WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER TWO PILLARS?

To the editor:

Upon reading Allen Garr's column ("Progress made in drug policy,"
March 16), I had to chuckle. He refers to the "Four Pillar drug
strategy," and yet only really discusses one pillar-harm reduction.
Although only two pillars of the four pillar strategy have been truly
implemented (enforcement, with much controversy surrounding it, and of
course the much hailed harm reduction of safe injection sites), people
often speak about the four pillars plan as if it only encompassed the
harm reduction aspect.

I would hazard that many don't even know what the other two pillars
are.

The other two pillars-treatment and prevention-have been sadly
neglected.

The Four Pillar plan, as it has been implemented, bears only moderate
resemblance to the original Four Pillar plan. Look it up:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/fourpillars/factsheets.htm.

Unfortunately, the document was written by the City of Vancouver, so
you will find that the "treatment" portion of the document includes
reference to "NAOMI" or, the "North American Opiate Medication
Initiative" (in basic terms, prescribed heroin for drug users). Call
me crazy, but this just sounds like another way of saying "harm
reduction." Once again, it seems like people want to whittle the four
pillars to two.

The only "prevention" education I was exposed to with any frequency in
association with the Four Pillar strategy was the "safe sex" and "no
needle sharing" message. Sure, there are the DARE (Drug Abuse
Resistance Education) programs out there, but they too are underfunded
and underutilized. And as for treatment, after the Liberal government
cutbacks there aren't enough facilities for addicts to recover in, or
space within the facilities.

My understanding is that not every addict that wants to get clean is
guaranteed a spot in such a facilities. Far from it, I believe.

So, if we are to consider addiction as a disease, then we are merely
prolonging it without any consideration as to how to treat it or how
to prevent it. That is like letting someone live as long as possible
while suffering from the effects of cancer, but doing nothing to cure
it and doing nothing to prevent it. How much sense does that make?
Even if an addict wants to recover, the resources provided are scarce.

Prevention strategy? Where is it?

Sometimes I feel as if by only implementing the two pillars of harm
reduction and enforcement, we are simply using our "compassion" to
disguise our desire to brush the ugliness of addiction under the
carpet (and out of the public's eye).

After all, if addicts are in jail or shooting up in an injection
facility, at least we don't have to see them, right?

I feel that a more appropriate name would be the "Two Pillar strategy"
for Vancouver's "enlightened" approach to drug addiction.

Jennine Gates

Expatriate Vancouverite

Borden, ON