VANCOUVER'S SAFE INJECTION SITE CONTRADICTION IN NAME AND DEED

We Should Focus On The Problem As A Moral Issue

According to news reports, there's a huge debate over Vancouver's
safe injection site for illegal drugs and it's a classic argument
between philosophy and science.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There's almost no debate
and, outside of reports from the federal government, facts rarely
enter what little debate there is.

At the heart of it all lies Insite, the government-funded supervised
injection site (SIS) located in Vancouver's notorious downtown
eastside. It's controversial, experimental and the only such site in
North America.

It was established in 2003 by the former federal Liberal government
as a three-year pilot project and requires a government exemption
from federal narcotics laws to allow drug users to come in off the
streets and shoot up in a "controlled health-care setting," without
fear of recrimination.

Frankly, it's similar to holding AA meetings in a bar so as to
provide a good bartender for Robert B. and his fellow alcoholics to get drunk.

In 2006, the SIS mandate was complete. So the Conservative government
extended the exemption for another 18 months -- until June 30, 2008.
The impending deadline has brought about a host of rallies and calls
for the government to give its full support and a whopping big
paycheque to the SIS.

The debate may be reaching a crescendo, but it long ago moved beyond
facts to ideology.

A classic example of the current debate came over yesterday's radio
waves. A commentator mentioned a May 19 column by Norman Spector
(arguing if supervised drug injection sites were such a great idea,
why don't other cities have them?) and then responded with his own
gripping argument, "Why do we need Norman Spector's opinion?"

That's it; no explanations or counter-arguments. No discussion except
to communicate the idea that if you don't agree with the SIS, you
shouldn't have a say.

And they say public debate is on the wane in Canada.

Other signs we are not having a credible debate on the utility of the
SIS are repeated calls for the Conservative government to take up its
"moral responsibility" to keep the SIS open. It's as though arguments
have no substance, so they've abandoned them for rhetoric.

On May 2, proponents told the media there is a huge academic
consensus on the success of the SIS and "the prime minister is
ignoring science in this area."

On May 7, an Insite administrator told the media Prime Minister
Stephen Harper's "philosophical objections" to harm reduction were to
blame for the government's reluctance to support the SIS.

On May 8, some Vancouver mayoralty candidates urged the Conservative
government to stop being ideological and look at the facts. According
to one city councillor (now running for mayor), the prime minister
should, "Listen to the experts, show some compassion; don't get hung
up on the ideology."

Ok, so let's look at the facts.

The best data is in a report for the Ministry of Health by an
advisory committee consisting of experts on blood diseases, substance
abuse, program evaluation and crime. Released in March, it provides
the following:

More than 8,000 people have visited the SIS, yet only five per cent
of all injections take place there. The site encourages users to seek
counselling, detox and treatment but there is no direct evidence it
has reduced rates of HIV infection, drug use, needle sharing or other
risky behaviours. There was no evidence of increased or decreased
crime in the area.

The annual operating cost is $3 million and it's estimated the SIS
saves about one life per year by intervening in overdose events. At
the same time, the B.C. Coroner's report revealed drug deaths in
Vancouver increased from 49 in 2002 (prior to the SIS) to 64 in 2004
(one year after the SIS opened).

Most significantly, the panel found most research conducted in this
area has significant limitations with analysis. So when proponents
claim there is an abundance of academic evidence to suggest SIS
works, they may be stating the truth -- but the conclusions of those
articles may not be accurate.

The numbers don't exactly support the SIS as an astounding success
story. Admittedly, a lot remains unknown but it's certainly
legitimate to question why this has become the all-important
cornerstone of Vancouver's anti-drug strategy.

Perhaps people see Insite as a symbol we are doing something -- even
if it is the wrong thing and leads on to more addiction.

We should focus on the problem as a moral issue -- not in terms of
determining whether drug use is right or wrong (that should be
evident by its outcomes) but by acting on our moral obligation to
truly help drug addicts.

Allowing an entire community of addicts to continue to waste away in
pharmaceutical oblivion can never be the moral or right thing to do.
Getting them off drugs and giving them the chance to live as healthy
members of society is.

Susan Martinuk's column appears every Friday.