It only takes two words to lose my vote: drug dens

Several days ago, John Rustad, campaigning in the BC provincial election as leader of the BC Conservative Party, promised to shut down all “government-sanctioned drug den injection sites.” The language deliberately echoes national Conservative Party leader Pierre Pollievre, who has similarly promised, if elected, to shut down supervised drug consumption sites, also calling them “drug dens.”

The phrase “drug dens” is certainly colourful. It conjures up images of smoke-filled rooms from the mid-nineteenth century Opium Wars in Asia, or the penultimate scene in Hollywood’s The Deer Hunter, when a drug-addicted Vietnam veteran plays Russian roulette and loses. 

But at a time when there is a crying need to de-stigmatize drug dependency, the phrase “drug dens” is plainly intended to re-stigmatize. 

It is also misleading. Anyone who has ever visited a supervised injection site knows that using the word “den” in this context is like describing a hospital operating room as a kitchen. Supervised injection sites are oases of clinical calm and order, not playrooms. 

Responsible political leadership is not about tossing catchy slogans to the faithful, it’s about offering solutions that recognize that some problems cannot be reduced to sound bites.

Here's what you will see at Vancouver’s Insite, for example:

·      Clean equipment to reduce the spread of infectious diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C as well as bacteria

• Spectrometer testing of drug contents to reduce poisoning
• Immediate health professional response in the event of an overdose
• Clinical care – wound management, vaccinations, etc.

And for anyone who asks for it, there are connections offered to addiction, healthcare and community services. At Insite, it’s called Onsite, and it's just one flight of stairs away.

I understand public concern about the inept roll-out of the NDP’s drug strategy. While there may be a way to test drive decriminalization in carefully controlled circumstances, the spectre of open drug use in hospital rooms and schoolyards is bound to make anyone question whether government knows what it is doing.

But we also don’t need more people injecting themselves with dirty needles in the back alleys of our cities, which is where they will go if safe consumption sites are shut down.

After over a quarter century of paying attention to the policy and politics surrounding the intersecting issues of drug dependency, mental health and homelessness, I continue to be disappointed that our public discourse continues to over-simplify. As though there is only one answer: more treatment, or more law enforcement, or more social support, or more shelter, and so on, when the best chance of making progress in responding to an extraordinarily complex array of problems is with a range of options in which, frankly, every good idea is pursued and tested. We too often forget it is individuals who need our help. Their circumstances and needs are uniquely theirs. We have to stop pretending that we can force people into one-size-fits-all policy pigeonholes. 

So yes there is a need for supervised injection sites. Not for everyone, and most certainly not everywhere, but for those who benefit, they should be widely available. And yes there is a need for more and better treatment options, and for a wider range of shelter and housing options, and for shorter mental health treatment waitlists, and for safe supply of drugs in some circumstances, and for carefully calibrated movement away from criminalization. And even, in some cases, few in number, there may be a need to provide treatment to those who do not have the capacity to request it, whose condition is a danger to themselves and the community.

I know it's hard to fit all this into campaign announcements. It’s messy and complicated. But we won’t make progress by over-simplifying. And we won’t make progress by demonizing those who are trying to help. And we won’t make progress as long as political leaders throw slogans around that reveal attitudes born from ignorance and intolerance, rather than evidence and insight.