Attitudes about setting up a methadone clinic in Arklow

The upcoming opening of a methadone treatment clinic in Arklow has refocused attention on the controversy that has surrounded this issue for some time. When the proposal to open a center came up a few years ago, two opposing groups appeared on the scene. One group favored the clinic and another group opposed it. Advocates seemed community-conscious and forward-thinking, supporting the rights of the addict struggling to recover and return to society. That group also felt that these clinics would eventually be accepted when local people realized their fears were unfounded. His methods of expressing his point of view seemed reasoned and calm. They claimed that the facility would have a placid effect on addicts as heroin was taken from them and that the results would be evidenced by a reduction in crime and the consequent annoying effect on society. They also claimed that treating addicts in their own areas would reduce the risks associated with attracting large numbers of addicts to core areas, so that each area would deal with its own problems. These lower numbers would result in less visibility of addicts in local areas.

Those who opposed methadone clinics were originally grouped into two subcategories, a group that had never been involved in drugs, strongly opposed any form of drug activity in their area. They claimed that those centers failed elsewhere, even when more than one was established in the same city. His main objection was the exposure of the children to the presence of addicts in the vicinity of the clinic. They expressed their point of view in public demonstrations in a way that sometimes turned violent.

The perspectives on both sides of the debate appear to have changed with support for clinics that appear to be based on administrative concerns from both a medical and government perspective. The anti-methadone group seemed not to sympathize with the needs of the addict trying to recover and return to his community based on concern for the long-term interests of the patient to a life of dependence on methadone is considered an avoidance where the patient is prevents you from reaching your full human potential.

This lobby suggested the open prison in Arklow

facing a threat of closure would have been an ideal downtown location, where it could treat addicts from across the county, would have been out of town and away from populated areas. This location provided the resources to treat addicts in a holistic way where addicts could benefit from a full recovery program of detox and rehab in lieu of the inhumane methadone regimen that did not address the root of the addict’s problem. This group cited this as an example of inefficient use of public resources. He also suggested that the voluntary sector could make a better contribution than the state sector.

Therefore, the pro-center stance, which at first seemed more humane by placing the interests of the individual addict above those of the community, faced with the aggressive element that seemed to be Nimbyist and did not care about the individual, seems reversed, as methadone treatment could be reversed. it is seen as serving the interests of the community, while the anti-clinical lobby appears to be putting the long-term interests of the individual and the community at large. The failure of the state to make available a facility it was recently considering closing puts it in the dock of methadone supporters.

Given the emergence of the anti-clinic from within the community in front of the medical and statutory sector that supports the methadone center, the arguments of the former that logically evolved from opposition to a real community solution from a voluntary perspective, the weight of the logic seems to be on your side.

Whichever side is taken in this debate, the interests of the addict and their ability to be allowed to develop their potential to contribute to their community should be of primary concern to all.