Pubdate: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 Source: Montreal Gazette (CN QU) Copyright: 2010 Canwest Publishing Inc. Contact: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/letters.html Website: http://www.montrealgazette.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/274 Author: Henry Aubin Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?142 (Supervised Injection Sites) SAFE-INJECTION SITES WOULD SAVE MONEY AND LIVES Quebec should reconsider its opposition to drug-shooting centres Addiction-support advocates say they will open safe-injection sites for Montreal's addicts next summer even if the provincial government disapproves. The advocates' cause is jarring to many Montrealers. There's a sense that, if the advocates get their way, society would be coddling people it ought to be stigmatizing. The skeptics would further argue that drug users are already being pampered plenty. Junkies have had a provincially subsidized locale - -called Cactus -for obtaining free, clean needles for 21 years. (The current quarters are in a pleasant, upscale-looking building at the corner of Sanguinet and Ste. Catherine Sts. that from the exterior could pass for a recreation centre.) Now, the skeptics say, addicts want still more -comfortable shooting galleries where medical personnel can minister to them. In fact, Cactus and other advocacy groups say they want three such sites -at Cactus's present location as well as on the Plateau and in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. It's undoubtedly because of public resistance that the Charest government no longer supports injection sites. Philippe Couillard, then the health minister, did support the idea in June 2008. But his successor, Yves Bolduc, came out against it two months later. He prefers prevention programs and needle distribution facilities. The Tremblay administration is undecided: It says it must consider the wishes of people living near injection sites. I've always been an unabashed fuddy-duddy on drug issues -I'm against legalizing drugs, even marijuana (since legalization for adults would mean general banalization, and that would inevitably mean more consumption by adolescents). But I find the case for injection sites compellingly wise. One rationale for such facilities is that they'd prevent fatal overdosing. Supervisors would be on hand to intervene. They'd also be there to give advice and referrals to people suffering from hepatitis C, AIDS and other blood-borne infections common among drug users. In short, injection sites would help save lives. That's no small benefit. You either believe in the sanctity of life or you don't. And if you do, certain difficult, controversial issues can become easier to resolve -capital punishment, euthanasia, programs to help addicts. But there are also more pragmatic, self-interested reasons for society at large to back injection sites and make it politically easier for the Quebec government to approve them. First, there's the question of needles littering public spaces. Parents have been complaining for decades about finding these infection-spreading implements in parks and alleys. Indoor injection sites would reduce that problem. As well, restaurateurs don't like their washrooms used for shooting up, and residents don't like confronting similar activity outdoors. Finally, there's an argument that should appeal to taxpayers. Fewer cases of AIDS and hepatitis C would trim health costs. Also, treatment by on-site staff of users suffering from overdoses would reduce pressure on ambulances and hospital emergency rooms. This last benefit is not a figment of advocates' imagination. Vancouver launched North America's only supervised injection site several years ago. A report last year by the Institut nationale de sante publique du Quebec found that site as well as one in Sydney, Australia, reduce the "financial burden of diseases and pressures on the health system." The institute recommended the health minister approve similar facilities. Bolduc's spokesperson said yesterday the minister has "not closed the door on the idea." The Harper government opposes the Vancouver project on moral grounds and has taken its case to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is expected to hear the case next year. Advocates would do well not to carry out their stated intention to open the injection sites next summer even if the government rejects the idea. Use of hard drugs is in enough disrepute already; those who would help the users would harm their cause by flouting the government. But the advocates' cause is just. A proposal that saves taxpayers' money is sensible. And one that saves lives is profoundly moral. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom