In a Glendale apartment, couch surfing ‘Fred’, a heavy user, responds to his cravings for another fix. He has a couple of rocks left, so putting on his parka and boots he braves the cold to walk 45 minutes to a safe consumption site at the hospital. Really?
All his money has been spent on his addiction so there is nothing left for transportation. The only option is foot power. Something in this story just does not make sense. Actually, it makes about as much sense as a car that thinks and drives for you when you are too foolish to drive properly yourself.
A safe injection site, which now is renamed as a safe consumption site, will allow what we as the rest of the population are not allowed to do; smoke in an enclosed, populated space. At least they will be nice and warm when they do it. As well, what will be the legal rights of those who supervise users and inhale second-hand smoke in the SCS? The rationale is that smoking is not as unhealthy as injecting. Balderdash!
Fred, who had come to the kitchen a few times and raised a bit of a ruckus once, came back to apologize for his behaviour, so I took the opportunity to question him on the issue of needles and their re-use. By his own admission he felt that the handing out of so many needles and the SCS were purely an enabler. He and several others were partying one evening and were shooting up when they ran out of the freely distributed needles, so they just kept injecting, using the ones they had. There was no thought of going out to get more needles at that time. I asked this fellow, “Would you have gone to a safe injection site if you could have?” All I received for an answer was a sarcastic chuckle.
Being that the costs are the responsibility of the AHS, with a limited budget, I wonder what services will be cut in order to produce and maintain a SCS? Is the public aware that a SCS is not just a place where people are free to use whatever they have, these sites have to be manned 24-7 which does not come cheap. For safety sake there would have to be at least two staff present at all times. Just ask Vancouver.
Although I feel that every life is of great value, I do not patrol every bridge or tall building in case someone wants to commit suicide by jumping. Do we have to help? Of course we do, but just giving addicts everything they require to facilitate their drug use is wrong. Would it not make much more sense to seek out and educate potential users and work with them? Think about it. Just how much would all out education about drugs cost? What would it be in comparison to a SCS staffed 24-7?
I may be wrong about all of this, but nowhere does it say that I am fully responsible for someone else’s choice to use; even to the point of their death. Should we do everything in our power to convince them otherwise? Yes, I do believe we should, but somewhere along the line these people have to take responsibility for their own actions.
Almost all of the recovering addicts who frequent and volunteer at the kitchen have stated that even in the midst of the worst times for them during their using, they were aware of what they were doing; enough so that when the need arose, they had the sense to go to detox or rehab.
Even though they were constantly on the move, they were never in the habit of traveling to use.
Chris Salomons is the kitchen co-ordinator at Potters Hands.