HARM REDUCTION KEY GOAL ON DRUGS

Canada's top court is currently mulling the fate of Insite, a
safeinjection facility in Vancouver that permits people addicted to
drugs to take them in a clean, medically supervised environment.

The federal government, which is opposed to the facility, has argued
the Supreme Court should decide that Ottawa's authority over criminal
matters trumps the B.C. government's jurisdiction over how essential
health services are delivered.

The legal arguments wrapped up last month, but that doesn't mean a
public discussion about how governments should best manage problems
created by illicit drug use should be silenced until the justices
make their ruling.

Evidence clearly shows projects such as Insite help fight the spread
of disease associated with injection drug use, and reduce overdose
deaths and illnesses from unsterilized paraphernalia for users.

This week, the Alberta Harm Reduction Conference is taking place in
Edmonton. Participants include physicians, nurses, outreach workers
and drug users. The idea is to discuss ways to reduce the real,
dangerous impacts of drug addiction in our communities.

These efforts should be supported, despite the understandable
antipathy many feel toward narcotics such as heroin and cocaine.

Such substances evoke strong feelings from people who want to keep
their neighbourhoods drug-free. But at their core, harm-reduction
strategies such as Insite are also about keeping communities safe
- -from the spread of hepatitis C and HIV/ AIDS, and from the petty
crime of users seeking the cash to support their habits.

Should Edmonton take steps toward opening a harm-reduction facility
similar to Insite?

It's a question that is sure to stir passionate debate. A good
starting point may be to conduct a feasibility study for such a
facility in this community. There are clearly drug users in Edmonton,
but the pattern of drug use here will surely prove different from the
experience in a city like Vancouver, as will the number of drug
users, the types of drugs they use, and the methods by which they consume them.

It's this kind of dispassionate data that could prompt open
discussion about how drug use affects our community and how we can
best minimize impacts.

In the spirit of this discussion, now might also be a time to explore
- -even tentatively -whether different mechanisms could be used to
regulate illegal drugs, instead of criminalization.

The government regulates the distribution of drugs such as tobacco
and alcohol, with arguable success. Are there models of regulation,
or lessons on regulation, that could be taken from these restricted
substances and applied to other drugs?

At this point it's almost cliche to note the prohibition of alcohol
didn't work -people still drank and a sometimes dangerous,
criminalized black market emerged for the product. We can see similar
outcomes with illegal drugs today, which are often distributed
through organized criminal groups whose activities often endanger
bystanders as well as customers. The money spent battling these
organizations and the distribution of drugs could arguably be put
into better, and more, treatment programs for drug addicts.

"Getting rid of prohibition will solve a lot of problems, but it
won't solve addiction," said Donald MacPherson, the director of the
Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, who met with The Journal's editorial
board this week while in town for the harm reduction conference.

There should be no doubt that illicit drugs are a scourge that create
real problems for individuals, families, and communities.
Harm-reduction strategies or more liberal criminal laws may lessen
the impacts of that scourge, but the goal of treating addictions
should never be lost.

A broad, national discussion on these issues is sorely needed.