When the Conservatives formed the government in January, 2006, they inherited a large headache left behind by the Liberals which was the supervised drug injection site, referred to as the Insite, located in Vancouver’s east side.
Insite was established under the Liberals in 2003 for a three-year period as a so-called “pilot” project. It was intended to be a precursor for sites in other major cities across Canada. Fortunately, this plan died when the Conservatives took over the government. The Conservatives, however, were left with the problem of what to do with Vancouver’s Insite, which was up and running. Certainly, Insite had many supporters who wanted it to continue in operation because they believed in “harm reduction” policies for drug use. The latter are based on the belief that people will consume illicit drugs anyway, so why not allow them to do so in a clean, medically supervised environment? These supporters also want the “normalization” of drug use or the loosening of drug restrictions on non-medical drug use. Therefore, Insite was a step in this direction. The only trouble with this policy is that, under it, the addicts have no real future or release from their addiction. Instead, they uncontrollably continue on until their death.
The harm reduction supporters were forceful hard-liners who resisted all criticism of Insite. They resorted to ridicule as their weapon of choice in order to discredit Insite’s detractors. Mostly positive stories about Insite were published in newspapers and journals. Much of this positive information was due to Insite having retained two public relations firms to plant such information. This was not difficult, since much of the media were strongly in support of harm reduction policies, and Insite in particular. In short, closing Insite was a political quagmire for the Conservatives.
As a result of this problem, in September 2006, Health Minister Clement decided to give Insite an 18-month extension to June 2008 while he pondered the matter.
In October 2006, Minister Clement appointed an Expert Advisory Committee to summarize evidence-based research on drug injection sites, with particular reference to Insite in Vancouver. He wanted to obtain actual data on the effectiveness of this site, rather than relying on the propaganda surrounding it. From this information, he intended to reach his decision as to whether Insite should continue in operation.
On April 11, 2008, Health Minister Clement released the final report of the Expert Committee.
Although the report included some positive findings about Insite, it revealed many serious, negative conclusions. For example, the report revealed that Insite, which costs the taxpayers $3 million annually, has the following problems:
Only 5% of injections take place at this site, while 95% of drug injections take place outside the site;
The site prevented only one death from overdose last year. (According to the Government of British Columbia Selected Vital Statistics and Health Status Indicators, Annual Report, 2005, the number of deaths from drug overdose has increased each year since the site was opened, going from 49 in 2002, to 50 in 2003, to 64 in 2004 and to 77 in 2005).
There is no evidence that this site has reduced rates of HIV or other infections.
There is no evidence that the crime rate has decreased in the downtown east side of Vancouver where the site is located.
There is no evidence that the site has reduced the rate of drug addiction.
Media Reluctant to Disclose the Report’s Findings
Most media apparently did not like the conclusions of the Expert Committee because most didn’t bother to publish its conclusions. However, the National Post published a small blurb on the findings, reporting only the positive aspects of the Report. Nothing, however, could match the outrageous spin put on the Report by the Vancouver Sun on April 17, 2008 whose blaring headlines stated: “Health Canada panel gives injection site favourable review. Group of experts find the Insite is having a positive impact and even saving lives”. What? Where? Did the Report actually say this?
The Vancouver Province newspaper (April 17) exposed this shamefully distorted reporting of the results. According to the Province’s columnist Alan Ferguson:
I can only assume they read what they thought the study should say, not what it said.
Let’s look at the finding of the Expert Advisory Committee (EAC), appointed by Health Minister Tony Clement to advise him on the merits of continued support for Insite.
One of the oft-trumpeted claims of its proponents is that Insite saves lives – one every year, according to “mathematical modeling.”
The EAC, however, found such modeling is “based on assumptions that may not be valid” and “there is no direct evidence that [injection sites] influence overdose death rates.” To prove such claims, “large-scale and long-term, case controlled studies” would be needed.
Ferguson then went on to point out other distorted assessments of the report by those wedded to Insite’s philosophy.
The Globe and Mail, which supports Insite, in an editorial (April 24, 2008), played the same game as the Vancouver Sun, glossing over the real conclusions in the Report and highlighting the positive aspects. For example it stated, contrary to the actual findings of the Task Force, that the site has reduced the number of people injecting in public! It went on to say, “…it makes clear that Insite saves life, with staff interventions ensuring that not one out of 366 overdoses proved fatal”. Absolutely astonishing in its manipulation of the truth.
What all this makes clear, is that one cannot believe what newspapers report. They report, for the most part, what they want people to believe – not necessarily the truth. It’s little wonder that newspapers are in such trouble today, being overtaken by the Internet.
In view of the failure of Vancouver’s Insite, it is now time to focus on what has been proven to be effective against drug addiction: prevention and treatment. That is where our tax dollars should be spent, rather than wasted on drug injection sites.
It seems that the Conservative government has received this message. On April 28, 2008, Mr. Clement announced that $111 million would be available for drug prevention purposes.
Significantly, however, there was almost no media coverage of this large grant, despite the fact that the announcement was made at a press conference attended by four senior Cabinet ministers: the Hon. Tony Clement, Minister of Health, the Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, the Hon. Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada and the Hon. Christian Paradis, Secretary of State (Agriculture). It seems that the Canadian media not only don’t like drug prevention policies, but they also don’t like to give positive coverage to the Conservative government. Only bad news relating to the Conservatives seems to be covered by the Canadian media.
|
