JUST TO BE CLEAR: INSITE SAVES LIVES

Before the Supreme Court case to decide Insite's future began,
government lawyers requested that the court ignore the piles of
evidence that suggest the inexplicably embattled facility does
exactly what it purports to do: reduce overdoses, stop the spread of
disease, encourage rehabilitation -you know, generally just save lives.

A day into the proceedings, we quickly learned why the government's
lawyers would make such a request: They had no way to respond.
Justice Louis LeBel stated it outright to government lawyer Paul
Riley: "In the end, this program somehow, while not being perfect,
works. Have you got anything that tends to demonstrate that this
program doesn't work?" Riley's only reply? "I think that's a fair observation."

Which brings us back to the question of why this trial is taking
place at all. Since it refused to grant an extension to Insite's
exemption three years ago, the government has had plenty of time to
back up its moralistic bleating with any kind of practical argument
to support its position. That they've evidently decided to go with
furrowed brows and gradeschool reminders that drugs are bad -in the
highest court of the land, by the way -suggests that they're in the
wrong on this one.

It is no surprise that a harm-reduction facility such as Insite would
be controversial, and worthy of a public discussion. The fact is that
it is providing governmentfunded care and compassion to a section of
society that, even if they are now in the grips of a disease, have
made some obviously bad choices somewhere along the line. I
personally think that the Insite harm-reduction model represents
enlightened policy; but I can understand the argument that these
people should be left to sleep in the bed they made, even if it's in
an alley next to a dirty needle.

But it's also a mistake to assume -as Barbara Kay does -that
"compassion" is Insite's reason for being, let alone its sole purpose.

Insite, and harm reduction more generally, is about pragmatically
dealing with some of society's unfortunate realities. Despite the
fact that society has rightly deemed some substances too dangerous to
condone, people use them, and so far no amount of law enforcement,
family encouragement or other external pressure has eliminated that reality.

It is obvious that the ultimate goal of any drug program should be
the elimination of its use: That's why Insite has a
drug-rehabilitation clinic onsite (it's even conveniently called
OnSite) that admitted 458 people last year, and made 5,268 referrals
of its 12,236 unique visitors to social and health services, most for
detox and addiction treatment. While we wait for the others to clean
up, though, it is just good sense to try and minimize the harm
they're doing to themselves and others.

Because, make no mistake, Insite helps the rest of us as much as it
does the addicts who come through its doors. Besides the widely
reported 35% drop in overdoses in its vicinity, Insite has also been
shown to reduce HIV transmission, by as many as 35 cases a year,
which is no small savings to our healthcare system: The International
Journal of Drug Policy finds that, once you factor in Insite's
whopping $3-million yearly operating budget, the cost-benefit ratio
in just this instance is 1 to 5.12. Factor in the people who Insite
has referred to longterm rehabilitation -people who, for the most
part, either lack the money or the good example to get there on their
own -and the ratio no doubt improves.

No study has found that Insite encourages drug use: Presumably, a
room full of junkies desperately seeking a hit isn't exactly an
inspirational poster. But it's reasonable to worry that an expanded
mandate might change that. That's a worthwhile discussion to have, at
least. On the other hand, clinging to a misguided morality and
stubbornly challenging Insite's right to exist, after it has proven
again and again since its 2003 founding that it works, is not.

Any walk around Insite's Downtown Eastside Vancouver location will
show you the ill effects of drug use: They can wreck lives as easily
as communities. But we can't forget that it's those ill effects, and
not drug use intrinsically, that is the reason for society's stand
against them. It is worthless to remain high-minded when that
position only helps exacerbate the problems we're supposed to be
against. At some point, we have to look beyond our noses, not just down them.