INSITE'S PROVEN BENEFITS IGNORED IN POLITICAL FRAY

Since all three federal parties have sworn fealty to Canada's system
of publicly funded health care, one would have thought that a
peer-reviewed study that showed how one Canadian program has decreased
mortality by 35 per cent would have no shortage of champions.

But, except for a handful of health experts and harm-reduction
strategists, there has been silence along the campaign trails.

The British medical journal, The Lancet, last week published a study
by the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS that indicated that
since Insite, the Vancouver-based safe injection site, opened in
September of 2003, the number of overdose deaths in the immediate area
has declined by 35 per cent.

This isn't the first research project to indicate the effectiveness of
Insite. Other studies have focused on health issues such as the spread
of HIV, of hepatitis C, how Insite has impacted on public order in the
neighbourhood, and what impact the site had in reducing addictions
while increasing addicts' participation in detox programs.

In all circumstances, the studies indicated the site has been an
over-the-top success. So much so that both the governing B.C. Liberal
party and the Opposition NDP, as well as the Vancouver city council,
have endorsed the project.

Yet, rather than been allowed to flourish and prosper, Insite has been
hamstrung by legal challenges launched from far-away Ottawa. The
Conservative government has insisted the people of Vancouver and
British Columbia shouldn't have a say in this aspect of their health
care, because the use of contraband narcotics is a federal criminal
matter.

So far the courts have all favoured B.C., citing the medical evidence
of prior studies. Officials hope this added study, showing that having
the site saves lives, would add weight to the jurisdictional dispute
to be argued before the Supreme Court on May 12.

But the argument over the whether health-care dollars should be
squandered to support a law-and-order agenda that is a proven failure,
or be used to actually improve the health of citizens is one for the
politicians, not the courts.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has promised that within 100 days
of achieving a majority mandate he would present Parliament with an
omnibus crime bill that would in effect revert Canada's legal and
health systems to 19th-century standards.

Throwing out evidence in favour of ideology is not a difficult task.
After all, it was the basis of the Harper government's decision to do
away with the mandatory long-form census this year. It is much easier
to enact policy changes if descriptions of the consequences are based
on emotion, not facts.

For evidence, one need only consider the annual debate over Needle
Safe Saskatoon's program to distribute safe needles and collect used
ones. The epidemiological evidence supporting the effectiveness of
this program in reducing the spread of disease, crime and suffering
not only is strong, but it also reflects the results of similar
programs studies by various groups from all over the world.

Yet it has its opponents, mostly people who believe that, by providing
addicts with safe needles, the health workers are promoting the use of
the illicit drugs. That the scientific evidence indicates the opposite
is true doesn't seem to sway those who blindly oppose any measures
other than jail to address social issues.

The Insite study, by the way, isn't the only one recently released
that call into question the use of jails rather than a holistic social
policy to address social problems.

A study from Maryland indicates that those U.S. states that instituted
longer and tougher sentences for juvenile offenders saw an increase in
both recidivism and crime, compared to those that turned to assistance
programs.

And a recent issue of the conservative magazine, The Economist,
pointed out that North America's failed drug policy not only has
resulted in destroyed lives and high incarceration rates north of
Mexico, but it is the root cause of turning Central America into one
of the most violent and poverty-entrenched areas of the world.

The violence that overtook this part of the world during the Cold War,
when America used bloody dictators to control democratic and socialist
movements in countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua,
pales in comparison to the current situation, the magazine claims in
an editorial.

"As long as drugs that people want to consume are prohibited, and
therefore provided by criminals, driving the trade out of one
bloodstained area will only push it into some other godforsaken place.
But unless and until drugs are legalized, that is the best Central
America can hope to do," it suggests.

Yet rather than debate these issues, the current election campaign is
focused on whether or not the majority will of Canadians has any say
in a minority Parliament.