Pubdate: Tue, 21 Oct 2008
Source: Abbotsford Times (CN BC)
Copyright: 2008 The Abbotsford Times
Contact:  http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1009
Author: Christina Toth
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?142 (Supervised Injection Sites)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/insite

COPS, PM SHADY ON INSITE

It is right that Auditor General Sheila Fraser should investigate how
and why the RCMP in B.C. commissioned studies into Insite, Vancouver's
supervised injection facility.

We need to know who ordered the studies, and why the RCMP seems so
eager to overstep its law enforcement mandate and enter into the realm
of political lobbying. There is much evidence to suggest the RCMP and
the federal government are far from objective regarding Insite.

In 2006, the RCMP commissioned four reviews of clinical studies on
Insite, open now about five years. The last one was written by Colin
Mangham, the director of research for the conservative policy group
the Drug Prevention Network of Canada - founded by former Abbotsford
anti-drug crusader Randy White - and was highly critical of the
positive results claimed by Insite.

Mangham basically dismissed the more than 20 peer-reviewed and
independent clinical papers noting Insite's benefits published in
respected journals The Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine,
the British Medical Journal and others.

Although four Vancouver mayors, the Vancouver Police, public health
officials and the Centre for Excellence on HIV/AIDS support Insite,
Mangham and the DPNC call "harm reduction" an ideology and those who
support it "activists" bent on legalizing drugs. It's no secret that
the Harper government wants to end Insite, and has stalled in giving
it longterm funding, because the harm-reduction facility doesn't mesh
with its "tough on crime" mantra and abstinence-only treatment wishes.

Out of all the reports on Insite, it was Mangham's review that Health
Minister Tony Clement waved triumphantly when he argued the evidence
on Insite's benefits was still inconclusive.

Then Pivot Legal Society lawyer Doug King asked who commissioned the
four reports. The RCMP was coy, but eventually admitted it did. RCMP
spokeswoman Annie Linteau said the force regularly does research and
this was no different. So why the secrecy?

In an e-mail King obtained through Freedom of Information, a RCMP
Const. Chuck Doucette notes "as per our request, [Mangham's] report
has no reference to the RCMP," and he encourages officers to call into
talk shows to counter the "pro-Insite side." After he retired in 2007,
Doucette was named vice-president of the DPNC, the same group to which
Mangham and White belong.

So, what is the DPNC? It is a lobby group (although it protests it is
not) founded in 2005 by the boisterous former Reform/Alliance/
Conservative MP White after he "retired" from politics. It prescribes
prevention as a primary drug strategy, and its mission is to make
abstinence the "ensign" of Canada's drug policy.

Mangham writes those who support harm reduction "ideology" selectively
seek evidence "supporting itself and runs the risk of ignoring
anything and anyone that disputes it." And he doesn't? Mangham claims
his paper was peer reviewed, but it was "reviewed" by the DPNC board
of directors, and that is a misrepresentation [a lie], says King.

The RCMP should not be the puppet for any government in power, on
either side of our border. If it must comment on social policy, it
must present all the evidence it gathers in a fair manner. After all,
isn't that how it conducts its criminal investigations?

Secondly, those who work so zealously against harm reduction, work
against improving addicts' health, getting them off drugs and reducing
petty crime that feeds their habits. That seems awfully strange for a
government intent on reducing crime.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin