LINING UP THE DOLLARS FOR THE SAFE-INJECTION SITE

If Ottawa Wants An Experimental Program, Let It Pay For It

Nobody in authority -- not the city of Vancouver nor Ottawa nor the
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority -- has any idea of where the millions of
dollars needed to operate a safe-injection site in the Downtown Eastside
will come from.

But the first question in our minds is: How come the price tag's so high?
Why will it cost "several million dollars" a year to run a safe-injection
site in Vancouver?

The only reason, it seems, is that Ottawa insists Canada's first
safe-injection facility be an experimental site, not just a run-of-the-mill
place that tries to reduce the health risks faced by drug addicts in the
Lower Mainland.

That being the case, the answer to the question of who pays becomes much
clearer.

It's proper for the local health authority to pick up the tab for the
bare-bones cost of administering a simple health facility, but it's only
fair that the federal government pick up the tab for the extra costs that
result from its insistence on running an experiment rather than just a
safe-injection site.

The current plan, as far as we can discern, calls for the facility to be
open 24 hours a day. There are supposed to be a couple of nurses and social
workers to attend to the needs of the addicts.

An administrator and a clerk will presumably help run the place and keep
records. There may be a doctor or two on-call as well. And, finally, there
will be a few researchers to study the impact of this project.

It's easy to see how all of this could, indeed, add up to $2.7 million a year.

But it needn't cost that much if the facility were to simply focus on the
basic need of addicts -- a clean place to shoot up, and someone to help, or
call for additional help, if they need it. This task could be accomplished
- -- with qualified nurses on staff and a doctor on call -- for well under

$1 million a year if staffing levels were kept at a minimum.

Meanwhile, if Ottawa insists on this first safe-injection site in the
country being an experimental one, then it has to pony up the extra $1.7
million a year it would cost to do that.

Both partners in the funding -- the federal government and the Vancouver
Coastal Health Authority -- should look at their share of the expense as an
investment. After all, as Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell correctly points
out, "If you can get 10 people not to get HIV, then they'll have saved
their money."

How? By reducing the damage that back alley drug use causes -- AIDS,
hepatitis C, overdoses, addiction, the costs of treatment and crime -- tax
dollars can be saved. The whole idea of safe injection sites is to give
drug addicts a point of contact with health workers who can help them
either stop their destructive behaviour or at least minimize the health
risks that drug use entails.

The city's "four-pillar" strategy -- prevention, treatment, enforcement and
harm reduction -- has been in development for more than five years. Nothing
substantial has really happened to date. That's got to change.

While the number of overdose deaths is on the decline over the past few
years, there's no escaping the fact that 20 more people have died of drug
overdoses in Vancouver since Mayor Campbell stepped into city hall. So we
share the mayor's frustration at the slow pace of progress on
safe-injection sites.

The feds are a signatory to the Vancouver Agreement -- an initiative
between the city and the two senior levels of government to improve the
health of the Downtown Eastside.

If they want to impose standards, fine -- but they must also pay their
share of the cost if they're to live up to their word.