ANDY BIGRAS IS THE TREASURER OF THE DPNC BOARD OF DIRECTORS. HE HAS WRITTEN AN EXCELLENT RESPONSE TO A JOURNALIST’S WOEFULLY IGNORANT RANT.
Dan Gardner wrote the following article after the decision on Insite. My response to his letter was printed in Saturday’s Citizen. I hope people will follow up.
Mayor and chief have made up their minds
BY DAN GARDNER, OTTAWA CITIZENOCTOBER 8, 2011
Let’s compare and contrast statements about Insite, the supervised injection centre in Vancouver’s downtown eastside neighbourhood.
“The decision to implement a supervised safe injection site was the result of years of research, planning, and intergovernment co-operation,” the Supreme Court of Canada wrote in a unanimous judgment. “It was launched as an experiment. The experiment has proved successful. Insite has saved lives and improved health. And it did those things without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.”
The court’s decision – effectively ordering the federal health minister to allow Insite to stay open – was released Friday. Across the country, reaction from politicians and police chiefs was immediate.
“I do not support locating a safe injection site in Ottawa, and was very clear about that in the last election,” said Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson. Any such facility would have “an extreme negative impact” on the area it was located in, said Ottawa Police Chief Vern White.
He knows this because he visited Insite, White said. “I certainly didn’t feel as safe in that area of Vancouver as I did in other areas of Vancouver. I’ve spoken to police officers who will say the same thing.”
For the purposes of our compare-and-contrast exercise, recall that Vancouver’s downtown eastside is a small neighbourhood that has been a disaster for decades. Lots was tried. Nothing worked. Police sweeps, high-level drug busts, treatment, social welfare. Things only got worse.
By the mid-1990s, HIV and hep C were epidemic and overdoses soared. In 1993 alone, 200 people died.
So Vancouver considered alternatives, including a safe injection site. It was a radical idea in Canada but scores of such facilities operated in cities across Europe. Research suggested it could make a difference.
Insite opened in September, 2003. It immediately became one of the most scrutinized and studied social policy experiments in Canadian history.
Researchers produced a tall stack of studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals, including some of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. The cumulative conclusion? Insite worked.
The Supreme Court’s statement above summarized that evidence exactly. Insite curtailed overdose deaths. It cut blood-borne disease transmission. And it did that without increasing crime or disorder in the neighbourhood.
So the Supreme Court’s statement was logical, informed, and supported by an abundance of topquality evidence.
It’s safe to say the same cannot be said about the reaction of the mayor and the police chief.
The mayor’s statement is nothing more than the sort of peremptory hand-wave a politician does when he wants to change the subject. The chief at least attempted to support his conclusion with evidence, but look at the evidence he cited.
Vern White is sure that supervised injection sites ruin neighbourhoods because he felt less safe in the neighbourhood where Insite is located than he did in other parts of Vancouver. Other cops feel the same, he said.
I agree, incidentally. I’ve been to that neighbourhood many times. It’s not a pleasant place.
But this proves precisely nothing. That neighbourhood was riddled with addiction, disease, and crime long before Insite opened its doors. In fact, Insite was put there because it was riddled with addiction, disease, and crime. Blaming Insite because the neighbourhood is dodgy is as silly as saying “wet streets cause rain.” Vern White should be embarrassed.
But that – believe it or not – is not the most appalling part of the chief’s comments.
We’ve got HIV and hep C in Ottawa now. We’ve got overdose deaths. And we’ve got heaps of research from Europe and Australia, and heaps more from Vancouver, which tell us that a supervised injection site could help reduce the toll without jeopardizing community safety.
But the chief is opposed. Period. Doesn’t want to talk about it. Case closed.
Ditto for Jim Watson. His mind is made up. As he said, he was “very clear about that in the last election.” So that’s the end of it.
To be clear, skepticism is fine. You’re not sure a supervised injection facility is a good idea? You want to see more evidence and think carefully about it? Good.
That’s reasonable. But the mayor and the chief aren’t skeptical. Their minds are welded shut. They don’t want the evidence gathered, reviewed, and discussed. They want people to shut up about it.
For almost a century, mayors and police chiefs have enthusiastically supported drug-law enforcement, no matter how much research showed that enforcement is futile and destructive, while they arbitrarily rejected alternatives supported by solid evidence.
Open the yellowed pages of a newspaper from the 1980s or 1970s. Or the 1950s. Even the 1920s. You’ll find mayors like Jim Watson taking the easy way out. You’ll find police chiefs like Vern White insisting that wet streets cause rain.
You’ll find federal ministers who refuse to question their politically convenient beliefs. You’ll find ordinary people angry that the status quo has produced disease, crime, and death – and who demand that officials do more of what they have always done and not try anything new.
On and on it goes, down through the years, and decades. Only the names change.
Dan Gardner’s column appears Wednesday and Friday. Email: dgardner@ottawacitizen.com
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Nothing safe about injecting drugs
OTTAWA CITIZENOCTOBER 8, 2011
Re: Mayor and chief have made up their minds, Oct. 5.
In response to Dan Gardner’s article, article, I fully support the chief and the mayor.
The Supreme Court arrived at their decision but unfortunately without all the evidence for them to make an informed decision. I would have arrived at the same conclusion as them, but unfortunately they did not have the evidence that showed the opposing view even though they are available.
I would ask Gardner and your readers to examine the Drug Prevention Network of Canada website and read the article on “Erroneous Study on Insite Exposed” and the “Analysis of the 2011 Lancet Study on deaths from overdose in the vicinity of Vancouver’s Insite Supervised Injection site and the Supreme Court Decision,” a media response from Real Women of Canada, and you will see clearly that there are scientific reports showing an opposing view – with them, the Supreme Court might have arrived at a different conclusion.
Another critical report that was not presented is the federal government Expert Advisory Report of 2008 that clearly demonstrates that Insite was not meeting their own objectives.
The Supreme Court decision has rendered Insite legal but that doesn’t necessarily make it right. If people would investigate and research further, they might arrive at a different conclusion. This is not a safe injection site, as Gardner states, but a supervised injection site. There is nothing safe about injecting drugs.
Congratulations White and Watson for taking a stand and knowing that the Drug Prevention Network of Canada also stands with you given we are basing our response based on all the facts and evidence that demonstrate clearly that this program is not working.
Andre Bigras,
Executive Drug Prevention Network of Canada, Gatineau
