Pubdate: Thu, 31 Aug 2006
Source: Gateway, The (U of Alberta, CN AB Edu)
Copyright: 2006 Gateway Student Journalism Society
Contact:  http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3149
Author: Adam Gaumont
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?142 (Supervised Injection Sites)

SAFE-INJECTION SITES TOO EFFECTIVE TO SHOOT DOWN

Harper And The Conservatives Have Avoided The Issue Of Drug Clinics 
So Far, But As Insite's Trial Run Draws To A Close, The Time Has 
Never Been Better For The Government To Take A Stance

Let's make one thing clear: Safe-or Supervised-Injection Sites 
(SISs), clinics where drug addicts inject themselves with narcotics 
under the supervision of health care professionals, are illegal in 
Canada. Their very existence violates our country's drug laws, and 
the only reason Vancouver's Insite clinic--the only one of its kind 
in North America--exists is due to a temporary exemption implemented 
(under Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in case 
you're interested) by then-PM Paul Martin and his Liberal government.

This three-year trial run expires next month, and the pressure is now 
on Stephen Harper's Conservative government to decide whether to 
allow clinics such as Insite to operate.

Harper made his position clear on this issue when he was elected back 
in January: he's "philosophically opposed"  to the idea of SISs, but 
would wait until evidence of the site's effectiveness was gathered 
before making a final decision.

This was and is a very reasonable position; in fact, even if Harper 
was philosophically in favour of SISs, he ought to have done the same 
thing, for it's the solemn responsibility of our policymakers to 
gather as much valid, empirical data as possible before making such 
an important and precedent-setting decision.

There are several criticisms of SISs that typically get hauled out: 
that they promote drug use, that they encourage dependence, that they 
increase crime in the neighbourhoods in which they're situated, that 
they simply don't work--and, by extension, a waste of taxpayers' 
money, that cardinal governmental sin. Without studying it any 
further, then, many would likely agree with Harper's stance on this issue.

The studies have been done, however, and the evidence overwhelmingly 
indicates that Insite is effective, not only in the prevention of 
infection among users, but also in helping free users from addiction 
altogether. SISs offer clean needles for users, unlike the dirty, 
HIV-infected needles found on the streets; these clinics also offer 
nurses and doctors who provide medical services, as well as 
counsellors that guide addicts toward recovery. In other words, SISs 
don't promote drug use; rather, they promote clean, safe use for 
addicts and encourage them to recover and kick the habit.

Numerous studies have been conducted both by outside researchers and 
within the Vancouver clinic itself, including a report released last 
week conducted by the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, which 
found that "three-quarters of Insite users report the facility has 
positively changed their injecting behaviour."  Local governments and 
police, the RCMP, and former addicts alike all attest to the progress made.

Despite this seemingly irrefutable evidence, Harper and his 
Conservatives have remained stubbornly silent on the issue, even 
despite earlier promises to make their position clear by the end of 
the recent International AIDS conference held earlier this month in 
Toronto--an event which our PM notoriously failed to attend.

Instead, Harper later defended his absence, pointing out correctly 
that he can't accept every invitation he's offered, and that he 
wasn't going to comment on the issue while it was "so 
politicized."  He's damn right it's politicized--isn't politics what 
he does for a living?

To be fair, Federal Health Minister Tony Clement was in attendance, 
and pragmatically speaking, it's probably better to have a real live 
bureaucrat there than a political figurehead. But we all know the 
influence figureheads have on public perception, and in this sense, 
Harper's snubbing of the conference doesn't bode well for his 
government's still-to-be-announced position on SISs like Insite.

That the Conservatives have their heads deep below the sand on this 
issue is obvious; the question is whether they will extract 
themselves from their igneous ignorance in time to save Insite's from 
expiring--and maybe even sanction the development of some new clinics 
around the country while they're at it.

You may recall that there were calls here in Edmonton for a SIS of 
our own several years ago; in fact, as recently as this year, Mayor 
Stephen Mandel has gone on the record as condoning such an endeavour. 
Aside from Vancouver's Insite, plans are also in the works in 
Canada's two other largest urban centres--Montreal and Toronto--to 
institute SISs.

Not surprisingly, this M-T-V triad also represents the only major 
metropoli in Canada that don't have a single elected Conservative MP. 
This correlation shows the deep divide between our country's Liberals 
and Conservatives (both lower-case and upper), but it's on admittedly 
divisive issues like this one that we need to come together and do 
the right--if not the most ideal--thing.

Even if it goes against one's beliefs--religious, social or 
otherwise--sometimes you have to choose the lesser of the two evils. 
In this case, it's tolerance of hard-drug use in exchange for 
increased public safety, lowered HIV-infection rates, and the 
reduction of addicts and users in our country's most drug-addled 
neighbourhoods. Seems like a pretty clear-cut choice to me.

But this isn't a simplistic issue, and no one--our elected government 
least among them--can afford to take an ideological position here. 
Ignoring the effectiveness of SISs has the same effect as pretending 
that the problem doesn't exist, and going directly against proven 
science is hopefully a relic of the past.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman