The goal of SCS
The goal of SCS is to provide vulnerable people with a place where they can consume in a restricted, safe and clean way as they would anywhere else. Supervised trained personnel equipped with prepared naloxone, opioid overdose antidotes. This site helps people participate in both therapeutic and convenient purposes.
Data from the US shows that only one secure SCS has been operating there since 2014, according to the Pen Wharton Public Policy Initiative. The center provided medical assistance to 100 opioid addicts and verified more than 2,574 injections during the 2014-2016 year. In addition, patients received a survey form prior to consumption, and the survey revealed that over the past 30 days, approximately 67.4% of users were used to disposing of syringes safely. Therefore, in a safe place of consumption, we properly dispose of 1,725 syringes and prevent approximately 92.2% of unsafe and unsanitary injections.
By reviewing the statistics, we can see that SCS is a practical and cost-effective approach. However, previous data explained that safe consumption areas continue to be a controversial issue within the country as it faced long-standing public opposition. According to data reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the annual cost of the entire opioid healthcare sector is approximately $ 75 billion. However, according to San Francisco statistics reports, $ 1 spent on SCS can save about $ 2.33, for a total savings of $ 3.5 million a year. According to a report from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, establishing a safe consumer area in Baltimore can save about $ 6 million a year in Baltimore. Taking into account the social and economic interests of SCS, Canada has decided to create three SCS sites in the city. Montreal was also in the process of establishing multiple SCS in 2017.
There are several harm reduction approaches recommended long ago by healthcare professionals. These include needle and needle replacement programs that can include the spread of viral infections such as HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. Due to the influence of the federally approved needle exchange program, the concept of Supervised injection is highly provocative and controversial. However, the SCS is much more controversial and has been controversial for the past few years. According to a study by Kora et al. (2017), SCS is plagued with social shame. Some community members argue that establishing an SCS can hinder community development and negatively affect local businesses.
Furthermore!
Some political organizations do not support the areas of safe consumption. They believe that SCS should not be funded or dissolved. A news article published by Tasker (2019) summarizes the Conservative Party’s attitude towards SCS. They encourage SCS to promote drug use, unite drug users in the same community, disrupt normal behavior in local communities due to increased crime, and discourage drug users from participating in addiction treatment programs. Inconsistently, there was no evidence to investigate whether SCS would reduce or increase crime in the surrounding area.
Based on these academic studies, state and federal governments should fund safe use areas in high drug use areas. You will save government money in the long run. It prevents the transmission of the disease. You will reduce the excess among drug users, and addicted drug users may be able to use the professional help provided by their SCS to recover from their addiction. The impact of the life-saving movement of this concept and the benefits of cost savings will give way to the future.
