CAN THE RCMP BE OBJECTIVE ON INSITE?

THIS week's column and my next two will be devoted to the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, in particular a number of events that raise
serious questions about its performance at the community level, its
reaction to episodes that reflect badly on the force and political
manoeuvring at the top.

It should become clear that much of that, but certainly not all, is a
reflection of the enormous stake the force has invested in drug
prohibition. Thus a good, if incongruous, place to begin is the
Vancouver supervised safe injection site (Insite), something over
which the RCMP has no direct responsibility.

To recap the essentials, Insite came into being on Sept. 12, 2003 as
part of the Four Pillars drug strategy. It could not have existed
without an exemption granted by the minister of health under Sec. 56
of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That exemption was
granted for three years and will expire, if it is not renewed, on Sept. 12.

The current health minister has publicly said that he is not a fan.
The prime minister has also expressed reservations. But he has asked
the RCMP to provide him with a report on the site before making a decision.

A strange request, since that force has no jurisdiction over the
site. The Vancouver Police Department, which does, is in favour of
keeping it. It's sort of like asking if you approve of your neighbour
getting divorced: you don't really know anything about it and,
besides, it's none of your business.

So why ask the national force to butt in?

The answer may be found in the performance of Staff Sgt. Chuck
Doucette, the co-ordinator of the RCMP Provincial Drug Awareness
Program, participating in a CBC phone-in show, B.C. Almanac, on July 26.

The question the show was asking was whether the site should remain.
In the studio with the host was Dr. David Marsh, the physician leader
of Addiction Medicine with the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.

Doucette began by setting out the force's three concerns:

- the site doesn't get rid of the property crime committed to obtain drugs;

- since, "as risk of use decreases, use increases", providing a
risk-free injection site sends the "wrong message";

- prevention and treatment are missing from the picture.

"If all you're doing is reducing the harm but not reducing the number
of users," he said, "it's a never-ending cycle. We would like to see
the cycle broken."

Let's, as they say, deconstruct those comments.

The site was never intended to reduce property crime. Its existence
was never expected to have any impact, one way or the other, on that issue.

Existing evidence directly contradicts the notion that reduced "risk
of use" leads to increased use. A study of that very issue, published
in the British Medical Journal in January, shows that patterns of use
have not changed at all since the site has been in operation. In any
event, a century of experience tells us that risk never factors into
a decision to use addictive substances. And enough, already, about
sending "messages." The only message the safe injection site sends,
as one user put it, is that "it's a place to keep addicts from dying
in alleys, not much more."

There is no evidence that enforcement is lax - Doucette should spend
a few mornings in Vancouver's drug court. In any event, whether
enforcement is weak or strong has nothing to do with whether the site
is effectively performing its function - the prevention of death and
disease - which one would hope should be the focus of the RCMP report
to the prime minister.

As for treatment, the evaluations of the site (which Doucette said he
had not read) demonstrate that it is having a positive impact. The
only problem remains a shortage of facilities.

Finally, the RCMP and other police forces have been given enormous
resources for almost a century to "break the cycle." It is still very
much with us. To use an apt cliche, a drug-free society is a pipe dream.

Told that a random sample of slightly more than 1,000 users of the
site showed that 18 per cent had entered detox, he replied that he
would like to see evidence of actual attendance, not just referrals.
Marsh pointed out that the figure does represent actual attendance in
detox. Doucette suddenly remembered that he had, in fact, read that
evaluation containing that 18 per cent figure - and then he changed
the subject.

He was asked if the Vancouver police would be consulted. He launched
into a story about visiting Frankfurt where, he said with obvious
approval, the police have successfully herded all addicts into the
city's red-light district, to keep the prostitutes and pornography
pedlars company. A "really disgusting little area," he called it. His
point was that of course the VPD is in favour of the site, because it
helps keep all addicts in a handy little corner of the city. But, he
cautioned, the city will have to decide what it wants, a revitalized
Downtown East Side or a safe injection site.

Thus, in only seven minutes of airtime, the man delegated by the RCMP
to speak on the subject of the supervised safe injection site:

- raised irrelevant issues that served only to cloud the discussion;

- endorsed the view that addicts should be left at risk of death and
disease in order to curb use;

- made assertions that are contradicted by evidence, in the process
misleading his audience on two significant points - on one, (by his
own admission) deliberately;

- made the unfounded suggestion that the presence of Insite blocks
revitalization (as if, even if it did, that should be of any concern
to the RCMP);

- ignored the essential fact that the site is where it is because
that's where the addicts are, not vice-versa;

- reinforced the suspicion that the RCMP approves of dealing with
addicts as livestock, to be herded here and there for the sake of a
sort of social efficiency or, worse yet, appearances;

- and questioned, without evidence, the motives of the police force
that actually has jurisdiction over the site.

Doucette presumably represents the position of the force on the
issue. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, regardless of the
positive feedback from all the sources that matter - the Vancouver
Police, Downtown East Side merchants, the various experts who have
tracked the site since its inception - its report will be negative.
Indeed, in light of Doucette's performance, it is difficult to expect
that the force can even pretend to be objective.

That may be so because the modern RCMP came into being as a result of
drug prohibition (more on that later). If we move away from
prohibition as our chosen policy to deal with drug abuse, the impact
on the force will be substantial. Insite is a tentative baby step in
that direction. But it is a symbol of harm reduction, a phrase that
RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli apparently wishes he had never heard.

Could it be that the prime minister has asked for a report from the
RCMP because he can count on getting what he wants - a ready-made
excuse to not renew the exemption? Surely he couldn't be that cynical
and willing to sacrifice the lives of the weak and marginalized for a
few political points. Could he?