NON-USERS ON EAST SIDE DESERVE ATTENTION, TOO

There is always an element of bias in social science research, not
matter what the research is, or what it proves or disproves. If a
researcher looks hard enough, he/she will eventually find data to
support the conclusion they want. This also holds true for journalists
reporting on these studies.

The bias of researcher and reporter is clear in reading news coverage
on a study of how the Vancouver Police Department's strategy has
impacted drug traffic in the Downtown Eastside.

For one year, the VPD underwent a trial of increased presence and
"enhanced enforcement" in the community. Its success has been debated,
but a recent study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal
supposedly uncovers the definitive answer.

The study is based on interviews with IV drug users about their drug
habits and data from our infamous needle exchange program. Analyzing
both of these supposedly demonstrates that the police strategy hasn't
worked.

What? Interviews with drug users about their addictions establishes
the effectiveness of a police strategy? Addicts report no observable
change in drug traffic, drug prices or the frequency of use. There was
no increase in enrolment at methadone clinics or in the amount of rigs
exchanged for clean, taxpayer-funded needles (this apparently
indicates the AIDS epidemic will swell).

Let me get this straight: The enhanced police presence was supposed to
drive up/down drug prices, cause addicts to voluntarily limit their
drug use, ensure addicts got clean needles, inspire them to make a
life-changing decision to enter a rehab program and fix the city's
AIDS epidemic?

Those are pretty hefty expectations for 40 extra police officers. This
study is clearly biased, and is based on the errant expectation that
police alone can ultimately fix Vancouver's drug problem.

Little wonder news reports state law enforcers have failed.

The success of anything is dependent on how "success" is defined. The
additional police presence obviously didn't eradicate the drug
problem. But the east side was a criminal, medical and social mess,
and the initial goal of police was not to solve the drug problem, but
to "reclaim" the community from the drug addicts.

There are 10,000 residents in the Hastings area who aren't on drugs.
But drugs affect every one's quality of life and therefore the entire
community, not just the drug addicts, require society's support and
intervention.

Fixing the east side requires more than ensuring drug users get a
life-time supply of state-funded drugs and clean needles. It means
creating a safe, prosperous neigbourhood for businesses, families and
individuals.

Reports and anecdotal evidence show the police presence disrupted the
open-air drug market, violent crimes and victimization are down, and
the number of visible addicts and dealers is diminishing.

It is a disservice to twist this study of drug users into supporting
the thesis that the police presence has not been effective. Similarly,
the study does a disservice to the east side community by focusing
exclusively on satisfying the whims of drug addicts as a measure of
improving the area. Other residents exist -- and the police seem to be
meeting their needs and goals just fine.