Pubdate: Wed, 17 Feb 2010
Source: Record, The (CN BC)
Copyright: 2010 Lower Mainland Publishing Group Inc.
Contact:  http://www.royalcityrecord.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1654
Author: Keith Baldrey

HARPER SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS

Prime Minister Stephen Harper dropped by the provincial legislature 
last week for a feel-good speech about B.C. and the Winter Olympics, 
but he didn't stop to take any questions from anyone.

That's too bad, as his aversion to having anything to do with the 
media (other than an occasional wave to the television cameras) means 
he's able to duck some pressing issues.

I certainly had a question or two of my own. I wasn't planning to 
spend gobs of time talking about the irony (or, some say, hypocrisy) 
of him addressing a provincial legislature after he prorogued his own 
federal house.

And I wasn't particularly interested in grilling him over his 
government's economic plan, its problems in Afghanistan or even 
potential election timing.

But I did have a question or two about one of his government's 
dumbest moves in recent days that have a direct bearing on this 
province. That would be the Conservative government's decision to 
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling 
that Vancouver's Downtown Eastside safe injection site (Insite) is a 
legal operation and should be allowed to remain open.

Harper has already lost two key court challenges on this. In trying 
yet again to get the courts to follow his ideologically based 
prejudice, critics say he has abandoned common sense, strong legal 
analysis and sound public policy.

There is no question Insite is a controversial facility. The idea 
that governments and the health-care system implicitly inject 
themselves into an illegal activity - consumption of banned drugs - 
strikes many as wrong.

But those who oppose the existence of Insite - where addicts are 
given a secure place to take drugs, such as heroin, with sterile 
needles - conveniently ignore a larger truth that underscores the 
need for places such as Insite. That would be the fact that our whole 
approach to illegal drugs - the so-called "war on drugs" - has been a 
complete, abject failure.

To stick to the conventional method of dealing with drug addiction 
(i.e. prosecute addicts and do everything possible to deny them 
access to drugs) is a head-in-the-sand approach that is not only 
wrong but also dangerous. Addicts are sick people. Simply telling 
them to stop taking drugs is a useless approach. Some will engage in 
criminal activity, such as robbery, to find ways to pay for their drugs.

As well, drug addiction is an illness and a medical condition. Not 
treating it as such - at the very least, ensuring addicts access to 
safe conditions when it comes to consuming the drugs their bodies now 
need - invites compounding the threat of an already potentially 
dangerous situation.

Serious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C can result from dirty 
needle use, and that threatens non-addicts (to say nothing of the 
fact that it adds even more costs to our already too-expensive 
health-care system).

Renowned medical experts such as Dr. Gabor Mate (a staff physician at 
Insite), the province's chief medical health officer, Dr. Perry 
Kendall, and many others all agree that, from a medical and health 
standpoint, Insite makes complete sense.

Even the B.C. Liberal government, a supposedly right-wing regime, 
supports Insite's continued existence.

These positions are all rooted in evidence-based analysis. For 
example, the number of drug overdose deaths has declined remarkably, 
and so has drug-related crime in Insite's neighbourhood.

Yet the Harper government continues to cling to the out-dated and 
unworkable notion that simply cracking down on addicts and "forcing" 
them to drop their habits is the best approach.

This is an example of the occasional ideological extremism that 
critics of his government fear will come with increased regularity 
should it ever hold a majority position in government.

Holding power in a minority Parliament provides significant checks on 
Harper's power to go too far in any particular position. He must pick 
his way carefully.

Will we see other ideology-based changes to health policy should the 
Tories ever win a majority? Why cling to the failed policies of the 
past? Why not shed your ideological blinkers and embrace a proven 
success story such as Insite?

All good questions, and all ones I would love to have posed to him 
when he was in Victoria.

But he simply wasn't interested in talking to anyone.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart