MYTH MAKING

The oldest tricks in the rhetorical book is the "straw man": Attack
your opponents for making foolish arguments that they in fact never
made. Tony Clement, the federal health minister, is wrestling with a
big straw man, instead of actually addressing the issue of
safe-injection sites.

In September 2006, Mr. Clement postponed a decision on whether to
extend the permit of Vancouver's Insite program. Before he made that
non-decision, his policy adviser asked Health Canada officials to
debunk several "myths" about safe-injection sites.

The so-called myths are: that the sites are common in other countries,
that they operate "all across Canada," that they are legal without an
exemption, that they are a "complete solution" to the problems
associated with drug abuse, and that the site has the "complete
support" of the community.

The report didn't say who was spreading such ideas. They aren't
statements you'll find in the research or commentary supporting
safe-injection sites. Unsurprisingly, Health Canada was able to debunk
each of them. Invented misunderstandings are the easiest to dispel.

Even the most basic newspaper article would leave readers knowing that
Vancouver's site is unusual, controversial and requires federal
permission. And it would take a major suspension of common sense to
believe that a safe-injection site can solve every problem addicts
have.

When the minister announced he was deferring the decision, he included
this rhetorical question in the statement: "Do safe injection sites
contribute to lowering drug use and fighting addiction?" Well, of
course they don't. That's not their purpose. Insite is trying to save
people's lives. Yes, it also wants to provide access to addiction
counselling and other services, but its main function is to reduce the
spread of disease, the risk of fatal overdose and the dangerous litter
left behind by addicts in public places.

The government has the right to take time to examine the research
before deciding whether to allow Insite to continue. It doesn't have
the right to insult Canadians' intelligence by defeating imaginary
arguments.