BT, no doubt that's exactly why 1st time users are not allowed...I just find it strange that they could make the decision to support what is in essence an illegal activity to some extent, but not (in my mind) the most important extent...to protect inexperienced users from causing harm to themselves.
Would/have you used an injecting room?
- Thread starter twominds
- Start date
Flexistentialist
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2002
- Messages
- 1,742
Thats always a dillema in harm reduction around injecting.
When I first started working at a needle exchange, I was freaked out one day when a 12 year old asked for a pack for him and his gf. Now we're aware that sometimes kids might try to come in for a dare or whatever, but these kids were pretty obviously already users because I'd seem them around.
The protocols are to basically assess whether the young person is a genuine user or not, and how far have they come in terms of making the decision to inject. This can be difficult to assess in the 30 seconds it takes for someone to get a 5 pack, but sometimes its obvious.
In this case, I gave him the pack, and felt a bit wierd. Later that day, I was off getting my lunch and bumped into my young friend and his gf from earlier. They had obviously just had a shot of heroin, and were totally smashed, staggering down the main street. The girl was having serious trouble walking and looked on the verge of oding. They came back to the exchange with me, and hung out there so we could keep an eye on them until she came around again.
This caused me to think pretty carefully about the issue of young people and injecting. I was glad to have supplied them with clean injecting equipment for free, because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been too concerned sharing.
What disturbed me most was knowing that I sent them out there with a pack, and I sort of knew that they were going to shoot up in some alley or toilet somewhere. This disturbed me much more than the idea of actually supplying them with the implements.
While these young people would probably have been eligible for the safe injecting room (if we had one), its a pretty unpallateable idea for the general public to swallow that someone so young should have their injecting "facilitated".
This ignores the actual realities of what is happening everyday on the streets, but when it comes down to it, its a very unattractive thing that the community needs to come to terms with.
Harm reduction as a whole is often accused of encouraging drug use. Its a fine line sometimes, especially when we're talking about someone taking up something new. The argument is the same used against harm reduction generally: Why not talk them out of using? Why not scare them straight? Harm reduction information (in this case "how to inject" information) is seen in this sense as allowing the drug use to occur.
I've conducted a few "how to shoot up" workshops (many moons ago) where we've had real, live injecting (of sterile water but still). These had an amazing response, because so many people had never been shown by professionals before. It was pretty ground breaking stuff, although it was kept very quiet. If we'd been caught, it would have made headlines. All throughout, I was thinking... "What would the headlines be if they saw this?" We were so scared that word would get out, we stopped having these training sessions.
There has been media / political outrage here in Brisbane when a harm reduction outreach worker waited around the corner while someone had a shot in an alley. This was interpretted by the media as a "defacto safe injecting room(?)" and the outreach workers were "aiding and abetting" by waiting around the corner to make sure the person didn't drop all alone in an alley.
When you're dealing with such an emotive issue, all it takes it an editorial in the local red neck rag (or worse, some talk back radio host) and your harm reduction efforts can all go down the toilet.
Interesting topic
When I first started working at a needle exchange, I was freaked out one day when a 12 year old asked for a pack for him and his gf. Now we're aware that sometimes kids might try to come in for a dare or whatever, but these kids were pretty obviously already users because I'd seem them around.
The protocols are to basically assess whether the young person is a genuine user or not, and how far have they come in terms of making the decision to inject. This can be difficult to assess in the 30 seconds it takes for someone to get a 5 pack, but sometimes its obvious.
In this case, I gave him the pack, and felt a bit wierd. Later that day, I was off getting my lunch and bumped into my young friend and his gf from earlier. They had obviously just had a shot of heroin, and were totally smashed, staggering down the main street. The girl was having serious trouble walking and looked on the verge of oding. They came back to the exchange with me, and hung out there so we could keep an eye on them until she came around again.
This caused me to think pretty carefully about the issue of young people and injecting. I was glad to have supplied them with clean injecting equipment for free, because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been too concerned sharing.
What disturbed me most was knowing that I sent them out there with a pack, and I sort of knew that they were going to shoot up in some alley or toilet somewhere. This disturbed me much more than the idea of actually supplying them with the implements.
While these young people would probably have been eligible for the safe injecting room (if we had one), its a pretty unpallateable idea for the general public to swallow that someone so young should have their injecting "facilitated".
This ignores the actual realities of what is happening everyday on the streets, but when it comes down to it, its a very unattractive thing that the community needs to come to terms with.
Harm reduction as a whole is often accused of encouraging drug use. Its a fine line sometimes, especially when we're talking about someone taking up something new. The argument is the same used against harm reduction generally: Why not talk them out of using? Why not scare them straight? Harm reduction information (in this case "how to inject" information) is seen in this sense as allowing the drug use to occur.
I've conducted a few "how to shoot up" workshops (many moons ago) where we've had real, live injecting (of sterile water but still). These had an amazing response, because so many people had never been shown by professionals before. It was pretty ground breaking stuff, although it was kept very quiet. If we'd been caught, it would have made headlines. All throughout, I was thinking... "What would the headlines be if they saw this?" We were so scared that word would get out, we stopped having these training sessions.
There has been media / political outrage here in Brisbane when a harm reduction outreach worker waited around the corner while someone had a shot in an alley. This was interpretted by the media as a "defacto safe injecting room(?)" and the outreach workers were "aiding and abetting" by waiting around the corner to make sure the person didn't drop all alone in an alley.
When you're dealing with such an emotive issue, all it takes it an editorial in the local red neck rag (or worse, some talk back radio host) and your harm reduction efforts can all go down the toilet.
Interesting topic
mibrane
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 22, 2000
- Messages
- 226
A couple of quick responses:
a) Under-18s - unfortunately NSW's "mandatory reporting" laws relating to "child abuse, neglect, or potential self-harm" leaves workers with much less scope here compared to other states.
While in my Young Drug User Project manager role at VIVAIDS, meeting the eneds of under-18s was a big part of my job. We can't even technically acknowledge a working relationship with any user under-18. We're actually legally obliged to report them to DOCS (that sure builds confidence in user orgs.)
a1) Hopefully one of the recommendations at the conclusion of the trial phase will be to allow first-time use. But there's no guarantee that will be the case, or that the new laws (because it is only operating under laws governing scientific trials) would change this guideline even if it was recommended by a report.
b) Safe injecting demos - Full-sim SI demos were a part of most peer ed training courses or one-day workshops I did in melbourne. But there are a few difficulties: mostly that simulating that process in front of users has an almost inevitable result - they will want to go and score (and me too). OK if they're being paid, and if you do it at the end of the day (although then people can be brain-dead). But if they're not being paid it is a bit of a tease, and if you do it early on the group is incredibly distracted for the rest of the day.
I find the sort of intervention I was discussing above - actually accompanying users during use, and making some suggestions about avoiding potential harms - to have a more significant impact on behaviours (are more likely to lead to positive behaviour change).
But that's great if you've been getting a positive response to your demos, Flex.
we've got a very fun "bio-replicant" arm here at NUAA which is really quite lifelike, a red blood flows through the veins and you can simulate the process very closely. It means no-one has to deal with the neurochemical implications of whacking water, but the process can still be simulated completely.
a) Under-18s - unfortunately NSW's "mandatory reporting" laws relating to "child abuse, neglect, or potential self-harm" leaves workers with much less scope here compared to other states.
While in my Young Drug User Project manager role at VIVAIDS, meeting the eneds of under-18s was a big part of my job. We can't even technically acknowledge a working relationship with any user under-18. We're actually legally obliged to report them to DOCS (that sure builds confidence in user orgs.)
a1) Hopefully one of the recommendations at the conclusion of the trial phase will be to allow first-time use. But there's no guarantee that will be the case, or that the new laws (because it is only operating under laws governing scientific trials) would change this guideline even if it was recommended by a report.
b) Safe injecting demos - Full-sim SI demos were a part of most peer ed training courses or one-day workshops I did in melbourne. But there are a few difficulties: mostly that simulating that process in front of users has an almost inevitable result - they will want to go and score (and me too). OK if they're being paid, and if you do it at the end of the day (although then people can be brain-dead). But if they're not being paid it is a bit of a tease, and if you do it early on the group is incredibly distracted for the rest of the day.
I find the sort of intervention I was discussing above - actually accompanying users during use, and making some suggestions about avoiding potential harms - to have a more significant impact on behaviours (are more likely to lead to positive behaviour change).
But that's great if you've been getting a positive response to your demos, Flex.
we've got a very fun "bio-replicant" arm here at NUAA which is really quite lifelike, a red blood flows through the veins and you can simulate the process very closely. It means no-one has to deal with the neurochemical implications of whacking water, but the process can still be simulated completely.
SteveElektro
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Messages
- 5,438
Sure I'd probbly use an injecting room if it was convenient. I wonder what percentage uses speed and coke rather than heroin?
mibrane
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 22, 2000
- Messages
- 226
In a timely coincidence, a report into MSIC has just been released. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but it should answer a lot of the questions being posed
http://druginfo.nsw.gov.au/druginfo/reports/msic.pdf
http://druginfo.nsw.gov.au/druginfo/reports/msic.pdf