Vancouver Drug Problem

It is no secret that the city of Richmond has a major problem with drugs and drug dealing. Where there is demand, there will be supply. The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) is the local agency in charge of all operations related to Richmond’s public housing communities. In an effort to fight crime and drug dealing in these communities, the RRHA has developed strict policies that ban anyone with drug convictions from their private properties. Although this may appear to be a great crime fighting strategy, we cannot ignore the fact that crime just doesn’t go away because of laws or

Supervised consumption sites are seen as an effective means of reducing harm associated with illicit opioid consumption. Generally these are sites where drug users can inject or consume drugs under the observation of trained personal. The first of such consumption sites in Canada “Insite” was established in Vancouver in 2003. So far there has not been a single reported case of overdose fatality at the site. The success of Insite as a harm reduction approach has encouraged jurisdictions across Canada to adopt or contemplate similar systems. In 2017, the federal government passed Bill C-37 with the aim of streamlining the application process for communities who wish to operate supervised consumption sites. In Alberta, there are five proposed supervised injection sites, four in Edmonton and another in Calgary.

Several studies have shown that injection drug users lower their risk of transmitting infectious diseases when there is a needle exchange program available. There has not been a valid study of whether or not the amounts of time needles are returned to the exchange programs are harmful to communities. The Journal of Public Health, conducted surveys, evidence from needle exchange sites, jails, and institutions that needle exchange programs are effective in reducing illnesses such as HIV and AIDS (Burt & Theide, 2016). Furthermore, Reepalu, Blome, Bjork, Widell, & Bjorkman (2012), researched the same individuals for 20 years, with no breaks. Their studies concluded that injection drug use, not only heightens the risk for HIV and AID’s, there is also an increase in Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. However, there studies showed that there is not an increase rate of cancer diagnoses due to injection drug use. In a study conducted by Bonar and Rosenberg (2014), they wanted to see if self-initiated harm strategies, such as: proper needle sterilization techniques, proper disposal of needles, and cleaning of the pre injected skin, could help improve the health of those that use drugs intravenously. Their study was conducted over an eight-month period, results showed that their

Vancouver Injection Drug User Study (VIDUS) is a project that gives a prospective study and has over 1500 IDU 's enlisted to assist since 1996 and gathers data on drug use, health, sexual activity, etc. Some of the topics discussed included: prison culture, availability and price of drugs and equipment, drug use, VIDUS shows that the risk of HIV infection indicated that incarcerated injection drug users were associated with a greater risk of 2.7 times (Small, Kain, Laliberte, Schechter, O 'Shaughnessy & Spittal, 2005).

As the number of intravenous drug users continues to rise, so does the risk of dangerous and potentially fatal complications that are associated with illicit drug use. In this population, death rates are higher due to overdose, AIDs-related mortality, and other blood-borne viruses (Mathers et al., 2013). Mortality rates remain high even though precautions have been taken to reduce them. According to Lavender & McCarron (2013), “Mortality in injecting drug users is up to 22 times higher than for the age-adjusted population, despite increased provision of needle and syringe programs, reduced needle and syringe sharing, and higher uptake of hepatitis B vaccination” (p. 511).

Although these clients will still be abusing illegal substances, Sheon (2004) indicated that any reduction of harm is a step in the right direction, and the amount of success is measured by the client’s quality of life and well-being (as cited in Brown et al., 2005). “Harm reduction is about being respectful in somebody else’s world” (Georgina Perry, Service manager and co-author, England as cited in Cusick et al., 2010). By not respecting somebody else’s choices, the clients feel they must lie about their unhealthy lifestyles, which prevents the clients from getting assistance because they were trying to protect themselves from the real situation (Georgina Perry, Service manager and co-author, England as cited in Cusick et al., 2010). A way to reduce the harm from illegal substance abuse is clean needle exchange, and teaching clients how to properly inject themselves (Brown et al., 2005). The needle exchange is a program where clients exchange their used needles for clean ones, which helps reduce the spread of diseases such as HIV/AIDS (Brown et al., 2005). With continuation of these programs the harm from abusing illegal substances is reduced and the spread of life threatening diseases, such as HIV,

Safe injection sites are a controversial issue in Canada, and have been for a long time. As society grows more and more comfortable with the idea of legalizing certain drugs, the attitude towards these safe injection sites changes. This change affects laws, politics, and society in general and is a legal and moral issue. Insite, the first safe injection site in North America, opened in 2003 in Vancouver, British Columbia to a mass of controversy that induced legislative, legal, and moral change worthy of observation and investigation. This paper will first introduce the concept of safe injection sites as well as an explanation of the harm principle in which these sites operate under, then introduce Insite, the first safe injection site opened in North America, along with appropriate statistical evidence that proves its effectiveness, followed by the issues brought up by opponents of these sites will be discussed as well as the landmark Supreme Court case that allowed for their continued existence, and finally an overview of the current legislation that threatens it.

Results of safe injection site studies have shown that an expansion may have a greater impact. This may reduce the chance of dangerous encounters between users of these safe injection sites and the public. Children not even out of elementary school, were getting involved in the drug scene. These runaways were a concern to the residents, who witnessed overdoses in the past decade. Over 2,000 lives were lost due to the Downtowns East side’s “drug-fuelled spiral” (MacQueen et al., 2003). Persisting the safe injection site can help in lowering risk behaviors by the drug users of SIS’s and community concerns that are related to public injection of drugs (McKnight et al,. 2007). Overall, SIS’s may have the ability to change the drug users and transform them into potential productive members of society.

Imagine for a moment being able to walk down the street without seeing used needles or other drug equipment. Although it will not completely eradicate the problem, safe injection sites will allow users to have a safe and clean environment that they do not have access to now; not just to inject their drugs, but also to dispose of their used syringes. When given a 3-year trial at the first facility in Canada, it was found that fatal overdoses within 500 metres of the facility were reduced by 35 percent, and a 9 percent decrease in the rest of the city (Stueck, 2011). Thus proving the effectiveness of injection facilities not only in Vancouver, but nationwide. Giving access to support can significantly increase the quality of life for intravenous drug users. By providing sterile equipment the

In Canada, the amount of illegal drugs on the street increased by 89% in the last 10 years and expenditure from illegal drug sales are over $7 billion dollars annually. It is no doubt that Canada is in the midst of a war on drugs, but is Canada’s current approach working? In 2011, the mandatory minimum sentencing for drug possession doubled, and didn’t include legislation for those special circumstances, such a mental illness.

There are many ways in which people who are addicted to intravenous drugs are perceived by our society. People sometimes believe the addicted person is to blame for their circumstance and substance dependence and some feel serious drug addicts are a “lost cause” due to a lack of values or flawed character. “Persons who struggle with addictions often are depicted as criminals or prostitutes, weak, lazy and morally corrupt” (Bartlett, R., Brown, L., Shattell, M., Wright, T., Lewallen, L. (2013). These stereotypes paint people with addiction negatively; a percentage of people who live with serious addiction are capable of recovery with the right attitude, support and healthcare. Street level healthcare services such as; safe injection sites, provide accessable resources at street level for people to make the choice to live healthier lifestyles. Govement funding and support is needed to make these projects possible to improve the health of Canadians. Safe injection sites are proven to be positive contributions to communities, save lives, reduce harm and open doors towards recovery for people from the grip of addiction.

Many drug addicts do not have jobs or any legal means of generating income; they resolve to criminal activities such as theft, robbery, or aggressive panhandling. Due to the addictive nature of drugs, the user will be compelled to want more and more in order to continue feeling “normal”. It is what fuels their addiction and as a result, a lack of motivation to do anything other than obtaining more drugs. The drug addict’s family suffers from the effects of the drug addiction as well through emotional stress and psychological decay. Drug addicts also encourage illegal drug trafficking by helping fund criminal organizations. In fact, drug addicts are the reason why the billion dollar drug industry is as lucrative as it is. Without drug addicts, drug traffickers would have no customers or buyers to help generate income. Huge amounts of tax revenue is going towards the war on drugs which includes money going into police departments, border agencies, harm reduction programs, and anti-drug campaigns. The tax money being used to fight drugs could be used to better our education or health systems; instead it is being used to fund harm reduction programs such as Insite.

Harm reduction can be defined as an approach that aims to reduce the consequences of high risk behaviours such as injection drug use on the individual and on society as a whole. Harm reduction programs provide injection drug users with access to a clean injection environment, sterile injections, drug-preparation equipment and safe disposal of contaminated material at the time of injection. Staff members in harm reduction facilities provide health teaching, anonymous HIV testing, information on addiction treatment, condoms and assist in connecting clients to social and health services (Semaan et al., 2011; Ball, 2007). Although, the benefits of harm reduction are evident through reduction of accidental drug overdose and prevention of

Safe injection sites possess many salutary benefits related to public health safety of the drug using community. Safe injection sites provide a safe place for drug users to inject drugs into their bodies so they do not have to reuse needles and can also be supervised by nurses constantly while they do so. Insite is the sole safe injection site in all of Canada and the expansion of other facilities has been fiercely contested by policy makers not due to empirical criminological evidence, but simply due to one dimensional classical conservatism inspired ideology and illogical hysteria. The fear propagated by the past Conservative government that by assisting drug users by feeding their addiction and by gathering so many law breakers in concentrated areas would correlate to an increased rate in crime. The traditionalistic ideology of the Conservative government mandated them to adamantly oppose the prospect of safe injection sites let alone their expansion into other regions and provinces regardless of the fact that there were no adverse effects for the community in terms of increased crime. Safe injection sites were introduced to Vancouver in 2003 under a special exemption under section 56 under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which was granted by the Liberal government via Health Canada as a desperate means to help resolve the growing health concerns in the area. In 1998, a report by then British Columbia public health officer John Millar decried the situation in the

Health services for people who inject drugs are subject to ‘considerable community concern and media and political attention’ (MSIC Evaluation Committee, 2003, p. 177). The development of a policy network, in July 1997 involved a multiplicity of actors who played an important role in the policy process. A NSW Parliamentary Joint Select Committee of ‘public and private spheres’ (Dennis, 2013, p. 78) was established to consider the feasibility for a trial of a MSIC. The Committee extensively reviewed the arguments contending for and arguing against proposals for a trial, and a suitable location. Copious submissions and evidence was put forward to the Committee with many advocators endorsing the action commenting that ‘injecting rooms may contribute to the reduction in the number of fatal and non-fatal overdoses by providing access to resuscitation and disseminating information about safer using practices’ (Parliament of New South Wales, 1998, p. 82).