SELECTIVE LISTENING

The RCMP has no business commissioning politically-motivated
research, as it appears to have done on Insite, the Vancouver clinic
in which heroin addicts are legally permitted to inject their drugs
in the presence of nurses. When the first two reviews it commissioned
did not satisfy its possibly legitimate desire to understand the
effects, good or bad, of the clinic, it went to Colin Mangham,
research director of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada. Even a
quick perusal of the network's website - beginning with the
pejoratively-named section, Harm Reduction Ideology - would have
convinced anyone with an interest in impartial research to look elsewhere.

"Harm Reduction . . . has come to represent a philosophy in which
illicit substance use is seen as largely unpreventable, and
increasingly, as a feasible and acceptable lifestyle as long as use
is not 'problematic'. At it's root of this philosophy lay an
acceptance of drug use into the mainstream of society."

The mistakes here aren't only in the grammar. A more balanced
definition is that treatment has never been shown to work on all
addicts who try it; the harm reduction of clinics such as Insite is
meant to prevent the worst harms, such as fatal overdoses or the
transmission of deadly viruses. The Drug Prevention Network is
plainly hostile towards harm reduction.

Does any of this matter? Yes. Two years ago, Prime Minister Stephen
Harper said he would consult the RCMP before deciding what to do
about renewing Insite's temporary exemption to the country's drug
laws. The RCMP said it wasn't happy with the clinic, in spite of the
two positive reviews it commissioned. "We do have some concerns," the
Mounties said. "We strongly believe that more research is needed into
whether these sites increase the demand for drugs." What a surprise,
the RCMP found just the research it wanted. Only with the greatest of
reluctance did Ottawa extend the exemption.

There's something seriously awry here. The RCMP's job is to enforce
drug laws, not decide what they should be. The fact that the
organization would purport to base its opinion on a review by Dr.
Mangham shows exactly why it can't be trusted to play a serious
advisory role. And Health Minister Tony Clement, in his strident
opposition to Insite, wound up citing the Mangham review. Meanwhile,
Canada's Chief Public Health Officer remained mum, at least publicly.

By appearances, the Canadian government is taking biased advice from
an outsider retained by the national police while marginalizing a
senior medical adviser. A sound basis for drug policy this is not.