banner ad
Mm_0109_cover_banner

Miller-McCune

Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Health

First, Reduce Harm

Faced with a horrific drug problem, Vancouver is trying a radical experiment: Let junkies be junkies.

  • Share:

  • digg
  • delicious
  • newsvine
  • google
  • reddit
  • facebook
  • yahoo
  • mixx
  • fark
  • stumbleupon
feature photo

Inspecting a crack pipe in Vancouver.Photographs by Christopher Morris

feature photo

Bob Heibert injects cocaine into his neck in the Downtown East Side. He subsequently died of HIV-related liver failure.Photographs by Christopher Morris

feature photo

A Vancouver police officer, with horse, in the Downtown East Side.Photographs by Christopher Morris

feature photo

Insite, the safe injection site on Vancouver's Downtown East Side.Photographs by Christopher Morris

feature photo

The Downtown East Side is home to a reported 10,000 drug addicts.Photographs by Christopher Morris

feature photo

What Insite provides to addicts.Photographs by Christopher Morris

View Slideshow left left

On a chilly, overcast morning in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia, a steady trickle of sallow-faced drug addicts shambles up to a storefront painted with flowers and the words “Welcome to Insite.” One by one, they ring the doorbell and are buzzed into a tidy reception area staffed by smiling volunteers.

The junkies come here almost around the clock, seven days a week. Some just grab a fistful of clean syringes from one of the buckets by the door and head out again. But about 600 times a day, others walk in with pocketfuls of heroin, cocaine or speed that they’ve scored out on the street; sign in; go to a clean, well-lit room lined with stainless steel booths; and, under the protective watch of two nurses, shoot their drugs into their veins.

Welcome to North America’s only officially sanctioned “supervised injection site.” The facility sits in the heart of Vancouver’s Downtown East Side, 10 square blocks that compose one of the poorest neighborhoods in all of Canada. The area is home to an estimated 4,700 intravenous drug users and thousands of crack addicts. For years, it’s been a world-class health disaster, not to mention a public relations nightmare for a town that is famous for its beautiful mountains and beaches (and is gearing up to host the 2010 Winter Olympics). Nearly a third of the Downtown East Side’s inhabitants are estimated to be HIV-positive, according to the United Nations Population Fund, a rate on par with Botswana’s. Twice that number have hepatitis C. Dozens die of drug overdoses every year.

Largely in response to this nightmare neighborhood, Canada’s third-largest city has embarked on a radical experiment: Over the last several years, it has overhauled its police and social services practices to re-frame drug use as primarily a public health issue, not a criminal one. In the process, it has become by far the continent’s most drug-tolerant city, launching an experiment dramatically at odds with the U.S. War on Drugs.

Smoking weed has been effectively decriminalized. The famous “B.C. bud,” rivaled in potency only by California’s finest, is puffed so widely and openly that the city has earned the nickname “Vansterdam.” A single block in the Downtown East Side hosts several pot seed wholesalers, the headquarters of the British Columbia Marijuana Party and the toking-allowed New Amsterdam Café.

But that’s nothing next to the city’s approach to drugs like heroin and crack. Impelled by the horror show of the Downtown East Side, prodded by activists and convinced by reams of academic studies, the police and city government have agreed to provide hard drug users with their paraphernalia, a place to use it and even, for a few, the drugs themselves.

More than 2 million syringes are handed out free every year. Clean mouthpieces for crack pipes are provided at taxpayers’ expense. Around 4,000 opiate addicts get prescription methadone. Thousands come to the injection site every year.

On top of that, health officials just wrapped up a pilot program in which addicts were given prescription heroin. And it doesn’t stop there. The mayor is pushing for a “stimulant maintenance” program to provide prescription a lternatives for cocaine and methamphetamine addicts. Emboldened advocates for drug users are even calling for a “supervised inhalation site” for crack smokers.

Vancouver has essentially become a gigantic field test, a 2 million-person laboratory for a set of tactics derived from a school of thought known as “harm reduction.” It’s based on a simple premise: No matter how many scare tactics are tried, laws passed or punishments imposed, people are going to get high. From winemaking monks to coca-leaf-chewing Bolivian peasants to peyote-chomping Navajos to caffeine-fueled office workers to the junkies of Vansterdam, human beings have never been willing to settle for our inherently limited palette of states of consciousness.

If you accept the notion that people aren’t going to stop abusing drugs, it makes sense to try to minimize the damage they inflict on themselves and the rest of us while they’re at it. Harm reduction is less about compassion than it is about enlightened self-interest. The idea is to give addicts clean needles and mouthpieces not to be nice but so they don’t get HIV or pneumonia from sharing equipment and then become a burden on the public health system. Give them a medically supervised place to shoot up so they don’t overdose and clog up emergency rooms, leaving their infected needles behind on the sidewalk.

Give them methadone — or even heroin — for free so they don’t break into cars and homes to get money for the next fix.
These aren’t just theoretical notions. Some harm reduction tactics have been researched extensively — and the findings are often impressive. In recent years, no fewer than eight major studies in the U.S. on needle-exchange programs — probably the best-known and most widespread harm reduction technique — have concluded that they work. As then-Assistant Surgeon General David Satcher summed up in a 2000 report, “There is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe exchange programs … are an effective public health intervention that reduces the transmission of HIV and does not encourage the use of illegal drugs.”

Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next

E-mail

We encourage you to share any articles or material you find on Miller-McCune.com with friends and colleagues. Please fill in the fields below with the name and e-mail address, separating multiple addresses with semi-colons (;). Then fill in the same information for you. Miller-McCune will not keep any information about you or your friend, and the e-mail your friends receive will appear to have come from your e-mail address. The asterisk (*) denotes a required field.

To: * required From: Message:

Post A Comment

We want your feedback but you must be logged in first.

Trenchant and snarky are cool but all comments are subject to approval/removal.

Want more space than a little box? Write for us!

Create an account

*required

Comments

Wow this is incredibly interesting... my first response if of course the visceral one where I disagree with providing injection sites and clean needles, but as I read more and more on the topic, it makes sense

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081118.wldrugs18/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home Safe injection may save system $14-million CARLY WEEKS Globe and Mail November 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM EST Vancouver's safe-injection site will save the health-care system at least $14-million and prevent more than 1,000 HIV infections over a 10-year period, according to a new study about the controversial program. The study, published today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is the latest piece of research to suggest the potential social benefit of Insite in helping curb substance abuse, and reducing the spread of hepatitis C, HIV and other infectious diseases. "We were a bit surprised. The model really suggests that there are very considerable benefits," said Ahmed Bayoumi, lead author and scientist at the Centre for Research on Inner City Health in Toronto. Vancouver's drug scene is considered to be worsening, and many government and non-profit programs aim to curb the problems associated with it. Yesterday, the federal government announced $200,000 in new funding to help Vancouver's Drug Treatment Court, which uses treatment programs to help drug users charged with crimes to stop using illicit substances. An Insite supply kit. A study has found that Insite has the potential to save $14-million in health-care dollars. Enlarge Image An Insite supply kit. A study has found that Insite has the potential to save $14-million in health-care dollars. (ANDY CLARK/REUTERS) The Globe and Mail But the safe-injection site, where drug users are given clean needles in order to reduce needle sharing and subsequent spread of disease, has been riddled with controversy since it opened in 2003. Critics of the program say that it enables drug use and that there is no credible proof it helps curb drug addiction or the spread of infectious diseases. The federal government is in the process of appealing a decision by a B.C. court this year that allowed Insite to remain open. The court had ruled that it would violate a drug user's Charter rights to be denied access to Insite's health-care services. But a growing amount of scientific evidence indicates the program helps reduce public disorder, overdoses and disease as well as providing users with an avenue for treatment. The World Health Organization has also endorsed the site. In the analysis, researchers used sophisticated computer models to try to forecast what effect Insite would have in Vancouver over a 10-year period. They also used a model to determine what would happen if Insite didn't exist. The models were created using current data in a range of categories, such as the number of people with HIV and hepatitis C, the number of drug users, and the number users seeking treatment in Vancouver. If Vancouver-specific data were unavailable, researchers used information from medical literature, giving particular emphasis to North American studies. "We put all of those things together in a fairly sophisticated computer model," Dr. Bayoumi said. They found that Insite has the potential to save $14-million in health-care dollars and 920 life years over the next decade, while averting 1,191 cases of HIV and 54 cases of hepatitis C. Those savings were calculated by taking into account how much the decreased incidence of needle sharing could curb the spread of infectious disease and the associated costs of treatment. When researchers ran the model again considering the effect of decreased needle sharing, as well as the increased use of safer practices during shared injections such as using bleach to sterilize needles, the savings rose to $20-million, with 1,070 life years saved. "I think the most important message is that, compared to other health-care interventions, investing in the supervised injection facility represents very good value for money," Dr. Bayoumi said. "Even though the facility itself has operating costs that are considerable, the potential health benefits and potential savings down the line are considerable and that all has to be taken into account." It's impossible to predict the future with 100-per-cent accuracy, Dr. Bayoumi said. But the researchers used current information on the population of intravenous drug users in Vancouver, and the rate of disease among that population, to forecast what would happen over a long period of time. The researchers also ran models in which they changed the data - such as lowering the number of intravenous drug users in the city - to see whether it would have an impact on Insite's estimated benefits. They found that the safe-injection site remained a viable use of health-care dollars in nearly all circumstances. The only scenario in which the cost of Insite outweighed its benefits was when researchers assumed there was very little needle sharing in Vancouver and low HIV rates in the city. "The finding that investing in the facility was a good use of health-care resources didn't change," Dr. Bayoumi said. "Only in very extreme circumstances did we start to find it wasn't good value for money." Dr. Bayoumi's work is supported by an award from the Ontario HIV Treatment Network. Gregory Zaric, second study author and associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Western Ontario's Richard Ivey School of Business, received a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No other external funding was received for the study and the authors didn't accept any financial compensation for the research.

Protected by Akismet
Blog with WordPress