VANCOUVER MUST BE OPEN TO NEW WAYS TO CURB DRUG ADDICTION

Dr. Colin Mangham Makes Sweeping Criticisms of Vancouver's Safe-Injection Facility

In the debate over drug addiction, it is politically correct,
especially in Vancouver, to assert that the war on drugs has been lost
and that our main goal should be to mitigate the harm addicts do to
themselves and others.

These assumptions are embedded in the ideology of the addiction
industry. Indeed, the principles of "harm reduction" continue to be
echoed approvingly in mayoral briefings in Vancouver and Senate
hearings in Ottawa alike.

They are the rationale behind Insite, the safe-injection site in the
Downtown Eastside.

Here, addicts are permitted to bring illegal drugs and inject them
under supervision. Police are a party to the project.

During 2004, the first full year of operation, academic studies
pronounced the experiment a success.

But in a paper published last week in the online Journal of Global
Drug Policy and Practice, Lower Mainland addictions expert Dr. Colin
Mangham makes sweeping criticisms of Insite.

He says the glowing reports exaggerate or mislead the public about
achievements in, for example, curbing needle sharing and controlling
crime.

Official figures show that deaths from drug overdoses, which Insite
was supposed to contain, actually rose in the Downtown Eastside during
2004.

Mangham argues that laws against illegal drugs do work to limit their
use -- in Canada to no more than three per cent of the population. And
he invites us to imagine how that figure would rise in the event of
decriminalization.

He challenges the accepted wisdom that harm reduction is about
"compassion and caring for the marginalized and poor," pointing out
that addicts often get poor and marginalized only after becoming addicted.

His theme is the need for a new emphasis on treatment and prevention:
Stop people getting into drugs in the first place and provide better
help for addicts to get clean. Helping addicts to feed their addiction
is not, he insists, the answer.

Mangham says that Sweden, unlike Canada, permits compulsory treatment
for addictions and "has among Europe's lowest crime, disease, medical
and social problems stemming from addiction."

The critics have come out swinging against Mangham, with the Vancouver
Coastal Health Authority dismissing his findings.

His views are not fashionable, but that doesn't make them wrong. They
deserve proper study --not dismissal from those with closed minds.