SAFE-INJECTION SITES WOULD SAVE MONEY AND LIVES

Quebec should reconsider its opposition to drug-shooting centres

Addiction-support advocates say they will open safe-injection sites
for Montreal's addicts next summer even if the provincial government
disapproves.

The advocates' cause is jarring to many Montrealers. There's a sense
that, if the advocates get their way, society would be coddling
people it ought to be stigmatizing.

The skeptics would further argue that drug users are already being
pampered plenty. Junkies have had a provincially subsidized locale
- -called Cactus -for obtaining free, clean needles for 21 years. (The
current quarters are in a pleasant, upscale-looking building at the
corner of Sanguinet and Ste. Catherine Sts. that from the exterior
could pass for a recreation centre.) Now, the skeptics say, addicts
want still more -comfortable shooting galleries where medical
personnel can minister to them. In fact, Cactus and other advocacy
groups say they want three such sites -at Cactus's present location
as well as on the Plateau and in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

It's undoubtedly because of public resistance that the Charest
government no longer supports injection sites. Philippe Couillard,
then the health minister, did support the idea in June 2008. But his
successor, Yves Bolduc, came out against it two months later. He
prefers prevention programs and needle distribution facilities. The
Tremblay administration is undecided: It says it must consider the
wishes of people living near injection sites.

I've always been an unabashed fuddy-duddy on drug issues -I'm against
legalizing drugs, even marijuana (since legalization for adults would
mean general banalization, and that would inevitably mean more
consumption by adolescents). But I find the case for injection sites
compellingly wise.

One rationale for such facilities is that they'd prevent fatal
overdosing. Supervisors would be on hand to intervene. They'd also be
there to give advice and referrals to people suffering from hepatitis
C, AIDS and other blood-borne infections common among drug users. In
short, injection sites would help save lives.

That's no small benefit. You either believe in the sanctity of life
or you don't. And if you do, certain difficult, controversial issues
can become easier to resolve -capital punishment, euthanasia,
programs to help addicts.

But there are also more pragmatic, self-interested reasons for
society at large to back injection sites and make it politically
easier for the Quebec government to approve them.

First, there's the question of needles littering public spaces.
Parents have been complaining for decades about finding these
infection-spreading implements in parks and alleys. Indoor injection
sites would reduce that problem.

As well, restaurateurs don't like their washrooms used for shooting
up, and residents don't like confronting similar activity outdoors.

Finally, there's an argument that should appeal to taxpayers. Fewer
cases of AIDS and hepatitis C would trim health costs. Also,
treatment by on-site staff of users suffering from overdoses would
reduce pressure on ambulances and hospital emergency rooms.

This last benefit is not a figment of advocates' imagination.
Vancouver launched North America's only supervised injection site
several years ago. A report last year by the Institut nationale de
sante publique du Quebec found that site as well as one in Sydney,
Australia, reduce the "financial burden of diseases and pressures on
the health system." The institute recommended the health minister
approve similar facilities.

Bolduc's spokesperson said yesterday the minister has "not closed the
door on the idea." The Harper government opposes the Vancouver
project on moral grounds and has taken its case to the Supreme Court
of Canada. It is expected to hear the case next year.

Advocates would do well not to carry out their stated intention to
open the injection sites next summer even if the government rejects
the idea. Use of hard drugs is in enough disrepute already; those who
would help the users would harm their cause by flouting the government.

But the advocates' cause is just. A proposal that saves taxpayers'
money is sensible. And one that saves lives is profoundly moral.