INSITE RAISES USE OF DETOX, REPORT SAYS

Results Prompt Scientists To Denounce Ottawa's Refusal To Fund Injection Centre

The federal Conservative government's refusal to support North
America's only legal supervised injection site for drug addicts is
driven by ideology and politics and not research, two health
scientists said Thursday after the release of a new report on the
facility in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

The report, published in a London-based medical journal, says Insite
has resulted in a 30-per-cent increase in the use of detoxification
programs such as methadone replacement therapy, addiction
counselling, or participation in Narcotics Anonymous.

That higher use of detox since Insite opened in 2003 suggests, based
on previous research, that the facility "has probably helped to
reduce rates of injection drug use among users of the facility,"
concluded the five scientists at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in
HIV/AIDS in their report, published in the June issue of the
peer-reviewed medical journal Addiction.

Health Minister Tony Clement questioned whether research supported
Insite last September when he refused to grant a 31/ -year extension
in the facility's federal permit.

Clement, noting that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is
about to introduce a tough national drug strategy that puts more
focus on enforcement and less on so-called "harm reduction" measures
like injection sites and needle exchanges, suspended Ottawa's
decision on Insite's future until the end of this year.

"The government seems intent on ignoring scientific evidence to
pursue an ideological agenda at the expense of lives in the Downtown
Eastside," co-author Dr. Julio Montaner said in a statement.

He said the new conclusions answer Clement's questions about whether
Insite is contributing to lower drug use and fighting addiction.

Dr. Steffanie Strathdee, a former B.C.-based researcher now at the
University of California's School of Medicine in San Diego, also
accused the government of putting politics before health.

"It is time for politicians who oppose [supervised injection sites]
on the grounds that more research is needed to be honest with their
constituents," Strathdee wrote in a commentary attached to the report.

"It is lack of political will, not lack of data, that is keeping
these life-saving public health services out of the hands of our
drug-dependent citizens."

The new report in Addictions, summarizing results of a study funded
by the federal government, said the average number of users entering
detox programs increased to 31.3 from 21.6 in the year after Insite
opened. While that increase represents an increase of roughly 50 per
cent, the researchers adjusted the results to take into consideration
other factors in coming up with the 30-per-cent figure.

"There have been many benefits of Insite in terms of public order and
reduced HIV risk," said co-author Dr. Evan Wood.

"However, the fact that it appears to be pulling people out of the
cycle of addiction by leading them into programs that reduce drug use
is remarkable."

Erik Waddell, a spokesman for Clement, said Thursday that the
government has followed through on its commitment to expand research
on safe injection sites.

Health Canada is commissioning a study costing up to $250,000 to
analyse health, public order, and operational issues as well as
"local contextual issues" relating to injection sites.

The winning bidder will also determine "similarities and differences
between Vancouver and other Canadian cities," according to the
proposed contract. Several cities, including Victoria, have expressed
interest in getting a federal exemption allowing them to set up a
supervised injection site.

A group of Canadian scientists not connected to the B.C. Centre for
Excellence in HIV/AIDS released a letter Thursday challenging the
credibility of the federal research initiative.

The authors, from universities in Victoria, Ottawa, Toronto and
Sherbrooke, Que., said the Oct. 31, 2007 deadline for the final
report is too soon to conduct meaningful new research.

They also said a "disclosure moratorium" stipulated in the request
for proposals is "difficult if not impossible" to accept because
scientific knowledge must be "openly accessible" for scrutiny and debate.