In an ally, the picture of devastation devours the need for action. Within the stench of urine and open metal garbage bins. A steady stream of people crouch in doorways and behind telephone poles to inject their deadly dose of cocaine or heroin, oblivious to the daytime traffic on a nearby street. These are the day to day lives of the two-hundred and fifty- thousand inter venous drug users of Canada (Calgary Herald). Do you think that a supervised facility with clean needles and syringes would benefit these poverty stricken addicts and their societies? Would Safe Injection Sites ease the spread of AIDS among inter venous drug users? Is the government right in introducing such sites when only half the statistics prove to be in favour of them? Are there even any positive affects of these so called "sites"? .
.
When you think of the word "safe", most of us feel no harm towards the activity. But when you think of injecting a harmful chemical substance directly into your bloodstream, the word "safe" does not exist. In essence, there is no such thing as a "safe injection site" (Mahler). Perhaps the site could be supervised or monitored, but not "safe" (Joyce A9). In reality, the evidence suggests that these "sites" do not conquer but they surely reduce drug overdoses (Calgary Herald). In principle, drug overdoses are not the only problem, its beyond that. .
.
AIDS has become an immense problem among inter-venous drug users. Fifty-seven percent of AIDS infected people in the United States are inter-venous drug users. Although "safe sites" have been proven to decrease the spread of AIDS, the number of abusers has stayed the same (Sharpe A23). Facts have confirmed these statistics. For instance, by 2000, one-thousand and five hundred current and former drug users registered themselves into AIDS Vancouver Hospital. All these people infected simply because a sterilized syringe was not available.
