Pubdate: Wed, 06 Apr 2016
Source: Ottawa Sun (CN ON)
Copyright: 2016 Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact: http://www.ottawasun.com/letter-to-editor
Website: http://www.ottawasun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/329
Author: David Krayden
Page: 4

INSITE BID LACKS ANY REAL INSIGHT

Perhaps we increasingly speak of a proposed Ottawa drug-injection site
simply as "insite" because it is difficult to describe it - with
straight face - as a "safe" or even "supervised" injection site.

In reality, safe-injection sites do not exist any more than safe
heroin does as some magical, alternative, less corrosive drug of
choice for addicts.

Is there not a twinge of absurdity in describing this drug-consumption
platform as merely "supervised?" It's as if we're providing innocuous
parental oversight for a potentially hazardous act; offering a
harassment-free venue, where addicts can be addicts.

My friend John Counsell, an Ottawa pastor and broadcaster, is fond of
slashing through the mendacity on this issue and

Though we are in the midst of public consultation on the issue, it is
difficult to derive any optimism that common sense will prevail. After
all, this debate will ultimately be decided by the federal minister of
health, who as a good Trudeau progressive, will most probably rule on
the side of addiction.

Though Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson has steadfastly opposed the project and
Ottawa Police Chief Charles Bordeleau also rejects the proposal,
insite proponents such as Rob Boyd of the Sandy Hill Community Health
Centre have their well-rehearsed talking points in their hip pockets
and claim these sites "have been proven to reduce public injections,
to reduce overdose deaths and to reduce behaviours associated with
acquiring HIV and Hep C."

But have they been proven to be any of these things or is the Left not
merely massaging the data? If we legalized bank robberies, we could
easily claim that crimes of theft had plummeted. Can we really say
that overdose deaths are down because people are not dying at Canada's
only injection site in Vancouver? More remarkable is the claim that
"public injections" will become rarer. Just who documents the number
of such intrusions into the public sphere?

More importantly, are we actually addressing a social ill by providing
addicts with a haven to commit an illegal act? We are not only acting
as classic enablers, which anyone involved in a 12 Step program will
immediately identify, but we are encouraging people to flagrantly
disregard the law.

Make no mistake: Heroin use will kill you and it is also against the
law. So tell me again why we are making it easier for addicts to kill
themselves and flout the law.

The problem with the enablers is that they don't understand addiction
and they are repelled by tough love. They really believe that if we
are reasonable with addicts, they will be reasonable with us; that is,
if we provide them with a public and antiseptic environment for
poisoning their systems they won't also take advantage of a back alley
on another occasion. The liberal advocates of harm reduction don't
want to say no to heroin use because it might offend someone's
sensitivities.

Sensitivities be damned. This is a life and death struggle. As a
participant in Celebrate Recovery, who can attest to the effectiveness
of those sometimes steep but always rewarding 12 steps, I know that
addicts are sick people who need help - help quitting and not
assistance using the drug that is killing them.

They need treatment. They need to stop using.

They don't need their addiction facilitated at an injection site.

So question the health data, find out what the Vancouver experience
has really been like, and let's oppose this ill-advised, ill-conceived
and ill-producing centre that is a source of - not a restrainer of -
harm.

David Krayden is a former Air Force public affairs officer and 
Parliament Hill communications manager who has worked in print, radio 
and television journalism. He writes and speaks about Canadian politics.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt