[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I think the government has issues with sanctioning safe injection sites, simply because you're giving haven to illegal drug use. Are these injections sites actually getting people off the drugs? Or is it just allowing them a clean place to shoot up so they don't spread HIV/Hepatitis? Honest question, I don't know.

From the article that I forgot to link:

The main conclusions of more than 30 articles published in peer-reviewed journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine in the U.S. and The Lancet in Britain, were overwhelmingly positive. For instance, addicts who used Insite were found to be more likely to go into detox than those who didn’t.


The amount of drug-related litter, like used needles, in the neighbourhood around the site decreased measurably. Insite’s nurses treated a lot of injection-related infections.


From the outset, though, Conservative politicians were uncomfortable with Insite. Tony Clement, who is now industry minister but was health minister from 2006 to 2008—the key period when the government’s position against the facility hardened from skeptical to staunchly opposed—once called it an “abomination.” Active RCMP officers also occasionally voiced skepticism, but the extent of opposition to Insite inside the force wasn’t clear. However, the documents assembled by Montaner’s centre for its filing to the RCMP complaints commission suggests at least some Mounties were actively seeking to raise doubts about the centre’s research, without drawing attention to the force’s involvement.


According to the centre, the RCMP commissioned four studies reviewing the stack of articles published in medical and scientific journals. The first two, delivered in 2006 by consultants Raymond Corrado and Irwin Cohen, didn’t offer much ammunition to criticize the mainstream research into Insite. Corrado found that the researchers’ methodology was “appropriate” and that the “policy inferences made were generally carefully presented.” Cohen uncovered no serious problems, but stressed the need for “further empirically sound evaluations.”