Pubdate: Sat, 09 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: Matt Skof
Note: Skof is president of the Ottawa Police Association
Page: 8

IF YOU BUILD INJECTION SITES, THEY WILL COME

The federal government has provided guidelines in regards to needle 
injection sites. Prior to being given the exemption under the 
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, an organization that wishes to 
operate an injection site is obliged to engage several public stakeholders.

A term often employed is that of "safe" injection site, an ironic 
term that can hardly be applied to consuming heroin. The more 
appropriate term for an injection site is "supervised."

I was fortunate to have participated in the press conference held by 
former ministers Leona Aglukkaq and Stephen Blaney in 2013, outlining 
the new guidelines. Media questions identified new concerns about 
data being relied on in support of these supervised sites - most 
particularly data that purported to link supervised sites with a 
decrease in the prevalence of HIV since 1995.

Having reviewed the data I am reminded how the political process 
manipulates data for its own purposes - often at the expense of the 
obvious truth. For example, data on the prevalence of HIV makes clear 
that in Ontario, Alberta, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, the frequency 
of HIV is decreasing at comparable rates to British Columbia.

Unfortunately for proponents of the supervised injection sites, the 
decrease in these provinces cannot be attributed to supervised 
injection sites, since none of them allow for them. Comparable 
decreases across Canada in HIV make clear that there are other 
reasons unrelated to supervised sites.

Thorough public debate on issues of such importance is lost in the 
rush by interest groups to access limited funding. The political 
process often listens most sympathetically to the interest groups 
promising great results - without adequately scrutinizing their data. 
An issue as significant as allowing and locating supervised injection 
sites should attract public debate that rises above interest group advocacy.

Contrary to recent articles that refer to a "peer reviewed" Insite 
document, it is abundantly clear that a supervised site brings an 
increase in crime. These crimes extend beyond the drugs eventually 
consumed in these locations - and include crimes necessary in support 
of such habitual behaviour: theft, prostitution and their unfortunate 
result, homelessness.

Where in Ottawa will we locate such facilities?

It is important to consider alternative approaches to treating these 
conditions of our society, but in doing so we must speak honestly to 
each other - which should begin with our political leaders. For 
example, the distribution of rubber tips to limit the spread of 
disease from sharing crack pipes failed because they change the taste 
of the drug being inhaled. The needle exchange programs that become 
needle distribution centres requiring voluntary needle-hunters to 
recover used equipment.

Ottawa has many social programs trying to address its growing social 
problems. Supervised injection sites are best intended to play a 
role, but fail, increasing attendant issues - drug sales, 
prostitution, theft, homelessness and so on.

The data cited in British Columbia fails to link supervised sites to 
the decrease in HIV. Reliance on such data, in light of clear results 
in jurisdictions where supervised sites are not permitted, should 
raise concerns about the quality of debate on such significant public issues.

In the meantime, Ottawa should not rush to adopt supervised injection 
sites... which neighborhood will step up to volunteer?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom