Politics interefering with RCMP and public safety?

[Flash Walken]

It would have been quite a news conference, and it very nearly happened. Last fall, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, after months of intense, private talks, agreed to face the media together to declare their agreement that research shows the “benefits” and “positive impacts” of supervised injection sites for intravenous drug users.
For the RCMP, making such a statement would have been a turning point: the Mounties would have had to distance themselves from dubious studies, commissioned by the force itself, that were critical of Insite, Vancouver’s pioneering safe injection facility. And that would have been a politically awkward move for the federal police, since Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is firmly committed to shutting down Insite.



But senior officers seemed ready to take that dramatic step. “I can confirm we are good to go from our end,” said Chief Superintendent Bob Harriman, a top RCMP drug enforcement officer in Vancouver, in an email he sent on Oct. 28, 2009, to Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the B.C. centre. Harriman’s email included “proposed messaging for [a] joint media release” of the RCMP and the research centre. The RCMP would acknowledge “an extensive body of Canadian and international peer-reviewed research reporting the benefits of supervised injection sites and no objective peer-reviewed studies demonstrating harms.” As well, Harriman said the RCMP would admit that “reviews” commissioned by the force, which contested the centre’s research, “did not meet conventional academic standards.”


The proposed joint media release was never issued. Nor did the RCMP officers and the centre’s doctors appear together for their planned news conference. According to Montaner, two days before the scheduled event last December—after a venue had been booked at the University of British Columbia and “the banners were ready”—he received a telephone call from Deputy Commissioner Gary Bass, the most senior RCMP officer in British Columbia. “He said, ‘Julio, can’t do it,’ ” Montaner recalls. “I said, ‘What do you mean, Gary?’ He said, ‘I’m really sorry, I’ve been ordered not to go ahead with the news conference.’ ” Montaner says Bass made it clear that the order came from RCMP headquarters in Ottawa.

What does one do except to laugh in a saddening display of inevitability?

I guess it is worth it being 'tough' (umbrageous) on crime.

Edit: Cannot believe I forgot the link, http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/20/injecting-truth/

Supplemental Reading:

RCMP Takes Swipe at injection site

RCMP defends paying for negative Insite reports

[starseed]

Politics should never interfere with common sense. If Insite is keeping needles off the streets, helping people overcome addiction and otherwise having a net positive impact in the quality of life in Vancouver, it is stupid to let the 'moral' objections of one minority group undermine it.

[Hemi-Cuda]

one of the reasons why i want a Liberal federal government back in power. however the Liberal party leaves me morally conflicted, as i wouldn't trust any of the idiots they've elected to leadership in the last decade to lead a parade, let alone a country

i just want someone from that party to step up who's intelligent, practical, and who doesn't come off like a d-bag. guess that's too much to ask for though

[Codes]

Stories like this are incredibly frustrating to learn about. I really, really, REALLY hate when politicians who aren't scientists are able to quash something that is scientifically proven to have a positive influence on drug use because it doesn't fit in their platform.

As a scientist, I cringe everytime I remember we have a Conservative Government in power. It's usually not a good thing for the scientific field.

This brings me to a question I was going to pose to CP in another thread. If a mod feels it's worth it's own thread, then they can split the topic.

If you were elected as Prime Minister of Canada, what changes in policy would you passionately try to effect?

[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.

[starseed]

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.

That is what they were created for, but it has less of an effect on getting people off the drugs, and more of an impact in keeping needles off the streets and slowing the spread of HIV. I think the basis of the argument boils down to one side believing it is god's will that we not defile our sacred bodies with these unholy substances versus the people who believe humanity can do no wrong and can change if given a hand. Probably neither of those things are true, but they are both irrelevant to how this problem should be handled in Canada. Studies have shown that Insite has had a positive impact in the community, and that is all that matters. Keep your religious BS out of this. (that includes theism and secular humanism)

[peter12]

I don't think that Insite has an impact on slowing HIV in East Hastings. There's about 25% infection prevalence. That's far above saturation (around 5%). Most likely all Insite does is prevent overdoses, which is important in its own right. I do disagree with harm reduction when it doesn't do anything to prevent immoral behaviour. Yes, I think taking hard drugs constitutes immoral behaviour.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Codes

Stories like this are incredibly frustrating to learn about. I really, really, REALLY hate when politicians who aren't scientists are able to quash something that is scientifically proven to have a positive influence on drug use because it doesn't fit in their platform.

As a scientist, I cringe everytime I remember we have a Conservative Government in power. It's usually not a good thing for the scientific field.

This brings me to a question I was going to pose to CP in another thread. If a mod feels it's worth it's own thread, then they can split the topic.

If you were elected as Prime Minister of Canada, what changes in policy would you passionately try to effect?

What positive influence on drug use? I've never heard that it has any impact on reducing drug use in Hastings.

Also, politicians aren't quite technocrats, although your post seems to insinuate that that is all politicians are good or bad for.

[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.”

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think that Insite has an impact on slowing HIV in East Hastings. There's about 25% infection prevalence. That's far above saturation (around 5%). Most likely all Insite does is prevent overdoses, which is important in its own right. I do disagree with harm reduction when it doesn't do anything to prevent immoral behaviour. Yes, I think taking hard drugs constitutes immoral behaviour.

LOL, now you want the government to legislate morality?

Is this some kind of contest I'm unaware of?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

LOL, now you want the government to legislate morality?

Is this some kind of contest I'm unaware of?

Government makes laws regarding moral behaviour all the time.

[burn_this_city]

Going into detox is one thing. I know a few people who go in and out of detox and never get clean. I doubt its so much a religion issue within the government. I think its more to do with giving a place for people to do illegal activity. Immoral or not I don't think it matters. Its illegal and the government doesn't want to provide shelter for criminal activity.

[Azure]

Is the clinic private?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Azure

Is the clinic private?

Its funded by the BC government.

[Azure]

Hmmm. I also don't agree that the government should fund what is actually an illegal act.

But, I wonder if there would be charity organizations that would pay for something like that. Let them run it.

[peter12]

I have no problem in making sure junkies, prostitutes aren't put in undue risk for their behaviour. However, I also find all of these states of being to be morally repugnant and that any efforts to help them must include a strong component of respectful shame that helps them leave these cycles of destruction. Treating the physical disease is just one component, there is a spiritual disorder at work too.

[Codes]

http://canadianmedicaljournal.ca/cgi...ll/179/11/1105

http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/36

Maybe you're right about the level of drug use not decreasing, but according to several articles, the site is helpful in preventing the spread of HIV, and is an important intervention zone for preventative education.

I don't think it's a stretch that these sites can have a frontline ability to provide information and help to drug users who want to get clean.

The overall point is that it has been proven effective, and the government is ignoring the scientific evidence supporting it's worth and possible expansion.

I'm not condoning drug use, but if the program can stop the spread of transmissible diseases, then it's a win-win for everyone. Remember, it's not just about the drug users, it's about the paramedic that can potentially become infected from treating one of these individuals, or a person that might get mugged for drug money becoming infected.

[Azure]

I think the idea should be to help stop drug use, and the question is whether this method helps more than something else.

[burn_this_city]

I'd like to see the funding go to drug treatment. Rather than providing a safer means for getting high. Its basically stating we don't think we can get them clean, so lets try and prevent the spread of disease. Pretty defeatist with regards to stopping/preventing the use of these drugs.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the idea should be to help stop drug use, and the question is whether this method helps more than something else.

I think this is a way for the community to stop the spread of disease and help people overcome addiction without resorting to a situation where the government is imposing their will on the people. I am against criminalizing the [stupid] personal decision to use these dangerous substances, but I am for stopping these drugs from being made, sold and brought into Canada. Insite's objectives are clearly for the good of the community without infringing on individual rights, and they have proven to have had a positive impact. Our ideas on morality and religious principles should not have any weight in whether or not this clinic remains open.