Pubdate: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC) Copyright: The Vancouver Sun 2000 Contact: 200 Granville Street, Ste.#1, Vancouver BC V6C 3N3 Fax: (604) 605-2323 Website: http://www.vancouversun.com/ Author: David Beers, Vancouver Sun Note: While this article is the last of the series in the Sun, MAP will continue to use this link for Vancouver plan items appearing in the newspaper. Series: Searching for solutions - Fix on the Downtown Eastside http://www.mapinc.org/thefix.htm Also: As of 24 Nov 2000 the draft plan may be found at: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ A CALL TO ACTION First Vancouver Ignored Its Drug Problems, Then It Spent Years Investigating Solutions. In This Finale To Our Series On Drugs, Writer David Beers Argues It Is Now Time To Act. Sam Sullivan grew tired of seeing the prostitute hanging out in front of the local grocery store. He was tired of what her presence said about the direction his Collingwood neighbourhood was headed. So he prepared a few harsh words, and up to her he wheeled. Wheeled, because Sam Sullivan happens to be paralyzed from the waist down. He also happens to be a Vancouver city councillor, a member of the majority NPA slate that rules city hall. Those two facts -- that he is disabled, that he wields power -- would help Sam Sullivan arrive at some very different thinking down the road. Only, however, well after he had come to know the prostitute and embarked upon a small social experiment with her. For now, all he wanted to do was chase her off. Up he wheeled ... and they began conversing. Why did she hook? For the rent money. Truly? To pay the rent? Well, no. She needed money for drugs, for heroin. Without it, she got sick. How much did she need a day to not get sick? Forty dollars. Here, said Sullivan. Here is $40 so you don't need to sell your body today. If you need $40 tomorrow, I'll give that to you, too. "It's somehow ingrained in our Protestant ethic, the idea of the perfectibility of man," philosophizes Sullivan today, nearly two years after he first met the prostitute. "And we resent these addicts for forcing us to acknowledge that maybe this isn't the way the world, the universe, works." This girl certainly was a long way from perfect. She was young, and still quite beautiful, but already she carried diseases, and her addiction made her sometimes lie, connive, debase herself. Oddly, Sullivan came to like her best, he says, when heroin flowed in her veins. Then she was lucid and funny, and she would speak of the house, the child, the spotless white carpet before the warm, crackling fire that she wanted to have some day. Days went by, which became weeks, and still Sam Sullivan would give the girl $40 when she said she needed it. Along the way, he took more opportunities to talk with her about setting some realistic goals, about getting into treatment and making it stick. "So I like to say that Vancouver did have a heroin-maintenance program," Councillor Sullivan says. And it worked very well, for a few weeks. Sullivan's $40 a day might seem a strange investment for any one citizen to make in another, but the logic of it is embraced by many a government around the world these days. The Logic Of Harm Reduction Sullivan began with the desire to improve the social environment of his neighbourhood. To do so, he had to know the honest facts of the prostitute's predicament. From such facts flowed a strategy. At minimum, Sullivan's $40 a day was meant to eliminate prostitution from in front of the grocery, while exposing the girl to less disease and degradation. At best, Sullivan's $40 a day might keep the girl close to his encouragement, and eventually into contact with people who would help her kick. This, in essence, is the logic of harm reduction. Treat drug addicts as a health problem; undercut the black market through prescribed drugs and substitutes like methadone; provide a full range of treatment options to addicts wanting to quit, along with help with jobs and housing; punish the kingpins severely. By 1994, when B.C.'s former chief coroner Vincent Cain issued his too-controversial report suggesting this harm reduction approach for B.C., it would have drawn a stifled yawn in England, Holland, Switzerland and Germany, where such ideas had been tried, tinkered with and proven effective, in some places, for nearly a decade. When Cain wrote his report, the intravenous drug scene and related HIV rates in the Downtown Eastside were as bad as just about anywhere in the world. Given that hard drugs and needle-born diseases have since continued to kill hundreds of people a year in the region, the slow and unimaginative response by city, provincial and federal government amounts to a deadly scandal. With "bewildered" horror at the official inaction, Donald MacPherson watched the Downtown Eastside drug scene unravel throughout the 1990s. He was a community worker at the Carnegie Centre at Main and Hastings and then, in 1997, became a planner at city hall. "What was happening on the street was absolutely intolerable, unbelievable, with no sense of urgency at any level of government. It seemed very chaotic, uncoordinated." That drift didn't change until three years ago, when the Vancouver/Richmond health board, citing an HIV epidemic in the Downtown Eastside, finally declared a public health emergency, says MacPherson. Just two weeks ago, after much internal hand wringing, the city released its "Framework for Action," a proposed strategy drawing from European harm-reduction models, authored by Donald MacPherson and now circulating for public discussion. A cynic could easily read the "framework" as one more dodge dressed up as an action plan. The city is asking for millions of dollars worth of new facilities and programs from provincial and federal authorities, while putting up nary a dollar of its own. Indeed, since June the city has sat on some $3 million in provincial and federal funding for facilities, including an addict resource centre and a treatment centre for pregnant women. Instead of approving sites for the projects, the mayor declared a moratorium on all new addict services in the Downtown Eastside. An optimist could take the mayor and his sweeping plan at face value, noting that he is shouldering the responsibility of selling to the public a "four-pillar" approach that includes harm reduction. An optimist might also conclude that once the mayor gains public approval for his plan, the way is open for Victoria and Ottawa, under the recently signed Vancouver Agreement, to do their parts -- and for the city to green-light those held-up projects in the Downtown Eastside. "We'll be ready to go," says mayor Owen, "when we finish our public forums in the spring." Shortly after, there will be a newly elected government in Victoria, perhaps with a mandate to match the one just handed the Federal Liberals. "It couldn't work better than to have two governments get a mandate within five months of each other," Owen declares. "Two governments will be more bold than they would have been." A pragmatist would do well to study not only the in-depth reporting in these pages over the past two weeks, but the hard data emanating from Frankfurt, Germany and other cities that have inspired city hall's proposal. A close reading yields four points to be conscious of in working toward solutions. Commit To The Continuum One, commit to the continuum. In 1998, Mayor Owen attended an international symposium on crime prevention and drug treatment here in Vancouver, and remembers European delegates shaking their heads at our haphazard approach. "You mean you have a single needle exchange, but no serious treatment for addicts?" they would say in disbelief. "You mean you arrest users, but have nowhere to send them other than jail or back on the street?" Experts speak of the "continuum of care" needed to lower addiction problems, stretching from the child in school who has never tried drugs to the addict who won't quit but presents a public health risk. In May of this year, when the Kaiser Foundation looked at British Columbia's "continuum" it found "a broken chain": "Inconsistent and under-funded education and prevention efforts. Wasted opportunities for intervention. Fragmented components for counselling and treatment. Inadequate data-collection and research capacity on which to build good decisions. Waiting lists for counselling and treatment." The foundation's report on addiction was damning in its assessment. This points to the risk that as the city's four-pillars approach circulates, it will be treated like a smorgasbord, with only the most immediately palatable options swallowed politically. But it likely won't work to have, say, more prevention, treatment and policing without the last pillar, harm-reduction measures for addicts who keep using -- measures as controversial as safe injection sites and prescribed heroin. Indeed, beyond the four pillars lie other essential architectural elements, housing, jobs, mental health care and other keys to offering a way out of addiction. Someone Has To Be In Charge Two, someone has to be in charge. Given the picture painted above, you can see why one single addict -- a Shai or a Don, to name the two The Sun has followed during this series -- is today the intersection point for three levels of government and a crazy-quilt of jurisdictions among them. Just recently, the Vancouver/Richmond Health Board, a provincial body, asked for and got responsibility for dealing with drug addiction as a health issue. But none of the other health boards in B.C. have followed suit, and so there the responsibility remains with the ministry of children and families. Vancouver funds the police, but a police board dominated by provincial representatives dictates their actions. St. Paul's Hospital might like to start a heroin-maintenance experiment and share the findings with the rest of Canada, but Ottawa would have to pass a law first. You get the convoluted picture. It's why Frankfurt put in place the weekly Monday Morning Meeting, where top officials from health, housing, policing, etc. would compare notes and plan action together. It's why the Kaiser Foundation report's title is: "A Case for an Independent Substance Abuse Prevention and Addictions Commission for British Columbia." Only a powerful, "arms-length" body can cut through the bureaucratic maze to get things done, argues the report. Nothing About B.C. Makes Success Politically Impossible Three, nothing about B.C. makes success politically impossible. When Councillor Jennifer Clarke traveled to Frankfurt and Amsterdam, she returned with good things to say about their approaches, but in public presentations she worries that we lack the city-state like political structure to get it done. She points to their budgets many times Vancouver's own. But those budgets also include big expenses we don't shoulder, like welfare. Nor need we despair that those Europeans are inherently more socially empathic and liberal-minded than us, and so more easily embrace a program like harm reduction. Frankfurt's drug czar, Werner Schneider, says "the 'power of European cities compared with Canadian cities' is not at all an argument against starting the program in Vancouver. Despite the fact that European (at least German) cities seem to have more money and power, when the city of Frankfurt started to implement the new drug strategy, we had to do this against the expressed will, official policy and enormous pressure from our state and federal government (which both at that time were conservative governments). "Your provincial government as well as your federal government seem to be pretty much supportive in term of the new strategy, which creates a much better situation for Vancouver (compared with Frankfurt)." Small Experiments Do Not Bring About The End Of Civilization Four, small experiments do not bring about the end of civilization. Some perspective: We are talking about trying a new approach for perhaps 15,000 people from a provincial population of four million. The Europeans sell their harm-reduction attempts as limited experiments with announced aims, like better health and public safety. And they treat them as such, collecting data and reporting back to the public when the allotted time is up. "I don't know how many more experts we can invite from overseas, how many more forums we can have," says Carnegie Centre activist Tom Laviolette with exasperation. "I would even like someone to try something and make mistakes. We don't even get that far." When Europeans try something and make mistakes, they change a losing game. When it works, they expand the experiment, with well-earned public support. An Invisible Disability And what of Vancouver city Councillor Sullivan's own, private experiment? One thing he learned is that a heroin trial, done his way, can get expensive. It irked him that, "If I gave her 500 bucks, one dollar went to the actual cost of the drug and 499 went to the infrastructure of organized crime." That made him think like an economist and conclude that prescribed heroin might be a cost-effective way to subvert criminals while staving off his friend's sickness. He also learned that addiction often is a chronic illness, and can't be always cured on a timetable. His friend promised to try treatment, then missed the appointment he helped set up. By then he was running low on funds and learning another lesson. Addressing drug addiction may be cost effective in the long run for society -- the estimate is that a dollar spent on treatment saves seven -- but it requires a lot of commitment and resources all the same. By himself, Sam Sullivan didn't have enough. He told her it was over. "I remember the very, very cold way in which I did it. I said, "No. No, I can't give you any more money. I felt very bad because I knew what I was essentially saying was: I'm throwing you on to the street. "Then that started making me resent the system that I was responsible for. That it would be so dysfunctional as to have required this young girl to have degraded herself in order to not be sick. I've seen her when she has the red yes, runny nose, throwing up." Even as he sent her away, Sullivan drew a comparison, and contrast, to his own life. It haunts him, still. "As a disabled person I find that I have an advantage. My disability is in your face, it's very visible, it immediately receives people's acknowledgment that this is something beyond my control and I'm at a disadvantage. I think visible disabilities are ones we most feel bad for. So what happens when I break my neck? I get picked up, taken to the hospital, treated reasonably well, and I'm given all sorts of supports. "But the drug addict is a good example of an invisible disability. When a person has a disability like a drug addiction, we throw them on to the street, let the worst predators of the community prey on them and abuse them. So I see this difference. "And I know that a few centuries ago societies used to believe that having a disability was a sign of moral weakness. A punishment from God. I think our treatment of addicts is like a holdover from some really feudal, primitive idea. A person who, for whatever reason, ended up chemically dependent on some drug, is caused by moral weakness. "You know, when you go to the Downtown Eastside and near horrible stories, you think: 'How can they not be a drug addict, having gone through that life?' But then there are a lot of people with really nice lives, seemingly middle class, and you think they ought not be on drugs. But you often find there is this thing that made them feel disassociated, that made them not feel good enough somehow, not accepted, and that can lead a person into using drugs. So what do we do as a society to people who are suffering from the feeling of being disassociated, excluded? We label them criminals and officially disassociate them. That's really what they need!" Sullivan gives a rueful laugh. Once in a while he would see the girl standing on Kingsway, looking for another trick, another fix. He hasn't seen her for a while, though, and that has him wondering if time hasn't run out on her dream of the house and the child and the spotless white carpet before the warm, crackling fire. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake