Pubdate: Wed, 18 May 2011
Source: National Post (Canada)
Copyright: 2011 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/wEtbT4yU
Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286
Author: David Berry
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?142 (Supervised Injection Sites)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/topic/Insite

JUST TO BE CLEAR: INSITE SAVES LIVES

Before the Supreme Court case to decide Insite's future began, 
government lawyers requested that the court ignore the piles of 
evidence that suggest the inexplicably embattled facility does 
exactly what it purports to do: reduce overdoses, stop the spread of 
disease, encourage rehabilitation -you know, generally just save lives.

A day into the proceedings, we quickly learned why the government's 
lawyers would make such a request: They had no way to respond. 
Justice Louis LeBel stated it outright to government lawyer Paul 
Riley: "In the end, this program somehow, while not being perfect, 
works. Have you got anything that tends to demonstrate that this 
program doesn't work?" Riley's only reply? "I think that's a fair observation."

Which brings us back to the question of why this trial is taking 
place at all. Since it refused to grant an extension to Insite's 
exemption three years ago, the government has had plenty of time to 
back up its moralistic bleating with any kind of practical argument 
to support its position. That they've evidently decided to go with 
furrowed brows and gradeschool reminders that drugs are bad -in the 
highest court of the land, by the way -suggests that they're in the 
wrong on this one.

It is no surprise that a harm-reduction facility such as Insite would 
be controversial, and worthy of a public discussion. The fact is that 
it is providing governmentfunded care and compassion to a section of 
society that, even if they are now in the grips of a disease, have 
made some obviously bad choices somewhere along the line. I 
personally think that the Insite harm-reduction model represents 
enlightened policy; but I can understand the argument that these 
people should be left to sleep in the bed they made, even if it's in 
an alley next to a dirty needle.

But it's also a mistake to assume -as Barbara Kay does -that 
"compassion" is Insite's reason for being, let alone its sole purpose.

Insite, and harm reduction more generally, is about pragmatically 
dealing with some of society's unfortunate realities. Despite the 
fact that society has rightly deemed some substances too dangerous to 
condone, people use them, and so far no amount of law enforcement, 
family encouragement or other external pressure has eliminated that reality.

It is obvious that the ultimate goal of any drug program should be 
the elimination of its use: That's why Insite has a 
drug-rehabilitation clinic onsite (it's even conveniently called 
OnSite) that admitted 458 people last year, and made 5,268 referrals 
of its 12,236 unique visitors to social and health services, most for 
detox and addiction treatment. While we wait for the others to clean 
up, though, it is just good sense to try and minimize the harm 
they're doing to themselves and others.

Because, make no mistake, Insite helps the rest of us as much as it 
does the addicts who come through its doors. Besides the widely 
reported 35% drop in overdoses in its vicinity, Insite has also been 
shown to reduce HIV transmission, by as many as 35 cases a year, 
which is no small savings to our healthcare system: The International 
Journal of Drug Policy finds that, once you factor in Insite's 
whopping $3-million yearly operating budget, the cost-benefit ratio 
in just this instance is 1 to 5.12. Factor in the people who Insite 
has referred to longterm rehabilitation -people who, for the most 
part, either lack the money or the good example to get there on their 
own -and the ratio no doubt improves.

No study has found that Insite encourages drug use: Presumably, a 
room full of junkies desperately seeking a hit isn't exactly an 
inspirational poster. But it's reasonable to worry that an expanded 
mandate might change that. That's a worthwhile discussion to have, at 
least. On the other hand, clinging to a misguided morality and 
stubbornly challenging Insite's right to exist, after it has proven 
again and again since its 2003 founding that it works, is not.

Any walk around Insite's Downtown Eastside Vancouver location will 
show you the ill effects of drug use: They can wreck lives as easily 
as communities. But we can't forget that it's those ill effects, and 
not drug use intrinsically, that is the reason for society's stand 
against them. It is worthless to remain high-minded when that 
position only helps exacerbate the problems we're supposed to be 
against. At some point, we have to look beyond our noses, not just down them.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom