SAFE-INJECTION SITES TOO EFFECTIVE TO SHOOT DOWN

Harper And The Conservatives Have Avoided The Issue Of Drug Clinics
So Far, But As Insite's Trial Run Draws To A Close, The Time Has
Never Been Better For The Government To Take A Stance

Let's make one thing clear: Safe-or Supervised-Injection Sites
(SISs), clinics where drug addicts inject themselves with narcotics
under the supervision of health care professionals, are illegal in
Canada. Their very existence violates our country's drug laws, and
the only reason Vancouver's Insite clinic--the only one of its kind
in North America--exists is due to a temporary exemption implemented
(under Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in case
you're interested) by then-PM Paul Martin and his Liberal government.

This three-year trial run expires next month, and the pressure is now
on Stephen Harper's Conservative government to decide whether to
allow clinics such as Insite to operate.

Harper made his position clear on this issue when he was elected back
in January: he's "philosophically opposed" to the idea of SISs, but
would wait until evidence of the site's effectiveness was gathered
before making a final decision.

This was and is a very reasonable position; in fact, even if Harper
was philosophically in favour of SISs, he ought to have done the same
thing, for it's the solemn responsibility of our policymakers to
gather as much valid, empirical data as possible before making such
an important and precedent-setting decision.

There are several criticisms of SISs that typically get hauled out:
that they promote drug use, that they encourage dependence, that they
increase crime in the neighbourhoods in which they're situated, that
they simply don't work--and, by extension, a waste of taxpayers'
money, that cardinal governmental sin. Without studying it any
further, then, many would likely agree with Harper's stance on this issue.

The studies have been done, however, and the evidence overwhelmingly
indicates that Insite is effective, not only in the prevention of
infection among users, but also in helping free users from addiction
altogether. SISs offer clean needles for users, unlike the dirty,
HIV-infected needles found on the streets; these clinics also offer
nurses and doctors who provide medical services, as well as
counsellors that guide addicts toward recovery. In other words, SISs
don't promote drug use; rather, they promote clean, safe use for
addicts and encourage them to recover and kick the habit.

Numerous studies have been conducted both by outside researchers and
within the Vancouver clinic itself, including a report released last
week conducted by the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, which
found that "three-quarters of Insite users report the facility has
positively changed their injecting behaviour." Local governments and
police, the RCMP, and former addicts alike all attest to the progress made.

Despite this seemingly irrefutable evidence, Harper and his
Conservatives have remained stubbornly silent on the issue, even
despite earlier promises to make their position clear by the end of
the recent International AIDS conference held earlier this month in
Toronto--an event which our PM notoriously failed to attend.

Instead, Harper later defended his absence, pointing out correctly
that he can't accept every invitation he's offered, and that he
wasn't going to comment on the issue while it was "so
politicized." He's damn right it's politicized--isn't politics what
he does for a living?

To be fair, Federal Health Minister Tony Clement was in attendance,
and pragmatically speaking, it's probably better to have a real live
bureaucrat there than a political figurehead. But we all know the
influence figureheads have on public perception, and in this sense,
Harper's snubbing of the conference doesn't bode well for his
government's still-to-be-announced position on SISs like Insite.

That the Conservatives have their heads deep below the sand on this
issue is obvious; the question is whether they will extract
themselves from their igneous ignorance in time to save Insite's from
expiring--and maybe even sanction the development of some new clinics
around the country while they're at it.

You may recall that there were calls here in Edmonton for a SIS of
our own several years ago; in fact, as recently as this year, Mayor
Stephen Mandel has gone on the record as condoning such an endeavour.
Aside from Vancouver's Insite, plans are also in the works in
Canada's two other largest urban centres--Montreal and Toronto--to
institute SISs.

Not surprisingly, this M-T-V triad also represents the only major
metropoli in Canada that don't have a single elected Conservative MP.
This correlation shows the deep divide between our country's Liberals
and Conservatives (both lower-case and upper), but it's on admittedly
divisive issues like this one that we need to come together and do
the right--if not the most ideal--thing.

Even if it goes against one's beliefs--religious, social or
otherwise--sometimes you have to choose the lesser of the two evils.
In this case, it's tolerance of hard-drug use in exchange for
increased public safety, lowered HIV-infection rates, and the
reduction of addicts and users in our country's most drug-addled
neighbourhoods. Seems like a pretty clear-cut choice to me.

But this isn't a simplistic issue, and no one--our elected government
least among them--can afford to take an ideological position here.
Ignoring the effectiveness of SISs has the same effect as pretending
that the problem doesn't exist, and going directly against proven
science is hopefully a relic of the past.