Room for compromise on injection-site issue

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/12/2022 (984 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Over the next few days, a number of Manitobans will overdose on drugs, and some may die as a consequence.

And sometime over those same few days, other Manitobans will be victims of violent and/or property crimes committed by people whose judgment is impaired by drugs.

It is impossible to not feel empathy for a person struggling with an addiction. Nobody willingly chooses a life of dependency and despair; the drug makes that choice, and many are helpless to prevent it.

Similarly, it is just as impossible to not feel empathy for victims of crimes committed by drug users. While violent crime can cause lasting physical harm for victims, the sense of violation that results from property crime can also leave a lasting impact.

Why is it, then, that it often feels as if we are being forced to choose between which group we have greater empathy for — addicts or their victims? That is certainly the case in the debate over whether there should be supervised injection sites in Manitoba communities.

Throughout our province, advocates for such facilities passionately argue there is clear evidence they prevent overdose deaths. On the other side, however, is a large group that opposes the sites on ideological grounds, or based on the fear such sites could harm the areas in which they are located.

The concerns are not imaginary. In a 2019 op-ed published in the Boston Globe, U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling wrote that “If you’re a drug dealer looking for customers, an injection site is where you’ll find them. If your neighbourhood hosts an injection site, drug addicts will go to your neighbourhood. The City of Vancouver dropped the speed limit on the street next to Insite to about 20 miles per hour because addicts might wander into traffic.”

Opponents to supervised injection sites also cite Calgary Police Service statistics from 2018 and 2019, which revealed the area surrounding the Safeworks injection site in downtown Calgary experienced a massive increase in crime. According to a Calgary Herald report, “Stats from 2018 showed a 276 per cent increase in drug-related calls to police in the zone, along with a 29 per cent rise in the overall number of calls for service compared with the three-year average.”

The report added that “what was once a pleasant stroll has become an obstacle course of discarded needles and drug users who congregate around the Safeworks supervised drug consumption site,” but that criminal activity in the area was reduced after an increase in police presence.

The divide between those who support or oppose supervised injection sites is reflected in the results of a poll conducted last month by Nanos Research, which found that 74 per cent of respondents agree that “(supervised) injection sites save the lives of many addicted drug users,” but that only 36 per cent of respondents favour adding more sites.

Almost half of respondents instead prefer governments “cut back sites and put resources into addiction treatment.”

How do you make sense of that? Three-quarters of Canadians accept that supervised injection sites save lives, but only one-third feel we should have more sites, and almost one-half say we should have fewer sites.

The explanation lies in the overheated, all-or-nothing rhetoric regarding supervised injection sites. It has become a polarized debate that discourages compromise, and yet there seems to be an obvious compromise staring us in the face.

Let’s agree that a supervised injection site would help prevent overdose deaths, and defeating drug addictions is our long-term priority. Let’s also agree that a supervised injection site would likely cause increased criminal activity in the area around that site, putting others at risk and reducing property values.

If we accept those assertions as true, a potential solution should be obvious: supervised injection sites should be authorized as part of a comprehensive addictions treatment strategy, but only located in areas where they will pose the lowest risk to people and their property. That risk can be further reduced through an enhanced police presence.

It’s a compromise that will help to reduce overdose deaths, while respecting the legitimate concerns of those opposed to such facilities. It may not be perfect, but it’s a starting point for a more productive, collaborative discussion.

deverynrossletters@gmail.com

Twitter: @deverynross