(an abridged version of this article appeared
in the April 2003 edition of “Hard Words”,
the TWU Street Evangelism publication)
" So what if they're using drugs? They are human
beings and are entitled to a long and healthy life."
This is the basic motto behind the initiative to install
a safe injection site in Vancouver. Based on a model
that is already at work in Australia and several European
countries, the idea is to give drug users the healthiest
possible environment in which to feed their addiction.
The people and organizations behind this project hope
that addicts in the Downtown Eastside will make use
of this sterile setting instead of shooting up in
back alleys, where they are vulnerable to violence,
unsanitary conditions, and overdoses that do not receive
timely attention. The safe injection site would have
a medical staff member present at all times to respond
to emergencies and provide clean needles.
The site for Vancouver is already finished, but is
currently standing empty and locked up as government
officials still debate the implications of opening
such a facility. It seems that one of the main obstacles
is currently a political one: this site, if opened,
would be the first of its kind in North America. It
would set a precedent that would increase the pressure
on, and from, other cities. Trade relationships with
the U. S. would suffer, since they have a more hardline
stance on drugs. Even though the city of Vancouver
had promised that the site would be operational by
January 2003, the political pressure against it has
prevailed so far.
The idea of a safe injection site is a controversial
topic. One of the most obvious issues is that the
view that is being called "realistic" by
the proponents seems more like "defeatist"
to the opponents of the idea. The first group maintains
that since people are using drugs anyways, they should
at least be given safe conditions in which to do this.
But the question is whether this constitutes a sort
of capitulation and an admission that a drug-free
society is no longer something that can be achieved.
This sort of "realism", if applied to other
areas of life such as violent crime or poverty, makes
for poor responsibility. Anyone wanting to revamp
murder laws would be ill advised to begin with the
words, "murders are gonna happen anyways, so…”.
Distributing contraceptives among adolescents is another
way of telling them that we don't seriously expect
them to abstain from fornication. This lack of expectation
carries with it an implicit call to irresponsibility.
In the same way a safe injection site may send the
message that "we don't expect you to be able
to quit, so we'll keep you safe."
On the other hand, even opponents of the site have
to admit that if a person were shooting up, it would
be preferable to do this in a sterile environment
rather than a back alley. Rehabilitation may yet be
the best way to deal with the problem, but it is difficult
to rehabilitate those who have died of overdoses and
diseases.
How effective will this site be? No one knows for
sure. Even the earliest safe injection sites have
only been around for five or six years, and it is
difficult to draw any conclusions from the statistics
gathered since then. In the cities where they exist,
there is only shaky evidence of addicts living longer
and healthier lives. One thing, however, is clear:
there are fewer people shooting up in streets, alleys
and parks.
This raises criticism from opponents of safe injection
sites. "The problem still exists, it is only
less visible", one Vancouver-based anthropologist
says. "And this way the government can congratulate
themselves on having helped the people, when all they've
done is hidden them away."
It is true that the visibility of the problem may
help the cause. There is little money to be made helping
drug addicts, and many social workers hope that the
government and private organizations will lend more
financial support if their own interests are furthered
thereby. As long as the city can make money from tourism,
and as long as the shops and restaurants in Gastown
want to keep their clientele, a motivation will exist
to clean up the Downtown Eastside. Some see the hope
of the Downtown Eastside coming from such avenues.
Others call this "poverty pimping" and question
the motives of one who wants to keep others' suffering
in the limelight.
The supporters and creators of the safe injection
site do not claim that this is some holy grail that
will solve all of Vancouver's drug problems. They
are, for the most part, people who have a heart for
drug addicts and who are frustrated with the limited
success of rehabilitation programs (usually less than
10%) and with seeing so many of their friends die
of overdoses and AIDS. They see a lifelong dependence
on drugs as being the lesser evil to an early death.
There are of course those who don't see drug addiction
as much of an evil at all, but as a legitimate lifestyle
choice that has every right to be protected and kept
safe. But most proponents of a safe injection site
see it as another step on the addict's road to recovery.
They quote research that shows that most heroin users
will quit independently of rehabilitation programs,
and that the trick is to keep them alive long enough.
They argue that fewer people will use drugs if the
safest environment reminds them of a hospital. They
project that teenage drug use will decrease, since
anything done in a government-sanctioned facility
will lose its appeal as a rebellious activity.
How are we to stand towards safe injection sites?
For me it is difficult to say. At this point, their
true effect has not been adequately proven. Whether
they really serve as a step on the road to recovery
remains to be seen. And if they help to keep someone
alive long enough to find Jesus, then I cannot really
oppose them. What I do question is whether it is right
to invest money into them while the drug rehabilitation
centers are underfunded and overcrowded and have mile-long
waiting lists.
But I consider this debate to be of secondary importance.
Jesus said, "I came that they might have life,
and have it in abundance." It is not a question
of prolonging the life of an addict. It is a question
of giving them life. Giving them life is God's business,
and no amount of government funding can do that. But
each of us can play a part in it being done.
Marco Klaue, April 2003
