Pubdate: Wed, 21 Sep 2016
Source: Hamilton Spectator (CN ON)
Copyright: 2016 The Hamilton Spectator
Contact:  http://www.thespec.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/181
Author: Andrew Dreschel
Page: A1

SAFE DRUG USE SITES A WAY STATION TO HELL OR THE FUTURE?

Moral dilemmas, NIMBY-ism and budgets pose obstacles

Coun. Donna Skelly was curious what safe injection places for drug
addicts look like.

So Dr. Jessica Hopkins, Hamilton associate medical officer of health,
drew her attention to slides of the Insite facility in Vancouver, one
of two legally operating injection sites in Canada, both in Gastown.

It has subdued lighting and shiny floors.

It has mirrored booths where junkies can shoot up with heroin or any
other illegal drugs they get their shaky hands on.

And it has a steel countertop divided into alcoves where trained staff
provide "clients" with free clean needles, syringes, tourniquets,
alcohol swabs, cookers, spoons, filters and sterile water. To me it
all looked like a way station to hell designed by a soulless technocrat.

But it could be the future for this city depending on council's
appetite for controversial projects.

The board of health, which all members of council sit on, took a tiny
tentative step in that direction earlier this week by approving the
public health department's request to survey how the community feels
about so-called supervised or safe injection sites.

The second shoe will land during the 2017 budget debate when
councillors consider a request for $250,000 for a feasibility study -
which could be offset by senior government grants - for opening one or
more sites here.

Coun. Lloyd Ferguson cast the only dissenting vote on "moral" grounds.
He fears making shoot-up sites available to addicts is tantamount to
condoning their behaviour and turning a blind eye to breaking the law.

Ferguson may have been the lone objector but there's no question he
put his finger on the ethical dilemma the issue raises.

But it's a quandary precisely because there are compelling arguments
on the other side.

As Hopkins explained, the goal of injection sites is harm reduction to
individual addicts and the community.

For addicts, the sites, among other things, have been shown to reduce
overdoses and the spread of infectious diseases through shared needles.

For the community, it reduces the dangers of discarded needles and the
social nuisance of addicts shooting up in public places.

As Coun. Matthew Green pointed out, there are already unofficial
injection sites across the city. Discarded needles are routinely found
in alleys, on trails, and by railroad tracks. A city-sanctioned site
is a proactive way of dealing with the problem, he says.

In other words, an injection site doesn't condone drug addiction, it
tries to contain it.

According to Hopkins, though the city would provide paraphernalia and
a safe place, users would have to bring their own "pre-obtained
drugs." She noted the federal minister of health provides exemptions
to both addicts and staff at injection sites so they can't be arrested
for drug possession or trafficking while there. What are the
negatives? Skelly asked. There are "no significant negatives," Hopkins
replied.

Ferguson, of course, disagrees. No doubt so will neighbourhoods facing
the prospect of playing host to one.

Hopkins says a site would likely be located where drug injections are
most prevalent.

Skelly presumed that means the urban core. Nobody contradicted
her.

Downtown councillor Jason Farr predicts an injection site is sure to
run into NIMBY-ism - not in my backyard.

Yes, but it's also bound to run into budgetary obstacles.

Hopkins estimates capital costs for an injection site would be about
$1 million to $1.5 million.

Annual operating costs could be several hundred thousand
dollars.

Unless council demonstrates an unusually determined progressive
streak, the combination of moral dilemmas, NIMBY-ism and project costs
will likely keep pushing this idea down the road.

On the other hand, perhaps there are creative options to be
explored.

Perhaps an injection site could be located at the downtown David
Braley Health Sciences Centre, for instance. After all, the city
contributed $20 million to the centre and that's where public health,
which is advocating the idea, is headquartered.

And to help out, perhaps inner city councillors could all tap their
area rating slush funds to finance a social infrastructure project
which, to be blunt, has their wards written all over it.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt