SUPERVISED INJECTION SITE NOTHING MORE THAN STATE-SPONSORED ADDICTION

Apparently, Vancouver is to be congratulated for its innovative approach to
drug addiction. We are about to open the doors to North America's first
supervised "safe" injection site for IV drug addicts in Vancouver's
notorious east side. The politicians, medical community and activists are
proclaiming it as a major victory in the war against drugs.

But common sense indicates it isn't a victory. In fact, it isn't even
progress: it's merely the sign of a culture that has given up the fight
against drugs.

The East Hastings site will allow junkies to get sterile needles and other
drug paraphernalia, advice on safe injecting techniques from a health
professional and some juice or food as they sit in a post-injection
chill-out room.

In our eagerness to provide such an innovative harm-reduction program, we
should note that there is no 'drug reduction' in this scenario. Taxpayers
are better enabling users to shoot an illegal, addictive poison into their
veins. It's state-subsidized addiction.

Vancouver will keep its junkies on a high -- albeit a high based on
safe-injection practices that are guaranteed to sustain addicts in a life
of useless chemical oblivion without taking their lives.

Are the addicts any better off? No. The harm of overdosing has been
technically eliminated, but the harm of being a drug addict remains, and
that's the biggest threat to society.

The insanity of this plan is reflected in the fact that it is rooted in
models developed in countries that have the highest numbers of drug users.
The injection site mimics the harm reduction plans of Switzerland, the
Netherlands, Australia and Germany. If we really wanted to reduce the
number of users, we would follow the policies of Sweden, Finland or Norway
- -- countries that have the lowest rates of drug use. Even an Downtown
Eastside drug addict, who seems to be more astute than all the harm
reduction proponents combined, was quoted as saying the injection site was,
"a waste of money ... what we need is more detox centres."

Imagine . . . the addicts want to get off the drugs, yet the city gives
them facilities to keep them hooked. Clearly, the inmates are running the
asylum.

It is a legitimate point to ask what is the overall goal for our drug
policies. If it is to sustain a user's dependence on drugs and to maintain
a climate where drug use is the norm and is assisted by the state, then
we're doing it right. But if it is to create a drug-free society, where
kids grow up in an environment where drug use is deemed wrong (and deadly),
where drug users are treated by detox and assisted in becoming useful
members of society, then we are set on a course to fail.

If we are the compassionate, caring society that we proclaim to be, we will
acknowledge the folly in keeping addicts hooked under the misnomer of harm
reduction.

Far better that we funnel the $4 million cost of the injection site and the
$2 million annual cost of running it into productive detox programs that
free addicts from drugs and give them a life and a purpose.