!

Sarah Sylvester

Ms. Collin Hull

English 1010

October 2019

Should public safe-injection sites be legalized in the United States?

Kreit, Alex. “Safe Injection Sites and the Federal Crack House Statute.” Boston College Law
Review, no. Issue 2, 2019, p. 413. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.bclr60.14&site=eds-live.

Summary:

In this article the author, Alex Kreit, an expert in illegal drug law and Professor of Law/

Co-Director at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, argues that immunity provision has been

overlooked during the federal debate regarding safe-injection sites and the “Crack-House”

Statute. He begins by outlining what exactly a safe-injection site is; a facility where users of

injectable illicit drugs can be supervised by medical personnel, in a clean environment, while

using. An important detail he points out is that the facility personnel would not be supplying or

distributing the substances, merely providing supervision and clean needles to reduce the spread

of disease and the amount of drug related overdoses each year. Kreit exemplifies a study done in

Vancouver, Canada where a safe-injection site was implemented. The results of the study were

that overdose deaths in the vicinity decreased by a compelling 35% after the opening of the

facility. Around the world a number of countries have adopted the idea of safe-injection sites as a

way to fight the opioid epidemic, while the United States has somewhat viewed it as a loss to the

“War on Drugs.” The author continues by explaining what the “Crack-House” Statute is; by
 !2

definition, a federal statute which makes it a felony to maintain any place for the purpose of

manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance. Arguably, leaving out the role of a

defendant, or in this case, safe site operators and employees. Kreit acknowledges that the

Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have not taken an official

stance on the issue, but that they have stated that if safe-injection sites were to open, it would be

a violation of the crack house statute. He gives an example of this; in August 2018, Deputy

Attorney General Rod Rosenstein penned a New York Times editorial in opposition to safe-

injection sites warning “cities and counties should expect the Department of Justice to meet the

opening of any injection site with swift and aggressive action.” Additionally Kreit references a

scholarly article comparing safe site employees to those in a hospital or methadone clinic.

Employees in those settings aren’t punishable by law for administering controlled substances, so

what’s different about a safe-site? In conclusion the author reinstates that the immunity provision

was likely unintended for this purpose, but it is absolutely applicable.

Assess:

This article was an extremely useful source of information regarding the topic I chose. I

would consider the information to be reliable because it was written by a credible scholar. While

the source ultimately had a profound stance that safe-injection sites aren’t a violation of the crack

house statute and that employees should be protected under the immunity provision, I don’t

believe he was biased because the evidence he provided was very objective and played to both

sides. The goal of this source was to provide information and clarity on the immunity provision

and why it’s applicable to safe-injection sites. The author primarily used logic to appeal to the

readers of this article, evident by many facts and studies displayed in the piece.
 !3

Reflect:

This article fits into my research by providing specifics of the legal roadblocks

preventing the production of safe-injection sites in the United States. It was helpful because my

main focus was on whether or not safe-injection sites were enabling the opioid crisis, now my

outlook on the issue has shifted to a legal perspective. The author also slightly changed my

opinion regarding the topic by accentuating the benefits of safe-injection sites; decreased

overdose deaths, decreased spread of disease, and increased accessibility to treatment options. 

 !4

DelVillano, Sarah, et al. “Supervised Injection Services: A Community-Based Response to the

Opioid Crisis in the City of Ottawa, Canada.” Maladies Chroniques et Blessures Au Canada, vol.
39, no. 3, Mar. 2019, pp. 112–115. EBSCOhost, doi:10.24095/hpcdp.39.3.03.

Summary:

This article, written by Sarah Delvillano, an intern on poverty issues at Citizens for

Public Justice, analyzes the data provided from the opening of a SIS in Ottawa, Canada. In the

beginning of the article she displays statistics about the opioid crisis; stating that opioid related

deaths increased by 34% from 2016 to 2017, proving the need for a SIS. She observed that

during peak hours of operation at the safe injection site, the demand often exceeded the trailer’s

max capacity. Correlating with a substantial increase of overdoses treated and reversed in the

same time period. The average amount of overdoses treated or reversed was 29 per month!

Delvillano felt that because of this, the trailer was providing harm reduction to a high-risk

community, though not optimal. She also goes over that the trailer averages about 121 visits per

day; of those visits, the majority of the clients were identified as males between the ages of 25

and 45 years old, with over half of them being primarily opiate abusers. Her article concludes by

reiterating that the number of overdoses avoided increased greatly over the short time since the

trailer was established. She also advocates for additional safe sites to be implemented because,

though there was evidence of harm reduction, there was still a substantial need for additional

services within that community that the current SIS was unable to meet.

Assess:

This source was useful, though in an unexpected way. When I read the title of the article,

I assumed it would be providing more personal opinions from the community, and less of the

cold statistics. I would consider the information reliable because the studies were performed by
 !5

government agencies. However, from Delvillano’s writing, I inferred some bias because she

emphasized the need for more safe sites multiple times throughout her piece. I believe her goal

was to advocate for more safe sites to be established, and she encouraged this through appealing

the the readers logic.

Reflect:

This source fit into my research because it provided important statistics proving success

from a safe injection site. Ideally, the same success could be implemented in the United States. It

was helpful because by reviewing the data I was able to get a better idea of the severity of the

issue. Though the statistics were compelling, they were also to be expected, and they did not

change how I think about this topic. 


 !6

Editorial. “Grim Stats Shift Public Opinion on Injection Sites.” Winnipeg Free Press (MB), 5
July 2018, p. A6. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=n5h&AN=7BS1549667124&site=eds-live.

Summary:

This editorial published in the Winnipeg Free Press; a daily newspaper that provides

coverage of local, national, international and entertainment news in Manitoba, Canada, displays

the the controversy between the 69% of its citizens that agree with safe-injection sites, and the

31% that don’t. The article puts emphasis on the fact that the Pallister government wants nothing

to do with safe-injection sites because such facilities condone illegal and dangerous activity. In

parallel, the government also believes that if they enable drug use, then they are also enabling

other crimes such as theft that are often used to earn drug money. Additionally they argue that

such facilities may send a mixed message to the younger population that is susceptible to

experimenting with drugs. Per this article, the government has instead proposed the

implementation of rapid access to addiction medicine clinics: where addicts can be treated with

medication for withdrawals and connected with community based treatment programs. In this

way the citizens struggling with addiction would still be provided the help without a “BYOD

(Bring Your Own Drugs) and we’ll help you inject them” kind of approach. In contrast, the

article then explains what has caused a change of heart in many of the population; that is the

amount of opioid overdose related deaths, nearly 4000 in 2017 alone (more than deaths by auto

vehicle accidents.) Those statistics, combined with the fact that almost 50% of addicts have gone

on to achieve sobriety following the access, and use, of safe-injection sites in Germany and

Switzerland, has the citizens of Manitoba thinking twice. The article concludes by stating that
 !7

though the Pallister government is opposed to safe-injection sites, a private organization has

since began inquiring what it will take to open one in their county.

Assess:

This source was useful, but I don’t feel like it was as reliable compared to the academic

journals. This source was obviously biased in preference of safe-injection sites over rapid access

to addiction medicine clinics. They displayed this bias by appealing to the reader’s emotions

when emphasizing the amount of deaths caused by overdoses each year, and pointing out that

safe-injection sites could prevent them. Because I’m not aware of where the source is getting

their information, I don’t believe that it is a valid source for an academic research project.

Reflect:

This article fit into my research because it showed contrast to the commonly accepted

idea of safe-injection sites. It was helpful to me because it provided some insight into the

reasoning of the opposing side. I can now use this source in my research project because I know

the deficits and public opinions of safe-injection sites in their communities. Ultimately, this

article did not change my opinion on the use of SIS’s overall.