BEWARE THE DRUG WAR FIGHTERS' 'FACTS'

Study Panning Safe-Injection Site Shows Need To Look Hard At
Research

News flash: Vancouver's safe-injection site causes more harm than
good.

So says the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, which last week
reported "serious problems in the interpretation of findings" in a
review of 10 studies about the site.

Research on the three-year-old site has to this point mostly been
positive.

Among other things, there's been a drop in social disorder in
Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, an increase in the number of drug users
wanting treatment and successful interventions in 400-plus potentially
fatal overdoses.

But prevention network research director Colin Mangham contends the
real picture is not nearly so rosy. He reviewed some of the studies
and found that while they "give the impression the facility is
successful ... the research clearly shows a lack of progress, impact
and success."

Mangham's findings were reported straight up by the Canadian Press
news agency last week. They also made their way unchallenged into the
online edition of Maclean's magazine, CBC Radio and some Canadian newspapers.

But as a number of intrepid bloggers have pointed out, the mainstream
media outlets that took the CP story at its word did a disservice to
anyone looking for all the facts.

A couple of rudimentary Google searches are all it takes to flush out
some interesting details, as proven by the bloggers who looked a
little deeper into the Mangham report.

Searching on the name of the group that commissioned it, for instance,
reveals that the organization is privately funded, abstinence-based
and headed by former Reform/Alliance MP Randy White. The
vice-president of REAL Women Canada sits on the network's board, as do
representatives from a number of Christian groups.

Search on Mangham's name and you'll find that while he's a genuine
drug-policy researcher, his primary focus is abstinence.

His particular knowledge is around tobacco. Mangham runs the
provincially funded Prevention Source B.C., which aims to stop people
from smoking.

Search on the name of the publication where Mangham's report first
appeared, the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, and you'll
learn that it's funded by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Sitting on its editorial board are U.S. groups such as the Drug-Free
Schools Coalition, the Drug Free America Foundation and the National
Drug Prevention Alliance.

The online journal has published just two issues.

The first featured critiques of liberal marijuana policies. The second
focused on harm-reduction programs like the safe-injection site, with
headlines including "The Lure and Loss of Harm Reduction in U.K. Drug
Policy and Practice," and "Is it Harm Reduction or Harm
Continuation?"

Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints on drug use and harm
reduction, of course. A safe-injection site is, after all, just a tiny
piece of the puzzle when it comes to addressing the harms of addiction.

Ultimately, the Manghams of the world want to prevent the many
miseries caused by drugs. I can't fault them for that.

But being able to weigh the reports and views of those with something
to say on this most vital issue is of critical importance. We can't
afford to keep on making wrong moves in our drug policy.

Health care. Justice. Human rights. Urban renewal. Personal safety.
Child welfare. On all fronts, we're feeling the impact of drug addiction.

Add in the exponential effect of leaving a growing problem to fester
unattended and the future looks downright ugly.

If we hope to do something about that, we need to be informed as never
before. We need the facts, presented as often as possible without the
spin of a special-interest group in the background.

We don't need this forces-of-good versus forces-of-evil approach any
more when it comes to our drug policy. It's not working. We need
clear-eyed thinking and well-reasoned approaches, all of them based on
proven, efficient strategies.

Hearing what people like Mangham have to say is part of that process.
I've got no quarrel with some of his or Randy White's thoughts on
dealing with addiction, particularly around providing easy access to
treatment for anyone who wants it.

But knowing how to weigh the blizzard of "facts" we're presented with
on any given day requires knowing more about whose facts they are, and
what's the context.

So no problem with the mainstream media running a story about a
literature review published in a fledgling anti-harm-reduction
publication funded by U.S. anti-drug interests. Or with the fact that
the author of the review is a longtime foe of harm-reduction
strategies with the support of some of the most conservative groups in
Canada.

But we really need to know all that going in. In this case, the
bloggers made sure that we did. The mainstream media didn't.

The lessons learned? Trust no one, me included. Verify your own facts.
Know the sources of the information you're using to form your opinion.

And in the interests of better Canadian drug policy, do it soon.