The Melbourne injecting room has come under sharp criticism following revelations of astonishing overdose rates. Over an 18-month period after the facility’s opening in July 2018, startling statistics showed 23.5 overdoses per 1,000 heroin injections at the MSIR facility, a figure that eclipsed comparable street overdose statistics of just 0.23 per 1,000 injections. This equates to overdose rates within the Melbourne injecting room being 102 times higher than street use figures—a discrepancy that has sparked widespread controversy.

Critics have raised serious concerns, not only about the ethical implications of these facilities but also their long-term impact on drug use patterns. Testimonies from former clients reveal that the perceived safety of the MSIR facility encouraged individuals to experiment with riskier behaviours, including higher doses of heroin and dangerous drug mixtures. This dynamic may explain the facility’s extreme overdose statistics, which some argue directly fuel local drug trafficking and sales.

Inflated Claims of ‘Lives Saved’

Supporters of the Melbourne injecting room have used questionable calculations to argue that it prevents fatal overdoses. The facility’s evaluators extrapolated findings to state that the MSIR saved 21-27 lives in its initial 18 months. However, critics point out that these estimates rely on overdose figures that are artificially inflated, rendering their claims highly speculative at best. The lack of transparency around the methodology raises further doubts.

Overdose Comparisons and Failures in Evaluation

One of the fiercest criticisms of the MSIR review lies in its failure to compare the Melbourne injecting room overdose rates to real-world street data. While many expected the evaluators to assess how the facility performs against broader public health data, these comparisons were conspicuously absent. Experts dismiss attempts to justify the overdoses by citing decades of Australian research that contradicts such explanations.

Instead, glaring evidence shows that client experimentation largely drives the high overdose rates at the MSIR facility. This behaviour is linked to the perceived safety of the room, where users feel confident they can ‘test their limits’ without facing potentially fatal consequences. Such behaviour, according to testimony from ex-clients, perpetuates drug dependence and strengthens the local drug trade—with dealers benefitting significantly from increased drug use among facility clients.

Implications for International Treaties

Australia’s operation of drug injecting rooms faces scrutiny for its apparent contravention of its obligations under the United Nations 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This treaty calls for policies that deter drug use and trafficking, goals which critics say the Melbourne injecting room undermines by creating conditions for increased consumption. The inordinate overdose rates, combined with evidence of bolstered drug dealer profits, have amplified calls for the closure of such facilities to realign national policy with international commitments.

Exploring an Alternative Approach

Opposition to the MSIR facility is growing, with some groups advocating for investment in long-term rehabilitation programmes instead. By addressing the root causes of addiction and prioritising recovery over harm-reduction, many argue this approach offers a more effective solution for reducing overdose emergencies and rebuilding affected communities.

With alarming overdose rates and ethical concerns stacking up against the facility, the Melbourne injecting room faces mounting scrutiny. Policymakers must now decide whether such facilities align with the public’s best interests or if alternative, more holistic strategies are the way forward.

(Source: WRD News)

Advocates often promote injecting rooms, also called supervised injection facilities, as a way to minimise drug-related harm. Proponents suggest these facilities save lives and reduce community issues such as public drug use and discarded needles. However, a closer look at available data raises concerns about injecting room effectiveness, particularly in reducing fatalities or improving conditions within communities.

Does the Data Support Injecting Room Effectiveness?

A key claim often made about injecting rooms is that they save lives by preventing fatal overdoses. The evaluation of Melbourne’s injecting room estimated it saved between 21 and 27 lives in its first 18 months of operation. However, this assessment does not align with community-level data, which shows no detectable decrease in heroin-related deaths near the facility or in broader areas such as the Local Government Area or the state.

Heroin-related deaths remained consistent both before and after the facility’s inauguration. This inconsistency highlights flaws in the methodology used to calculate so-called “lives saved.” The claims appear to rely on internal overdose intervention figures rather than broader, observable changes within the community.

Overdose Interventions and Broader Outcomes

The Melbourne injecting room reported over 2,600 overdose interventions, including 271 naloxone administrations. These figures equate lives saved, yet external data reveals a far different outcome. Based on overdose death rates in community settings, around one death occurs per 109,500 injections. The facility hosted roughly this number of injections during the evaluation period, making it likely responsible for preventing only one fatality.

This calls into question the sustainability of relying on supervised injection facility outcomes as a measure of success. If the number of deaths prevented at these facilities is negligible while overdoses within them remain artificially high, their overall benefit to public safety becomes questionable.

Community and Financial Costs For Injecting Room Effectiveness

When evaluating injecting room effectiveness, it is critical to consider the financial and community-level implications. Despite claims that injecting rooms reduce public health burdens, the data from Melbourne’s facility showed no measurable reduction in heroin-related hospital admissions or improvements in overall public amenity. Issues such as discarded needles and neighbourhood safety concerns persisted.

Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of such facilities is highly debatable. For example, Melbourne’s injecting room cost $6 million during its evaluation period, but community-level data suggests it saved just one life. Instead, this funding could have been redirected to programmes such as residential rehabilitation services, which provide long-term solutions by helping individuals overcome drug dependency and reduce related harms.

A Flawed Approach to Drug Issues

The issues surrounding supervised injection facility outcomes urge policymakers to thoroughly reassess how they address drug-related challenges. While these facilities are often presented as compassionate and effective interventions, evidence suggests they deliver minimal improvements in public health, safety, or life quality within communities.

Rather than focusing on accommodating harmful behaviours, resources should be devoted to solutions such as treatment and recovery programmes. Such efforts offer a true opportunity to break the cycle of dependency and achieve meaningful, lasting benefits for individuals and society.

Advocates promote injecting rooms as a way to combat drug-related harm, but the data undermines claims of their effectiveness. Redirecting funding towards abstinence-based rehabilitation programmes could pave the way for more impactful and sustainable strategies.

(Source: WRD News)

Calls for an additional injecting room in the Western Suburbs of Sydney have led Drug Free Australia to once again highlight the failure of the Kings Cross injecting room, which hosts overdose rates 63 times higher than clients’ own overdose histories before entering the room.

When new clients enter the Kings Cross injecting room for the first time, they give their details on an official registration form, which asks, among other things, how many times they have ever overdosed and how long they have used illicit drugs.

By taking this information, readily available in a public evaluation of the injecting room, Drug Free Australia has been able to show that overdose rates in the facility, in its first decade of operation, were 63 times higher than clients’ own overdose rates before entering the facility.

Such extraordinary numbers of overdose inevitably means that clients are experimenting by using more illicit drugs than usual in the facility, which must inevitably be purchased from drug dealers, lining their pockets.  The injecting room is thereby a government-funded accessory to NSW’s illicit drug trade and any new Western Suburbs facility would be an additional government accessory.

A 2007 study on the Kings Cross injecting room - claiming that it reduced ambulance callouts for overdose by 80% - has been shown to be in error.  This falsely publicised study measured the effect of the heroin drought on ambulance callouts due to the Australian heroin drought, which intervened just months before the Kings Cross facility opened.  The rest of NSW had callout reductions by day of 61% against reductions in Kings Cross of 80% when the injecting room was open, evidencing a 19% better result for Kings Cross.  What the study failed to highlight from their own data was that Kings Cross, at night when the injecting room was closed, had 29% greater reductions than the rest of NSW, indicating that sniffer dog policing, which is used moreso at night than daytime, was responsible for the overdose reductions in the area.  This policing had the effect of sharply increasing ambulance callouts in neighbouring Darlinghurst, which was not policed in the same manner.

Claims also that the injecting room saves lives are also falsified by the injecting room’s own evaluations in 2003 and 2007, which showed no reductions whatsoever for overdose presentations in nearby hospitals.  It is also well-established that in Australia there is one fatal overdose for every 110,000 opiate injections on the street, and the Kings Cross facility only averages 51,000 yearly - half that number in a year, demonstrating that the multiple millions spent each year are wasted on a facility that can only legitimately claim to save one life statistically every two years. 

Harm reduction measures such as these add to drug death tolls in Australia, which typically triple whenever drug prevention is deprioritised.  Opiate deaths under harm minimisation tripled between 1985, when the approach was federally adopted, to 6.75 deaths per100,000 by 1999, plummeting to 2.2/100,000 by 2006 under the drug prevention strategies of the 1998 Federal Tough on Drugs policy, before shooting up to 5.75/100,000 by 2017 because harm reduction priorities were made ascendent again.  Injecting rooms, a key plank of Harm Minimisation, are an iconic part of this failed approach – prolonging opiate users’ opiate injecting careers and ongoing exposure to fatal overdose opportunity.

Gary Christian 
Drug Free Australia - 0422 163 141

This communication is sent on the understanding that it is a constitutional right to petition political representatives.

Conclusions:  This Bulletin shows that lifetime use of the MSIR reported by participants in the Melbourne IDRS has increased over time, as has frequent use of the MSIR, categorised as ≥50% of reported injections. Our findings suggests that there have been few impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the overall use of the facility in this sample despite major changes in the operation of the service (6), and evidence of an overall downturn in the number of injecting episodes accommodated by the service during the pandemic noted by author NC. The characteristics of those who reported MSIR use changed little over the years, and were consistent with previous work (4), with people experiencing marginalisation over-represented, as were those who experienced recent non-fatal heroin overdose. This is likely to be related to the fact that most people’s drug of choice was reported as being heroin. Less use of the MSIR among those in drug treatment highlights the importance of the facility for those not engaged in treatment and the potential referral pathways into treatment that the facility provides (2). It is important to note that participants were recruited predominantly from needle and syringe programs, who are already likely to be engages with services, and so we cannot draw conclusions on access for the broader population of people who inject drugs. Similarly, reasons given for not attending the MSIR changed little over survey years. The findings around distance highlight the need for the expansion of supervised injecting facilities to other areas of melbourne such as the Melbourne CBD which has been flagged for a second MSIR.

View PDF

A critical examination of safe injection sites reveals their ineffectiveness in addressing the drug crisis. Despite intentions to reduce harm, these facilities have consistently failed to deliver meaningful outcomes and have often exacerbated local drug problems. It is essential to reconsider the legalisation and support of such initiatives to protect community health and safety. (Source: WRD News)