Pubdate: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC) Copyright: 2002 The Vancouver Sun Contact: http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/477 Author: Ken Wilson DRUG ARGUMENT FLAWED For an assistant professor of political science, Boris DeWiel has a pretty shaky grasp of reality (The safer drug use is, the more attractive drugs will be, Commentary, June 26). Without providing any hard data, he suggests that protecting people from harm makes them more likely to engage in risky behaviour, just because the risk is reduced. In reality, the "moral hazard" created by fire insurance is the temptation on the part of heavily insured property owners to burn their property down to collect the insurance, not insurance-induced carelessness. So how does all this sloppy thinking apply to safe injection sites and drug use? It doesn't. To apply the "moral hazard" argument requires us to believe people will begin to use hard drugs just so they can take advantage of safe injection sites. But more to the point, addicts don't use drugs because the drugs are low risk; they use drugs because they are addicted. Kids won't begin to use drugs just because there are safe injection sites. New users already have "safe" injection sites (homes or cars). It's only after the addiction takes hold and the cost of buying drugs leaves them destitute that addicts find themselves on the Downtown Eastside in need of a safe place to shoot up. Denying addicts a safe place won't stop a single kid from becoming an addict. Kids don't turn to drugs after evaluating the risks and finding them acceptable. There are far better ways to keep our suburban kids off drugs than punishing eastside addicts to set an example. We should set the example ourselves. Ken Wilson Vancouver - --- MAP posted-by: Beth