'HARM REDUCTION' DOESN'T WORK

Last week, it was announced that the Conservative government will
soon unveil a new national anti-drug strategy. The plan is said to
feature a get-tough approach to illegal drugs, including a crackdown
on grow-ops and drug gangs. And while it will also (wisely) include
tens of millions for rehabilitation of addicts and for a national
drug prevention campaign, it is said to retreat from safe-injection
sites and other fashionable "harm-reduction" strategies introduced by
the previous Liberal government.

To which we say: Good. This editorial column has long urged a
softening of drug policy on marijuana and other non-addictive
recreational substances. But heroin and similarly addictive drugs are
a different story. Moreover, safe injection sites don't work. And
they send the wrong message, too, promoting disrespect for the rule
of law by having government facilitating the consumption of illegal substances.

Safe-injection sites (SIS)-- typically inner-city facilities where
addicts may go to shoot up with clean needles under the watchful eye
of medical specialists --are often said to work wonders. Benefits
claimed on behalf of Insite, Canada's one and only SIS in Vancouver's
Downtown Eastside since 2003, include reduced needle sharing, reduced
spread of deadly diseases such as HIV and hepatitis, fewer needles
discarded in surrounding neighbourhoods and fewer addicts overdosing
in alleys. Lives have been saved, advocates claim, the "well-being of
drug users improved," and all without increased street dealing around Insite.

Too bad most of the proof to back these positive claims come from SIS
proponents or the academics who devise harm-reduction theories.
Police here, and in Europe (where they have lots of experience with
SISs) tell a very different tale.

When Insite applied to have its three-year licence renewed last fall,
the RCMP told Health Canada it had "concerns regarding any initiative
that lowers the perceived risks associated with drug use. There is
considerable evidence to show that, when the perceived risks
associated to drug use decreases, there is a corresponding increase
in number of people using drugs."

That has certainly been the case in Europe. Currently there are more
than three dozen major European cities on record against SISs. Most
have had such facilities and closed them because they found that drug
problems increased, not decreased.

After an injection site was opened in Rotterdam in the early 1990s,
the municipal council reported a doubling of the number of 15- to
19-year-olds addicted to heroine or cocaine. Over the 1990s, the
Dutch Criminal Intelligence Service reported a 25% increase in
drug-related gun murders and robberies in neighbourhoods housing one
of that country's 50 official methadone clinics or addict shelters.
Zurich closed its infamous needle park in 1992, after the police and
citizenry became fed up with public urination and defecation,
prostitution, open sex, panhandling, drug peddling, loud fights and
violent crimes.

Since word of the Tories' new strategy began to leak out of Ottawa,
the well-meaning people who work at Insite have stepped up their
campaign to save their facility, which Ottawa has said must close
this fall. We sympathize with these supporters. No doubt, they have
genuine concern for their charges, who are troubled souls caught in a
downward spiral of abuse, crime, disease and pain.

But as much as we admire the good intentions behind SISs, drug
consumption is the wrong business for government to be in. A
government that funds safe havens for injecting illegal drugs on one
hand will quickly find it is working against its efforts to reduce
drug dealing on the other.