CRACK-PIPE VOTE HARMS PUBLIC

Ignoring medical research, expert advice and common sense, Ottawa's
council has cancelled the clean-pipe program.

Two years ago, the city began distributing crack-use kits that
included clean glass stems and mouthpieces.

College Councillor Rick Chiarelli, who introduced the motion to kill
the program, said it isn't sending the right message to addicts. He
missed the point by a mile.

The crack-pipe program isn't about helping addicts, beyond keeping
them free of disease. It's really meant to help the rest of us.
Reducing the prevalence of HIV and hepatitis on Ottawa's streets
helps non-users in two ways: it makes it less likely that they'll
contract the diseases themselves, and it saves millions in
health-care expenditure.

Residents in Sandy Hill are understandably upset when they find crack
pipes on their lawns, where any toddler could pick them up. But
cancelling the crack-pipe program won't make those crack pipes
disappear; it might make them more likely to be contaminated. Crack
is cheap and plentiful in Ottawa, and making addicts fashion their
own pipes won't change that.

The clean-pipe program was never meant to reduce drug use or end
addiction -- how could it? It was merely an inexpensive way to reduce
the harmful side effects of drug use.

According to Dr. David Salisbury, the city's chief medical officer of
health, the $8,000-a-year program prevents as many as 12 people a
year from getting HIV. Those kinds of predictions can never be made
with certainty, but if anyone's in a position to make an educated
guess, it's Dr. Salisbury. If a clean pipe prevents one person from
contracting HIV, the taxpayers more than recoup their costs, and save
a life. As Capital Councillor Clive Doucet said, that's a pretty good deal.

A study by University of Ottawa epidemiologists in 2006 found that
the program did seem to be causing drug users to switch from
injecting to smoking. That's not bad news, since injecting is risky
behaviour, although it might be less visible to the community than
smoking. The program also seemed to be reducing pipe-sharing and the
incidence of mouth sores -- meaning it was likely to reduce the
spread of disease.

Some councillors wanted to continue the program but study its
effectiveness. That would have been wise, not only for Ottawa but for
other jurisdictions hungry for data that can help them with their own
harm-reduction policies.

Some of the (mostly suburban and rural) councillors who voted to end
the program said public money would be better spent on treatment.
Citizens should expect to see those councillors proposing new
treatment centres and programs in the near future. It would be nice
if the city got some help from the province on this public-health
problem, but ultimately, the responsibility to help addicts lies with
the councillors who voted against harm reduction.