Sammendrag
High mortality rates, poor health and appalling living conditions have prompted widespread concern over a number of years for drug injectors in Oslo and other municipalities. Injecting in public places such as parks and doorways is considered degrading for the people involved. The authorities have therefore been urged to set up a supervised drug injection facility as one way of improving conditions for the group.
Following a lengthy process between several governments and Parliament (Storting), a decision was taken to approve a three-year pilot scheme, which allows drug users to inject in a controlled environment. At present, piloting is restricted to the Oslo area, but it may be taken up by other local councils. This scheme is defined as a local health service and under provisions of the Health Personnel Act, employees count as healthcare personnel. The temporary law enabling the pilot scheme exempts healthcare workers from prosecution for teaching clients to inject drugs safely and offering advice in connection with the procedure. Injectors are also allowed to help others inject. A set of regulations defines the target group, admittance criteria and control, personal details to be obtained, staffing and the type of service the scheme is supposed to render. Injecting rooms should be located in close proximity to low-threshold health services, opening hours should fit the needs of the clientele; counsellors should be on hand, and clients should be referred when necessary to other parts of the health service.
The legal consequences of non-liability for possession and use of drugs within a defined area (the injecting facility) should be studied. The trial is meant to promote respect for the dignity of drug injectors, facilitate contact and consultations with the health service, reduce risk of disease and prevent transfer of pathogenic agents, reduce overdose rates and overdose mortality rates.
To become a registered user, there needs to be a significant history of heavy drug use and dependency. Clients must also be 18 or older. Non-liability for possession and use is restricted to one unit of heroin.
The evaluation seeks to establish 1) performance in light of objectives, 2) note distinguishing features of the clientele and 3) their use of the facility. The evaluation will investigate the role of facility staff and how the police tackle a measure such as this. The evaluation mandate also covers the trial’s neighbourhood impact, not least as a point of convergence for substance abusers.
One important question dealt with by the evaluation relates to how injecting room personnel tackle restrictions in the non-liability clause to one unit of heroin, and how the police deal with problems likely to arise in the vicinity of this type of service.
The project uses data from the comprehensive surveys of young people in the normal population, including the 2004 SIRUS study of over 20,000 pupils at schools in sixteen Norwegian municipalities and a national survey of 12,000 teenagers, “Young in Norway 2002” (“Ung i Norge 2002”). Data produced by a similar study conducted ten years before (“Young in Norway 1992”) will aid temporal analyses that examine variations over time.
Vis fullstendig beskrivelse
Vitenskapelig sammendrag
High mortality rates, poor health and appalling living conditions have prompted widespread concern over a number of years for drug injectors in Oslo and other municipalities. Injecting in public places such as parks and doorways is considered degrading for the people involved. The authorities have therefore been urged to set up a supervised drug injection facility as one way of improving conditions for the group.
Following a lengthy process between several governments and Parliament (Storting), a decision was taken to approve a three-year pilot scheme, which allows drug users to inject in a controlled environment. At present, piloting is restricted to the Oslo area, but it may be taken up by other local councils. This scheme is defined as a local health service and under provisions of the Health Personnel Act, employees count as healthcare personnel. The temporary law enabling the pilot scheme exempts healthcare workers from prosecution for teaching clients to inject drugs safely and offering advice in connection with the procedure. Injectors are also allowed to help others inject. A set of regulations defines the target group, admittance criteria and control, personal details to be obtained, staffing and the type of service the scheme is supposed to render. Injecting rooms should be located in close proximity to low-threshold health services, opening hours should fit the needs of the clientele; counsellors should be on hand, and clients should be referred when necessary to other parts of the health service.
The legal consequences of non-liability for possession and use of drugs within a defined area (the injecting facility) should be studied. The trial is meant to promote respect for the dignity of drug injectors, facilitate contact and consultations with the health service, reduce risk of disease and prevent transfer of pathogenic agents, reduce overdose rates and overdose mortality rates.
To become a registered user, there needs to be a significant history of heavy drug use and dependency. Clients must also be 18 or older. Non-liability for possession and use is restricted to one unit of heroin.
The evaluation seeks to establish 1) performance in light of objectives, 2) note distinguishing features of the clientele and 3) their use of the facility. The evaluation will investigate the role of facility staff and how the police tackle a measure such as this. The evaluation mandate also covers the trial’s neighbourhood impact, not least as a point of convergence for substance abusers.
One important question dealt with by the evaluation relates to how injecting room personnel tackle restrictions in the non-liability clause to one unit of heroin, and how the police deal with problems likely to arise in the vicinity of this type of service.
The project uses data from the comprehensive surveys of young people in the normal population, including the 2004 SIRUS study of over 20,000 pupils at schools in sixteen Norwegian municipalities and a national survey of 12,000 teenagers, “Young in Norway 2002” (“Ung i Norge 2002”). Data produced by a similar study conducted ten years before (“Young in Norway 1992”) will aid temporal analyses that examine variations over time.
Vis fullstendig beskrivelse
