Pubdate: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 Source: Toronto Sun (CN ON) Copyright: 2000, Canoe Limited Partnership. Contact: 333 King St. E., Toronto, Ontario M5A 3X5 Canada Fax: (416) 947-3228 Website: http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoSun/ Forum: http://www.canoe.ca/Chat/newsgroups.html Author: LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, Toronto Sun TOLERATING DRUGS ADMITS DEFEAT It doesn't matter if it's legalized "red light" districts, making dance raves "safe" for kids to take drugs, or the latest proposal from Coun. Kyle Rae to establish a "safe injection room" for intravenous drug users in Toronto. To me, the philosophy behind all these proposals is essentially the same. It's an admission of defeat. - - We can't stop prostitution, so we say let's decriminalize it. - - We can't stop kids from taking Ecstasy at raves, so we say let's put ambulances outside the city-owned Better Living Centre, paid for by rave promoters, to rush the kids who OD to hospital. - - We can't stop heroin or other intravenous drug use, so we say let's put it in a controlled environment, off the streets. But what are we really saying? We're really saying some people are beyond saving and we may as well give up. Even worse is the message we're sending out to those who may be thinking about experimenting with such vices. There's no getting around it. If we say we're going to legalize or turn a blind eye to things we think should be illegal simply because we can't stop them, then we're tacitly endorsing those activities. We wouldn't do it with murder, would we? I remember watching a public television debate years ago on whether methadone and other alternative drug treatment programs should be offered to heroin addicts. Whites on the panel, all well-to-do and famous and who ranged in philosophy from conservative to liberal, were all for the idea. But it was the black mayor of a mid-size U.S. city who said the reason he didn't support such programs - along with proposals to decriminalize and legalize drugs - was that if you talked honestly about who was being devastated by drugs in his community, it was blacks in the inner city, and that what the panelists were saying to him, albeit with the best of intentions, was that they were ready to write those people off. He wasn't. His priority was more cops to drive off the dealers who were preying on his constituents . Yesterday, I spoke to Rae about this idea that what he's proposing really amounts to an admission of defeat. I have to admit that while I still don't agree with his idea of a safe injection facility for intravenous drug users - he first saw one on a trip to Frankfurt last December - he made a strong case. FRANKFURT GAVE UP In 1990, when the city of Frankfurt had essentially given up many of its parks and neighbourhoods to drug dealers, 108 people died of drug overdoses. But in 1998, four years after the city established the safe injection room at the local train station, the number of OD deaths had dropped to 38. Rae acknowledged that such a facility tends to become a magnet for drug dealers and other criminals. But he said even that's preferable to the status quo in Toronto, where in his downtown ward there are drug deals going on all over the place at certain city intersections and parks. Even localizing the problem would be an improvement. Rae argued the U.S. experience has shown that trying to combat drug use strictly through law enforcement - even to the point of bribing major drug-producing nations with billions in foreign aid - hasn't worked. Better to look at harm reduction methods as well, as Toronto already has through its needle exchange program in which addicts have been able to exchange dirty needles for clean ones since 1990. Rae noted there are cases where drug addicts, supplied with heroin in a controlled environment, can actually go on to lead productive lives. And a "safe injection room" would at least give public health staff the chance to reach addicts directly and encourage and help them to get off drugs. For all that, Rae admitted he doesn't think council is ready for his proposal. Not enough people in Toronto yet see the problem happening outside their doorstep, as his constituents do. All fair points, but my instincts still tell me it's the wrong approach. I keep thinking how many baby boomers, who are parents today, are so quick to argue we should stop panicking about drug use by the young (say, at raves) because our generation experimented with drugs, and we turned out okay. Yes, but the reason we turned out okay was not that we had parents who told us it was no big deal to them whether we experimented with drugs. It was because they told us it was wrong, set standards of behaviour in their (our) homes, and provided a stable environment for us to return to when we were done experimenting. They sure didn't tell us it was fine by them if we experimented with drugs in our bedrooms, and not to worry because if anything bad happened, they'd have an ambulance waiting outside. Thank heavens. - --- MAP posted-by: John Chase