NEEDLES IN A POLITICAL HAYSTACK

Political opposition to drug harm reduction centres is nothing new.
Insite-a supervised injection site located in the downtown eastside
of Vancouver has encountered nothing but disdain from Stephen
Harper's federal government, while the UN's International Narcotics
Control Board routinely condemns various harm reduction centres
abroad for violating international treaties concerning narcotic
drugs. The U.S. government has also been an outspoken global critic
of harm reduction projects that provide legal exemptions for drug use
ever since Richard Nixon coined the term "war on drugs." Therefore,
it should come as no surprise that early efforts by the San Francisco
Department of Public Health to open America's first legal
safe-injection site have been met by political stonewalling and moral
indignation.

The scientific evidence supporting supervised injection sites is
overwhelmingly positive. Insite, the only facility of its kind in
North America, has been the subject of over a dozen studies conducted
by the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, none of which have
uncovered a single negative effect of the SIS. Furthermore some of
the positive effects revealed in their peer-reviewed research are
extremely encouraging: Insite has reduced the overall rate of needle
sharing in the area, led to increased enrollment in detox programs
and has not led to an increase in drug-related crime or intravenous drug usage.

Nurses at Insite provide care for wounds, supply users with sterile
drug paraphernalia and educate users about sanitary practices that
cut down on the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. They are also on-hand
for any overdoses-of which there have been over 800 at Insite. Thanks
to prompt medical care, not a single overdose at the facility has
resulted in a fatality and, not coincidentally, emergency room visits
for intravenous drug users are down dramatically. Unnecessary
hospital visits are prevented by simple care at an SIS, saving
tax-payers money and cutting waitlists at emergency rooms.

Perhaps most importantly, safe-injection sites put drug users in
close contact with social workers. In fact, a recent study showed
that intravenous drug users were 20 per cent more likely to enrol in
a detox program after using Insite on a regular basis. The power of
personal contact, something that is almost impossible to establish
when dealing with users in back-alleys, is undeniable.

An SIS in the downtown eastside of Vancouver was an crucial step
towards improving the community. It is estimated that the area is
home to over 1,500 homeless people, as well as thousands of others
living well below the poverty line. The percentage of HIV-positive
men and women in the community parallels that of many third-world
countries. San Francisco has similar problems, with estimates of
intravenous drug users in the city ranging from 11,000 to 15,000
people. For them, the old methods of enforcement are not working. In
fact, a study published in the International Journal of Drug Study
concluded that street-level arrests and confiscations only serve to
exacerbate drug-related crime and prompt increased needle sharing.

The Harm Reduction Centre here on campus is based on much of the same
ideology. The centre, which became a Students' Society Service in
November of last year, aims to educate students on safe alcohol and
drug use and bridge the disconnect between the average student and
the officials that preach on the evils of drugs. Quebec pharmacy Jean
Coutu offers a kit of inexpensive needles and condoms in order to
prevent the spread of disease and facilitate safe drug use and sex
for low-income individuals.

Yet most politicians still believe "The war on drugs" is the answer
and refuse to use the formidable powers of government to offer such
harm reducing services. Ideologically it's easy to see why they have
a knee-jerk reaction to anything that might seem to make drug use
easier, but what they fail to realize is that supervised injection
sites don't condone or legitimize drug use at all. The facts show
that facilities such as Insite do not increase drug use in the
community, nor cause additional relapses. The staff at safe-injection
sites work to save users' lives, while idealistic politicians stick
their heads in the sand and pretend drug-busts, harsher jail
sentences and preventative campaigns will rid society of the problem.
They refuse to see the reality that prohibition and punishment will
never completely eradicate drug use from the general population.

This sad state of affairs among our politicians was revealed, yet
again, earlier this year, when Harper's government denied Vancouver
Coastal Health's request for a three-year extension to Insite's
operating exemption. Instead, Insite was granted an additional six
months to "gather more proof of its effectiveness." Harper commented
that he was "sceptical" about Insite's value, despite the favourable
studies published in over a dozen reputable medical journals such as
the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Supervised injection sites are not the be-all, end-all solution to
the problem of drug usage, but rather, they are an important tool in
the battle against intravenous drugs. They cost a measly $2-millon
per year to operate, which is pocket-change compared to the millions
spent on enforcement and education. Some object to them on moral or
philosophical grounds; but the science behind them is sound, and when
morality and pragmatism meet, pragmatism should always triumph.

The bottom line is that programs like Insite work. If Mr. Harper and
the politicians in California believe otherwise, then they must be
high on something.