Pubdate: Tue, 23 Oct 2007
Source: McGill Tribune (CN QU Edu)
Copyright: 2007 The McGill Tribune
Contact:  http://www.mcgilltribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2672
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?142 (Supervised Injection Sites)

NEEDLES IN A POLITICAL HAYSTACK

Political opposition to drug harm reduction centres is nothing new. 
Insite-a supervised injection site located in the downtown eastside 
of Vancouver has encountered nothing but disdain from Stephen 
Harper's federal government, while the UN's International Narcotics 
Control Board routinely condemns various harm reduction centres 
abroad for violating international treaties concerning narcotic 
drugs. The U.S. government has also been an outspoken global critic 
of harm reduction projects that provide legal exemptions for drug use 
ever since Richard Nixon coined the term "war on drugs." Therefore, 
it should come as no surprise that early efforts by the San Francisco 
Department of Public Health to open America's first legal 
safe-injection site have been met by political stonewalling and moral 
indignation.

The scientific evidence supporting supervised injection sites is 
overwhelmingly positive. Insite, the only facility of its kind in 
North America, has been the subject of over a dozen studies conducted 
by the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, none of which have 
uncovered a single negative effect of the SIS. Furthermore some of 
the positive effects revealed in their peer-reviewed research are 
extremely encouraging: Insite has reduced the overall rate of needle 
sharing in the area, led to increased enrollment in detox programs 
and has not led to an increase in drug-related crime or intravenous drug usage.

Nurses at Insite provide care for wounds, supply users with sterile 
drug paraphernalia and educate users about sanitary practices that 
cut down on the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. They are also on-hand 
for any overdoses-of which there have been over 800 at Insite. Thanks 
to prompt medical care, not a single overdose at the facility has 
resulted in a fatality and, not coincidentally, emergency room visits 
for intravenous drug users are down dramatically. Unnecessary 
hospital visits are prevented by simple care at an SIS, saving 
tax-payers money and cutting waitlists at emergency rooms.

Perhaps most importantly, safe-injection sites put drug users in 
close contact with social workers. In fact, a recent study showed 
that intravenous drug users were 20 per cent more likely to enrol in 
a detox program after using Insite on a regular basis. The power of 
personal contact, something that is almost impossible to establish 
when dealing with users in back-alleys, is undeniable.

An SIS in the downtown eastside of Vancouver was an crucial step 
towards improving the community. It is estimated that the area is 
home to over 1,500 homeless people, as well as thousands of others 
living well below the poverty line. The percentage of HIV-positive 
men and women in the community parallels that of many third-world 
countries. San Francisco has similar problems, with estimates of 
intravenous drug users in the city ranging from 11,000 to 15,000 
people. For them, the old methods of enforcement are not working. In 
fact, a study published in the International Journal of Drug Study 
concluded that street-level arrests and confiscations only serve to 
exacerbate drug-related crime and prompt increased needle sharing.

The Harm Reduction Centre here on campus is based on much of the same 
ideology. The centre, which became a Students' Society Service in 
November of last year, aims to educate students on safe alcohol and 
drug use and bridge the disconnect between the average student and 
the officials that preach on the evils of drugs. Quebec pharmacy Jean 
Coutu offers a kit of inexpensive needles and condoms in order to 
prevent the spread of disease and facilitate safe drug use and sex 
for low-income individuals.

Yet most politicians still believe "The war on drugs" is the answer 
and refuse to use the formidable powers of government to offer such 
harm reducing services. Ideologically it's easy to see why they have 
a knee-jerk reaction to anything that might seem to make drug use 
easier, but what they fail to realize is that supervised injection 
sites don't condone or legitimize drug use at all. The facts show 
that facilities such as Insite do not increase drug use in the 
community, nor cause additional relapses. The staff at safe-injection 
sites work to save users' lives, while idealistic politicians stick 
their heads in the sand and pretend drug-busts, harsher jail 
sentences and preventative campaigns will rid society of the problem. 
They refuse to see the reality that prohibition and punishment will 
never completely eradicate drug use from the general population.

This sad state of affairs among our politicians was revealed, yet 
again, earlier this year, when Harper's government denied Vancouver 
Coastal Health's request for a three-year extension to Insite's 
operating exemption. Instead, Insite was granted an additional six 
months to "gather more proof of its effectiveness." Harper commented 
that he was "sceptical" about Insite's value, despite the favourable 
studies published in over a dozen reputable medical journals such as 
the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Supervised injection sites are not the be-all, end-all solution to 
the problem of drug usage, but rather, they are an important tool in 
the battle against intravenous drugs. They cost a measly $2-millon 
per year to operate, which is pocket-change compared to the millions 
spent on enforcement and education. Some object to them on moral or 
philosophical grounds; but the science behind them is sound, and when 
morality and pragmatism meet, pragmatism should always triumph.

The bottom line is that programs like Insite work. If Mr. Harper and 
the politicians in California believe otherwise, then they must be 
high on something.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom