According to news reports, there’s a huge debate over Vancouver’s safe injection site for illegal drugs and it’s a classic argument between philosophy and science.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There’s almost no debate and, outside of reports from the federal government, facts rarely enter what little debate there is.
At the heart of it all lies Insite, the government-funded supervised injection site (SIS) located in Vancouver’s notorious downtown eastside. It’s controversial, experimental and the only such site in North America.
It was established in 2003 by the former federal Liberal government as a three-year pilot project and requires a government exemption from federal narcotics laws to allow drug users to come in off the streets and shoot up in a “controlled health-care setting,” without fear of recrimination.
Frankly, it’s similar to holding AA meetings in a bar so as to provide a good bartender for Robert B. and his fellow alcoholics to get drunk.
In 2006, the SIS mandate was complete. So the Conservative government extended the exemption for another 18 months — until June 30, 2008. The impending deadline has brought about a host of rallies and calls for the government to give its full support and a whopping big paycheque to the SIS.
The debate may be reaching a crescendo, but it long ago moved beyond facts to ideology.
A classic example of the current debate came over yesterday’s radio waves. A commentator mentioned a May 19 column by Norman Spector (arguing if supervised drug injection sites were such a great idea, why don’t other cities have them?) and then responded with his own gripping argument, “Why do we need Norman Spector’s opinion?”
That’s it; no explanations or counter-arguments. No discussion except to communicate the idea that if you don’t agree with the SIS, you shouldn’t have a say.
And they say public debate is on the wane in Canada.
Other signs we are not having a credible debate on the utility of the SIS are repeated calls for the Conservative government to take up its “moral responsibility” to keep the SIS open. It’s as though arguments have no substance, so they’ve abandoned them for rhetoric.
On May 2, proponents told the media there is a huge academic consensus on the success of the SIS and “the prime minister is ignoring science in this area.”
On May 7, an Insite administrator told the media Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s “philosophical objections” to harm reduction were to blame for the government’s reluctance to support the SIS.
On May 8, some Vancouver mayoralty candidates urged the Conservative government to stop being ideological and look at the facts. According to one city councillor (now running for mayor), the prime minister should, “Listen to the experts, show some compassion; don’t get hung up on the ideology.” Ok, so let’s look at the facts. The best data is in a report for the Ministry of Health by an advisory committee consisting of experts on blood diseases, substance abuse, program evaluation and crime. Released in March, it provides the following:
More than 8,000 people have visited the SIS, yet only five per cent of all injections take place there. The site encourages users to seek counselling, detox and treatment but there is no direct evidence it has reduced rates of HIV infection, drug use, needle sharing or other risky behaviours. There was no evidence of increased or decreased crime in the area.
The annual operating cost is $3 million and it’s estimated the SIS saves about one life per year by intervening in overdose events. At the same time, the B.C. Coroner’s report revealed drug deaths in Vancouver increased from 49 in 2002 (prior to the SIS) to 64 in 2004 (one year after the SIS opened).
Most significantly, the panel found most research conducted in this area has significant limitations with analysis. So when proponents claim there is an abundance of academic evidence to suggest SIS works, they may be stating the truth — but the conclusions of those articles may not be accurate.
The numbers don’t exactly support the SIS as an astounding success story. Admittedly, a lot remains unknown but it’s certainly legitimate to question why this has become the all important cornerstone of Vancouver’s anti-drug strategy.
Perhaps people see Insite as a symbol we are doing something — even if it is the wrong thing and leads on to more addiction.
We should focus on the problem as a moral issue — not in terms of determining whether drug use is right or wrong (that should be evident by its outcomes) but by acting on our moral obligation to truly help drug addicts.
Allowing an entire community of addicts to continue to waste away in pharmaceutical oblivion can never be the moral or right thing to do. Getting them off drugs and giving them the chance to live as healthy members of society is.
- Defender to defendant - Saturday January 29, 2011 at 9:16 am
- Grief or glamour? - Saturday January 22, 2011 at 8:24 am
- Forget blame game - Saturday January 15, 2011 at 7:48 am
