GETTING A FIX ON ADDICTION

If you've seen Matrix Reloaded, but crave more in the way of action and
alternate reality you may want to check out a flick I've nicknamed
Addiction Reloaded. It's playing at the Globe Theatre until Thursday.

The actual name of the movie is FIX: The Story of an Addicted City.

Filmed in Vancouver, the movie is being used as a gritty apologetic for
safe drug injection sites. Nettie Wild chronicles the stories of Dean
Wilson's addiction to heroin and Ann Livingston's addiction to the role of
heroine.

It even includes a politician and filmmaker in this classic tale of
personal and political enabling. Be prepared, however, because there are no
happy endings. None of the stars beats their addiction.

It's an odd film. It's not balanced or objective enough to be a
documentary. But it's too real to be fiction. The film tempts despair,
defies logic and provokes the viewer with graphic images and arguments of
Vancouver addicts.

It takes you deep into a world where personal problems are literally and
physically paraded as virtues. It's a world where anyone questioning the
addict's rights to drugs, needles, and a publicly funded shooting gallery
is either a greedy land developer, cold-hearted hypocrite, or outright idiot.

It's a world where community people protecting their legal rights are
condemned while drug users pursuing their illegal habits are applauded.
It's a world in which heroin addicts claim the moral high ground by force,
threats and contempt.

Livingston is derisively dismissive of treatment. Wild makes no effort to
include any examples of addictions programs or counselors, nothing about NA
or Alanon. But I guess that would undermine her point.

Wilson comments, "I don't think it's fair for people to be sentenced to
death because of their indulgences." That sounds too much like, "I don't
think it's fair for people to be sentenced to death because they choose to
play Russian roulette."

Who's sentencing who here?

But I shouldn't be too hard on them. The movie highlights only one aspect
of a multi-pronged response to the drug problem in Vancouver. They're
talking about detox treatment, better access to medical care and stiffer
law enforcement against drug dealers.

Great! So we've decided not to treat the drug user as criminal. Only the
dealer is criminal. When I ran this by some of the youth in our
neighbourhood they said, "but without the users there wouldn't be dealers."

A dealer commented, "I'm not a criminal. I'm a businessman. Don't pick on
me. I cut my drugs clean and even extend credit when people are hurting.
Otherwise, they would commit all sorts of crime to buy poison elsewhere."

I'm not against harm reduction, but let's get one thing straight. The best
harm reduction is to quit. Don't get me wrong. I'm willing to talk about
clean needles and points of constructive contact with those who don't yet
realize they have a problem. A safe injection site is better than an unsafe
injection site. But jail or a detox centre is safer yet.

The drug user's universe fits in his syringe or pipe. Emotionally immature
and relationally selfish, the user's addiction overrides his conscience.
The activist's perspective is limited by the object of her advocacy. The
politician's perspective is limited by despair and fiscal avoidance of more
comprehensive treatment and enforcement. Don't trust them alone to define
harm reduction.

Unfortunately, "harm reduction" has been reduced to a pop philosophy, the
devolution of treatment and enforcement. It's often a buzzword employed by
people preoccupied with avoidance of judgment or responsibility. Enabling,
while disguised as compassion, is the ultimate in condescension and
self-serving neglect.

What harm is being reduced? And just as important, what harm is being
maintained -- or enhanced? Have pretty casinos and clean VLTs reduced the
harm from gambling addiction?

Harm to the community doesn't come just at the point of injection. Harm
also comes at the point of sale and from behaviour while high or strung
out. Harm comes as addicts obtain cash to purchase drugs. Harm comes to
families of the users -- whether or not they have kids. Harm comes to
surrounding businesses and residences frequented by non-users.

Activists must weigh the harm reduced against the harms maintained.

It would be repugnant to suggest a "harm reduction" approach or "safe
sites" for incest or spousal abuse. I've heard nobody suggest hiring
doctors to watch sniffers fry their brains in safe sniff houses.

That's because the potential and partial reduction of harm is far
outweighed by the harm maintained.

This week a friend determined to quit using his drug, and to quit using his
family and friends to support his addiction.

Now that would be real harm reduction.

Rev. Harry Lehotsky is a founding member of New Life Ministries on Maryland
Street. His column appears Sundays.