Pubdate: Tue, 15 Mar 2016
Source: Ottawa Sun (CN ON)
Copyright: 2016 Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact: http://www.ottawasun.com/letter-to-editor
Website: http://www.ottawasun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/329
Author: Jerry Agar
Page: 13
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?142 (Supervised Injection Sites)

DRUG INJECTION SITES NO CURE-ALL

Government Policies Need to Be Based on Facts in Order to Be Effective.

On Monday, Toronto city hall announced it will consider establishing 
services to allow users of such drugs as heroin and fentanyl to 
inject them in a supervised, "safe" environment, to mitigate 
overdoses and to help prevent the spread of disease.

Nowhere in the city's press release, announcing the intention to 
consider setting up the sites, is there any emphasis on an effort to 
get people off drugs. Shouldn't that be the goal?

You will no doubt read and hear this issue is once again being 
debated, that the evidence is in and that it is overwhelming that 
safe injection sites (SIS) provide a benefit to society overall in 
their harm reduction capabilities.

Is that true, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Toronto's Medical Officer of Health, Dr. David McKeown, says, 
"Research shows that supervised injection sites save lives, reduce 
drug overdoses and limit the spread of blood-born diseases."

Are those statements accurate? Will it save lives?

If there are overdoses at the site it is unlikely anyone will die.

At Vancouver's Insite legal drug injection clinic there have been 
many overdoses but no deaths due to intervention by medical staff.

A report by Health Canada's Expert Advisory Committee (EAC) in 2008, 
studying Canada's only SIS, determined it saved about one life a year.

Will legal injection clinics reduce overdoses in general?

The EAC determined, "There is no direct evidence that SIS influence 
overdose death rates ... Mathematical modeling is based on 
assumptions that may not be valid."

What of McKeown's argument about, "limiting the spread of blood-born diseases?"

The Health Canada EAC reported, "There is no direct evidence that SIS 
reduce rates of HIV infection, and the mathematical models used are 
based on assumption that may not be valid."

You will no doubt hear crime was reduced in Vancouver with the 
inception of Insite.

As I reported in 2013 when this issue was last raised in Toronto, 
Mike McCormack, President of the Toronto Police Association, refuted 
claims Insite has reduced crime in the neighborhood where it operates.

He told me in Vancouver, "They have had to deploy 90 additional 
police officers to the area surrounding the safe injection site to 
deal with the crime related to the drugs associated with the site."

Tom Stamatakis, President of the Vancouver Police Union and the 
Canadian Police Association, said the police presence was, 
"disproportionate to how resources are allocated in the rest of the 
city, so it is disingenuous to suggest that it is only Insite that 
has had an impact on criminal activity in that neighborhood."

The Health Canada EAC reported, "Though a private security company 
contracted by the Chinese Business Association reported reductions in 
crime in the Chinese business district in a surrounding area outside 
the DTE (downtown east side), our analysis of police data for the DTE 
and surrounding areas showed no changes in rates of crime recorded by 
police. The majority of local residents, service providers, business 
owners and police did not notice any increases."

Perhaps public resources could be better utilized to deal with 
Toronto's drug problem.

Will councillors look for answers to those questions and concerns and 
will answers be provided?

Let's not get our feelings ahead of our facts.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom