Letters, March 24

Grim results

I was disappointed to read the opening of the inner-city Winnipeg safe injection site has been put “on hold” (Supervised drug consumption site opening on hold indefinitely: Kinew, Free Press, March 17). But I am offended by the reaction of the by the leader of the official opposition who claims “This is not what the community wants.”

Much of the opposition to this project stems from a fear that a safe injection site would make the neighbourhood less safe. However, right now, much of the inner city is a huge unsafe injection site. I work in a church just blocks a way from the proposed Henry Ave location, across from an elementary school. We regularly pick up syringes from all around our building.

Every month, sometimes multiple times, we hold funeral services for young people who have accidentally overdosed — and we serve only a fraction of those who die in this way. These are someone’s children, mothers, sisters or brothers. Many of these deaths could have been prevented had the victims had access to safe injection services.

Just like every one of us, those who are on the street and who suffer addictions, crave community; they long for compassionate human contact. A safe injection site can provide some of that community, where those who come in can talk with a counsellor, with someone who can propose options for shelter, psychological support, health supports and addictions treatment.

Those who insist on treatment as the only initial option, dismissing the crucial intermediate step of a safe injection site, would leave those suffering addictions to find community only with those who are as desperate as themselves, and with those who, pretending to be their friends, supply them with their often poisonous concoctions.

The reality of addictions will not disappear by wishing it away. But we can save at least a few lives, and make our streets a little safer, by providing a caring community and safer alternatives.

Congratulations to the Free Press for keeping alive public discussion of realistic approaches to the painful reality of chemical addiction, including Jerry Storie’s insightful op-ed on decriminalization (Jan. 10). As for our provincial leadership, it is time to move forward with some bold steps, measures that can save lives and offer hope.

Thomas Novak

Winnipeg

Time to act

Our provincial leadership, rightfully, expresses much concern about the risk of measles spread (Manitoba Health worries winter fair could be measles superspreader event, March 17). Yet when it comes to action, they continue to do very little.

Here are four measures they can take immediately to help stop these outbreaks.

First, make the MMR vaccine available at no cost and without a prescription from pharmacies, as some other provinces already do.

Hold well-advertised pop-up vaccination clinics in accessible, non-medical, culturally safe settings: schools, community centres, places of worship, and malls would be a good start. (If blood donations can be collected there, vaccines can be administered there.)

Make titre testing for measles antibodies available to the public without a requisition; the results are straightforward and do not require a healthcare provider’s interpretation.

Require masking in all healthcare environments and at large indoor events. (Conveniently, this also effectively prevents other deadly and disabling illnesses, like Covid-19, from spreading.)

Witnessing officials repeatedly wringing their hands and ineffectually wagging their fingers — as if they were not the very people with the power to actually formulate and implement public-health measures — is getting old.

Step up and take some initiative. It is, quite literally, your job.

Kristen Hardy

Winnipeg

A bigger picture

Re: Consumption site research shows surprising result, Think Tank, March 21.

I read the opinion piece by David McLaughlin, on A9 of Saturday’s paper, and he quoted a research paper, produced by the Canadian Centre for Recovery Excellence in Alberta. That is quite an impressive name to say the least.

McLaughlin states their indepth research has discovered that there was no major shift in results after the Alberta government closed the Lethbridge, supervised consumption site, approximately six months ago. This science-based report included statistics for related emergency room visits, overdose deaths, or increased/decreased numbers of addictions. McLaughlin stated, “it is the highest quality study on this topic to date ” but doesn’t compare that statement to any other studies done, to this date. I’m sure there are many, as Canada is hardly the only country dealing with this issue.

I’m not disputing their findings, I’m in no position to counter them with opposing facts, and if their research is accurate, it poses interesting thought and consideration.

But then I got to an article on Page A15 that reports on the closure of said site, and others in Alberta. The same study was quoted in the article, but also pointed out that the research organization is an Alberta Crown corporation, and its own authors declared their findings were inconclusive, and based on a short window of time, (six months ) and was based on non-publicly available information, meaning that information can not be shared with other researchers. The health minister touted the report as a tool in decision-making, but did not declare its limitations.

There was much more stated in the article, not disputing the findings, but pointing out its contradictions to 30 years of many available studies, and also that the closure is being disputed in court, by other known experts.

Life is filled with three sided stories, this would be another, opposing ideology on either end, truth and balance somewhere in between, seldom in the middle.

McLaughlin’s ideology kinda comes through in his posting, despite his stated belief in following the science. I would hope that would include, all the science.

Ian Campbell

Winnipeg

TV: poor research

Re: A well-oiled machine, Dan Lett, March 21

It is disconcerting that a fictional character in a TV drama (Landman, Billy Bob Thornton) has been quoted as a source of reliable information dealing with the carbon footprint of wind turbines and solar panels. In his article, Dan Lett has written a line that would be applauded by such right wing climate and renewable energy denying organizations like the American Heritage Institute.

A quick search of several internet sources gave information that wind turbine installations have vastly less carbon footprints than coal or gas generation plants. I read that wind turbines recover their carbon footprints in less than a year. A fossil fuel generation plant has a footprint from its construction and then goes forever, as long as it operates.. These plants burn fuel year after year. That fuel is extracted, transported, and processed.

There is concern that the blades of wind turbines are not recyclable at this time, but virtually all other parts are. The pedestals and foundations can be used for years. (I did not take the time to look into solar panels.)

I agree with the majority of the article as it portrays our society is facing an issue with the high price of oil and our reliance on it,

However, it is not helpful to misinform the readers when there are options.

Brian Marks

Winnipeg