehabilitation and ensure people struggling with addiction will get the help they need.”

    CTV News also noted that Elliott will address how local businesses have been impacted by existing sites. The network cited concerns by Mark Garner, a member of the Downtown Yonge Business Improvement Area (BIA) in Toronto, who said that his organization has found discarded needles in the area near the Works, the city’s first supervised injection site, which opened in November 2017.

    Garner stated to CTV that while his organization supports efforts to reduce drug overdoses, the businesses in the BIA have felt the need to increase security and allocate funding to clean up discarded needles, especially ones discarded in toilets which have caused plumbing issues.

    “This is the number one tourist destination in Canada,” he said. “How do we integrate that into the neighborhood, what resources are needed, and how do we make it safe for everybody?”

    But harm reduction advocates and health care professionals have expressed alarm at the province’s move, which some described as a decision motivated more by politics than any actual health concern.

    “It’s a complete disaster, and I do worry about people on the ground,” said Marilou Gagnon, an associate professor of nursing and president of the Harm Reduction Nurses Association. “The science is very clear that overdose prevention sites do work, and we’ve known this since the ’80s. [I’m] extremely concerned about a government going against science.”

    View the original article at thefix.com