I don't disagree that having professionals nearby can prevent overdose / accidental death.
My concerns are: Safe consumption sites are controversial, and their support causes broader backlash. Usage rates are low and not a good use of resources.
Proponents are misusing data:
users of SCS would tend towards wanting help anyway and don't speak to broader efficacy.
'Lives saved' don't take into account any increase in use from a system perspective. That is to say, reduced stigma I believe increases drug use and death. Studies I've seen look at a micro level but not macro level. Example, "we prevented 10 deaths", but they dont take into account any increase in drug use from its normalization.
It's OK to feel shame for being addicted to drugs. But I also get we don't want people hiding away and dying. Stopping use should be the goal.
The people on the front lines have an important perspective, but they aren't seeing the whole story.
Aren't cities moving away from SCS because it's not working?
Fair enough, I am thinking of decriminalization that's being moved away from, which is further along the spectrum.
I kind of see your analogy, but driving a car has utility, and is much safer (although I would like to prevent some car driving as well). Fentanyl addiction is not a natural course.
Anyway I don't think we will agree, so I'll take a separate tack. Yes, prevention and treatment is a separate issue. It also has wider support, so my wish would be that government can get some consensus here and take action.