Pubdate: Thu, 14 Sep 2006
Source: Fulcrum, The (U of Ottawa, CN ON Edu)
Copyright: 2006 The Fulcrum
Contact:  http://www.thefulcrum.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2664

SAFE-INJECTION SITES TOO EFFECTIVE TO SHOOT DOWN

It's Time The Government Took A Stance On Safe Drug Use.

EDMONTON (CUP) -- Let's make one thing clear: safe injection clinics 
where drug addicts inject themselves with narcotics under the 
supervision of health care professionals are illegal in Canada. Their 
very existence violates our country's drug laws, and the only reason 
Vancouver's Insite clinic--the only one of its kind in North 
America--exists is due to a temporary exemption implemented (under 
Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in case you're 
interested) by then-prime minister Paul Martin and his Liberal government.

This three-year trial run was set to expire next month, but was 
granted an extension until December. Regardless, the pressure is on 
Stephen Harper's Conservative government to decide to allow Safe- (or 
Supervised) Injection Sites (SISs) such as Insite to operate.

Harper made his position clear on this issue when he was elected back 
in January: he's "philosophically opposed" to the idea of SISs, but 
would wait until evidence of the site's effectiveness was gathered 
before making a final decision.

This was--and is--a very reasonable position; in fact, even if Harper 
was philosophically in favour of SISs, he ought to have done the same 
thing, for it's the solemn responsibility of our policymakers to 
gather as much valid, empirical data as possible before making an 
important and precedent-setting decision. There are several 
criticisms of SISs that typically get hauled out: that they promote 
drug use, encourage dependence, increase crime in the neighbourhoods 
in which they're situated, that they simply don't work--and, by 
extension, are a waste of taxpayers' money (that governmental cardinal sin).

Without studying it any further, then, many would likely agree with 
Harper's stance on this issue.

The studies have been done, however, and the evidence overwhelmingly 
indicates that Insite is effective, not only in the prevention of 
infection among users, but also in helping free users from addiction 
altogether. SISs offer clean needles for users, unlike the dirty, 
HIV-infected needles found on the streets; these clinics also have 
nurses and doctors who provide medical services, as well as 
counsellors who guide addicts toward recovery. In other words, SISs 
don't promote drug use; rather, they promote clean, safe use for 
addicts and encourage them to recover and kick the habit.

Numerous studies have been conducted (both by outside researchers and 
within the Vancouver clinic itself), including a report released this 
September conducted by the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, 
which found that "three-quarters of Insite users report the facility 
has positively changed their injecting behaviour." Local governments 
and police, the RCMP, and former addicts alike attest to the progress made.

Even with this seemingly irrefutable evidence, Harper and his 
Conservatives have remained stubbornly silent on the issue, despite 
earlier promises to make their position clear by the end of the 
recent International AIDS conference held in August in Toronto--an 
event which our PM notoriously failed to attend.

Instead, Harper later defended his absence, pointing out correctly 
that he can't accept every invitation he's offered, and that he 
wasn't going to comment on the issue while it was "so politicized". 
He's damn right it's politicized, and aren't politics kind of his gig?

To be fair, Federal Health Minister Tony Clement was in attendance, 
and--pragmatically speaking--it's probably better to have a real live 
bureaucrat there than a political figurehead. But we all know the 
influence figureheads have on public perception, and in this sense 
Harper's snubbing of the conference doesn't bode well for his 
government's still-to-be-announced position on SISs like Insite.

That the Conservatives have their heads deep below the sand on this 
issue is obvious; the question is whether they will extract 
themselves from their igneous ignorance in time to save Insite from 
expiring--and maybe even sanction the development of some new clinics 
around the country while they're at it.

Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel has gone on the record condoning an 
endeavour to begin a similar program. Aside from Vancouver's Insite, 
plans are also in the works in Canada's two other largest urban 
centres--Montreal and Toronto--to institute SISs.

Not surprisingly, this M-T-V triad also represents the only major 
metropoli in Canada that don't have a single elected Conservative MP. 
This correlation shows the deep divide between our country's Liberals 
and Conservatives (both lower-case and upper), but it's on admittedly 
divisive issues like this one that we need to come together and do 
the right--if not the most ideal--thing.

Even if it goes against one's beliefs--religious, social, or 
otherwise--sometimes you simply must choose the lesser of two evils. 
In this case, it's tolerance of hard-drug use in exchange for 
increased public safety, lowered HIV-infection rates, and the 
reduction of addicts and users in our country's most drug-addled 
neighbourhoods.

Though it seems like a pretty clear-cut choice to me, this isn't a 
simplistic issue, and no one--our elected officials least among 
them--can afford to take an ideological position. Ignoring the 
effectiveness of SISs has the same effect as pretending that the 
problem doesn't exist, and going directly against proven science is 
hopefully a relic of the past.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Elaine