SAFE INJECTION ANYTHING BUT

The war on drugs is over. We lost. It's time to throw in the towel and
instead of ruthlessly persecuting needle-drug addicts, we should show them
compassion.

There's nothing we can do to stop people who choose to abuse drugs, so the
only alternative is to offer them a safe, clean place to shoot up.

Or so the argument goes.

Listening to the media and government officials these days, it would be
easy to assume that providing safe injection sites for street junkies is
the only sane and compassionate approach to drug addiction, and that it's
the only alternative to locking them up in jail to rot.

As Liberal MP Paddy Torsney, chairwoman of an all-party committee that got
the ball rolling last month on safe injection sites, put it, addicts are
"somebody's brother or sister and they're deserving of our care and support."

And apparently, the best way to do that is to let them continue poisoning
themselves.

As is usual with public debate in Canada, we have managed to turn the issue
of drug addiction into an either-or question - if you're regressive enough
to think the police have a role to play in the issue, you're a heartless
reactionary with no grasp of the current social reality. But if you place
any value on human life, you'll support the notion of providing a
state-sanctioned shooting gallery.

Health Canada is still putting together guidelines for safe injection
sites, but is hoping to receive proposals in major cities across the country.

So far here in Edmonton, Streetworks, a coalition of non-profit and
government social agencies that runs the city's needle exchange program,
has yet to decide if they'll try to get in on the act.

Program director Marliss Taylor supports the concept, but isn't entirely
convinced that it would be the best use of the organization's resources.
She expects the Streetworks board will begin discussions at its next meeting.

So in preparation for those discussions and in the spirit of open and
honest debate, I'd like to challenge three claims that in the current
political climate seem to be taken as gospel.

* We should open a safe-injection site because it's the compassionate thing
to do for addicts.

Safe injection sites and needle exchange programs aren't about helping
addicts overcome their addictions. They're about containing the spread of
disease and getting junkies off the street, effectively sweeping them under
the rug.

I spoke with several Narcotics Anonymous members, who all agreed that a
safe-injection site, while a great disease-prevention measure, would have
little effect on rampant drug abuse.

Ultimately, the message isn't one of compassion, but of expedience: If
you're going to slowly kill yourself, do it over there where my taxes won't
be wasted treating your diseases.

Streetworks's Taylor argues that a safe injection site will help
health-care and social workers build trusting, non-judgmental relationships
with junkies, so when they're ready to seek help the addicts will already
know someone they can turn to.

But one addictions counsellor suggested that if anything, it will have the
opposite effect and keep some addicts from ever seeking help. Giving them a
clean, safe place to shoot up is tantamount to telling an alcoholic he
shouldn't drink at home, he should be in a bar.

* It will reduce drug-related crime.

The problem here is that junkies still have to acquire their junk. Don't
hold your breath waiting for lawmakers to decriminalize heroin or cocaine
and Edmonton Police Service officials have stated while they support the
concept of safe injection sites, they'd oppose drugs being made available
there.

This means the business will still be in the hands of organized crime -
there'd still be dealers and turf wars.

To top it off, junkies would still have to finance their habit, so there'd
still be drug-related thefts and muggings perpetrated on the rest of us.

* It will provide a safe haven for junkies on the street.

"They're going to be taking a wicked chance just being anywhere near the
site," said one NA member.

He said that if he was still using and couldn't afford a fix, he'd just
hide out somewhere near the site and beat the crap out of anyone he thought
might be carrying drugs.

Another NA member and former drug dealer said if there was a safe injection
site back in the days when he was dealing, he'd have parked himself right
outside and made a killing.

There's no question that our present anti-drug tactics are failing, but
that doesn't mean we have to capitulate entirely. Why do the only two
options have to be jail or legalization and decriminalization? Why not
continue to make drug use an offence, but instead of sending offenders to
jail, sentence them to treatment?

Instead of building more prisons, why not offer much less costly treatment
programs? The dangerous ones can still go to jail, but the vast majority,
who are really just sick and desperate, could be offered true hope and
healing. That sounds more like compassion to me.