FAR FROM SETTLED

No Scientific Consensus On 'Safe-Injection' Issue

The battle over whether to keep a so-called safe injection site open
in Vancouver continued in British Columbia courts last week.

The federal government has made suggestions over the past year that
Insite -- a facility in the city's Downtown Eastside that allows users
to inject illegal drugs without fear of prosecution -- could be shut
down.

In an effort to save the site, supporters have brought the issue to
court. They enjoyed an initial victory from a misguided court ruling
by the B.C. Supreme Court, which took it upon themselves to become
policy makers.

But the federal government has appealed and submitted its written
arguments last week.

It's an important issue for all of Canada because if Insite is allowed
to continue, we would almost certainly see similar drug havens popping
up all over the country.

The problem with issues like safe injection sites -- which is an
oxymoron -- is that good scientific research gets so mangled and
manipulated by interest groups and the media, the public doesn't get
an accurate picture of them.

I keep hearing politicians and interest group mouthpieces telling us
that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that providing clean
shooting galleries for junkies saves lives, reduces HIV infection and
helps reduce public disorder.

They claim if the Harper government shuts down Insite, it would be for
ideological reasons, not evidence-based ones.

Baloney.

The science says nothing of the kind. There is nowhere near a
consensus among addictions experts, health care practitioners and law
enforcement officials on the effectiveness of Insite.

At best, there are mixed reviews.

What supporters of the centre often do is take Insite's scientifically
invalid claims and repeat them as fact.

But if you read the report of an expert panel, which released its
findings for federal Health Minister Tony Clement in April, you get a
much more accurate picture.

The Expert Advisory Committee -- which included experts on blood-borne
diseases, substance abuse, program evaluation and crime -- found that
many of Insite's claims could not be substantiated.

For example, proponents of the site say safe-injection sites reduce
HIV infection.

According to the report:

"There is no direct evidence that SISs reduce rates of HIV infection,
and the mathematical models used are based on assumption that may not
be valid." Oh.

What about all these claims that it cuts down on needle sharing? Well,
it does when the users are in the centre. But most of Insite's data is
based on self-reporting which have not been validated, the report
says. I see.

What about the claim that Insite saves about one life a year through
overdose intervention?

Again, the expert panel found a lack of evidence-based research to
support that claim. They concluded that one would have to conduct
case-controlled studies to make that determination.

Gullible

We often hear proponents of safe-injection sites claim centres like
Insite do not act as tacit approval for illegal drug use.

The report says the existing data is inconclusive on
that.

So there's a lot of licence being used here when proponents make the
politically-charged statements that the evidence is "overwhelming"
that safe-injection sites work.

The evidence is not overwhelming. The only thing that is overwhelming
is how gullible some people are.

Sure, there are some published reports in medical journals that
support Insite. And there are others that do not.

But to claim this has been settled is either a partisan-driven
exercise or a grossly naive and hopelessly uninformed one.

Read the report yourself on Health Canada's website.