A DOSE OF OBJECTIVITY IS USEFUL IN THE DEBATE ON THE FUTURE OF INSITE

The emotional controversy surrounding Insite, North America's only
supervised injection site, has pretty well quashed any rational and
informed dialogue on legal injection sites.

Too many opponents of the facility couch their opposition in moral
terms; ignoring the psychological and physical realities of addiction.

But supporters seem to be running on blind devotion as well.

As in the cases of same-sex marriage, government-run daycare and
Wal-Mart, one's political and philosophical convictions tend to
conscript them into one camp or the other on hot-button issues.

When individuals take positions on social issues based on herd
mentality, they rarely take the time to compose and articulate
convincing cases.

It's important to recall how much political capital has been invested
in the injection site. The election that saw Larry Campbell and COPE
take over Vancouver City Hall was very much a plebiscite on
establishing such a facility. For many players, Insite "must" succeed.

The tobacco companies have never had difficulty finding research
firms or academics to write reports confirming the harmlessness of
second-hand smoke.

So the fact that the "research" to date tends to support the facility
should be considered very tentatively.

Normally, academics are overly cautious when interpreting data. They
tend to resist announcing firm conclusions and typically urge further
research. But such healthy skepticism is in short supply regarding
the preliminary inquiry conducted on Insite.

Anyone with a research background should know that the facility has
not been in operation long enough to be qualified an outright success
or failure. The evaluative research is at a preliminary and
speculative stage at best.

Quite simply, it's too early to tell.

Other scholars are claiming that because something similar is doing
well in Switzerland we should open up a string of injection sites in
B.C., as though we were talking about expanding a fast-food schnitzel
franchise.

Assuming that what worked in one jurisdiction will automatically work
in another is an error more typical of first-year research students.

But Insite's supporters jubilantly wave these studies about in the
erroneous belief they are proof that the site is a success.

The injection facility was supposed to be more than a clean place to
do drugs (Mayor Sullivan has a back seat in his van for that).

It was to be part of a larger strategy to reduce the numbers of drug
users. But the research thus far is unable to document how many
people, if any, have stopped using intravenous drugs as a partial
consequence of Insite.

Nothing new here. Supporters of the long-gun registry insisted it
saved lives despite lacking a single piece of evidence that it
prevented even one homicide.

But objectivity is often a casualty when serious issues become cause celebres.