SUPERVISED DRUG-USE SITE NOT A GOOD FIT

While there may be some good arguments for a supervised drug-use site
for Nanaimo drug users, there may also be some very legitimate reasons
we will not see this happen in Nanaimo.

The argument of a researcher from Simon Fraser University is that the
problem with crack cocaine is so pervasive, extensive and destructive,
that Nanaimo needs a "crack-inhalation facility."

Nanaimo residents are with researcher Benedikt Fischer to the extent
that there is a serious crack problem.

Going beyond that and getting serious about such a facility is likely
not going to fly in this city. This is not Vancouver. The first and
most basic problem is the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

Their track record of dealing with drug issues in this city is nothing
less than abysmal. The first effort at harm reduction did little to
foster good relations with either city council or local residents.

VIHA admitted it made a mistake at that time, but then went on to move
a clinic that included a needle exchange from Cavan Street to Franklyn
Street without consulting the city, as required. Again, VIHA explained
the failure and Harris House is now doing good work without causing
the disruption as feared by nearby businesses.

But the real issue comes down to money. As VIHA struggles with its
budget for acute care,

we should be dubious it can invest the type of money that such a
community care facility would require.

But even if the money did come through, finding a location would be
next to impossible. VIHA is required to consult with the city on any
such moves, and there can be no doubt that opposition to any location
would be loud and prolonged.

As stated, this is not Vancouver where the Downtown Eastside is
defined by the drug culture and such a facility is a natural fit.

VIHA, or anyone involved in establishing such a facility, would have
to work very hard and long to convince residents that it will, as
argued, mitigate the crack problem and not make it worse.

If Nanaimo residents don't understand harm reduction, it's for one of
two reasons. Either it has not been explained adequately or the
problem is not so serious here as to require harm reduction.

The latter point is a dubious one to anyone who's seen the problems
that persist in the downtown area. Though the amount of obvious drug
use and related problems has declined significantly in the past five
years, that doesn't mean the problem has disappeared.

Crack dealers continue to peddle the highly addictive drug all over
the city. And hardcore users drift into the downtown area for a
variety of reasons.

While Fischer has a good argument that we need to do something to
alleviate the problems associated with crack use, disease and crime
mainly, perhaps we need a debate in this city as to whether such a
facility is the best way to do this.

Fischer has claimed in his study it is so. But he does not get the
last word; that belongs to residents through their elected city
council. And despite Fischer's academic credentials, no one knows this
city better than the people who live here.

That said, it must be hoped that if such a facility makes sense --
that it can be proven it will be a benefit and not a problem -- that
residents will acknowledge and accept that reality.

So far this is just a discussion. But given the reaction already, it
may not go much further.