CRITICS IGNORE THE FACTS ON NEEDLE EXCHANGE

Evidence Doesn't Support Claim That The Facility Does More Harm Than Good

Some recent reports on the Cormorant Street needle exchange have
focused on the significant problems for the neighbouring residents
and businesses.

In one Times Colonist report, a lawyer whose Amelia Street office is
near AIDS Vancouver Island's Street Outreach Services needle exchange
program was quoted as saying:

"The needle exchange is part of what's called a harm-reduction
strategy to ensure addicts don't use dirty needles and spread
blood-borne diseases. But without other essential services, and
without more financial support and a bigger facility, the needle
exchange seems to be creating more harm for addicts than it reduces."

I could not agree more with the call for more financial support and a
bigger facility.

However, the second part of the statement is not supported by
scientific evidence.

The overwhelming majority of reviews evaluating needle-exchange
programs designed to serve people who use injection drugs conclude
that these programs are associated with multiple positive outcomes.

These benefits include significant reductions in reuse or sharing of
injecting equipment, reduced or stabilized HIV incidence rates over
time and overall program cost-efficiency. The last measure is
frequently determined by estimating the annual costs of HIV cases
averted by the availability of sterile needles.

As for harmful effects, a recent review by the U.S. National Academy
of Sciences' Institute of Medicine reported no evidence that needle
exchange programs "lead to more new drug users, more frequent
injection among established users, expanded networks of high-risk
users, changes in crime trends or more discarded needles in the community."

A second lawyer is quoted with regard to the Vancouver Island Health
Authority's promise to conduct a study on the Cormorant Street
situation: "If history is any guide it will just be another report
and what we need is action."

Again, I agree with the call for action. But noting both the call for
more facilities and programs and the ongoing debate about a safe
consumption site in Victoria, let me draw readers' attention to one
highly relevant study conducted to assess neighbourhood effects
following the opening of the Vancouver Insite safe-injection facility.

As reported in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association,
neighbourhood changes over a 12-week period following Insite's
opening included significant reductions in the number of drug users
injecting in public and in the number of publicly discarded syringes
and injection-related litter.

This is just one study, but it points to a course of action that may
satisfy all the parties concerned with this issue.

I compliment both lawyers, who, while obviously bothered both
personally and professionally, nonetheless were also able to take a
broad view of the situation, recognizing that lack of facilities and
resources contribute to the problem.

Finally, I would like to comment on the repeated use of the term
"junkie" throughout the article. This word dehumanizes Victoria's
needle exchange clients. They were not born drug users and their
present dependency on illicit drugs undoubtedly took many paths.

Many have additional medical problems, with their drug habits
complicated by, or the result of, mental health concerns.

The next time we drive or walk past Cormorant Street, we should
consider the people outside the needle exchange program not as
"junkies," but as individuals, as somebody's -- sometimes our
friends' and neighbours' -- sons and daughters. Their status reflects
upon our civic society as a whole.

Eric A. Roth is an anthropology professor at the University of
Victoria and a research affiliate with the Centre for Addictions
Research of B.C.