Insite

The federal government wants Insite closed. Surprise, surprise. (No, not really)

The issue is, apparently, whether or not it falls under federal or provincial jurisdiction. The BC Supreme Court says provincial and we have yet to see what the Supreme Court of Canada says.

But what is the real issue with Insite? Is it an ideological problem? Is it a waste of taxpayers' money or does it save money in the long-term? Is it a human rights issue or is it a matter of legality? And do we support harm reduction or a zero tolerance approach?

It depends who you ask of course. Most "independent" studies have cast Insite in a positive light. They say that there have been no deaths by overdose at Insite which is well below the average in the DTES. And importantly, the cost to keep Insite open is less than what it costs in after-the-fact care: open wounds, HIV, Hep C, etc.

I say "independent" studies because I don't think that Insite has actually been studied enough. It seems that groups that have produced papers for peer reviewed journals seem to lean towards.... well, the left. But, for example, the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV and AIDs obviously support initiatives that work to reduce HIV and AIDS infections. And they have come out fully on the side of Insite.

I support Insite. Mostly because I support harm reduction. But also because I believe it is a human rights issue. Closing Insite will not prevent people from injecting drugs. The causes of addiction are far deeper than access to a facility where one can do it safely. We need an entire paradigm shift. But until that happens, I think people who are going to use illegal substances should be able to do it without fear of contracting HIV.