TheBulletin.ca Journal of Downtown Toronto
By Eva Curlanis-Bart –
The bubble of deceit, pretense and political correctness called Harm Reduction has been burst by the United Nations drug control agency. A stern warning to Health Minister Tony Clement declares that Canada having signed the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is flouting international drug control treaties by condoning the use of illicit substances outside prescription.
Signatories of international treaties are obliged to conform their domestic legislation and their domestic behaviour to the obligations of international law under the treaty. In the case of Article 4 of the Single Convention, Canada was bound to pass laws that would guarantee narcotic drugs were used for medical and scientific purposes only. In clear violation of the terms of the Convention, Health Canada as well as provincial and municipal health authorities endorsed and funded policies and practices that openly facilitated and encouraged drug use—among them, Vancouver’s Insite, massive distribution of drug tools, and the recently formulated Toronto Drug Strategy which declares addiction an alternative life style and the taxpayer funded Harm Reduction, an integral part of the addiction maintenance regimen.
To the critics of this approach, the findings of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs come as an unequivocal vindication. It is also an exposé of the social and medical sectors that over the past two decades followed the path of self-interest and political correctness when addressing drug addiction to the exclusion of science and law. Its flagship program, Harm Reduction, was a medical/scientific experiment in name only.
Introduced in the late 1980s as a measure to decrease the risk of HIV infections, Needle Exchange quickly degenerated to needle and crack pipe supply, to which instructions on the “safe” use of drugs were added. The program was conveniently delegated to anybody and everybody capable to secure funds for its dispensing. And the funds were ample with no strings attached. The experiment was totally void of protocols that govern bona fide scientific/ medical research. Consequently, little data was collected to assess its effectiveness – Toronto health officers referred queries for statistics on Needle Exchange to US sources, i.e. California. Whatever assessment of the program was made, no statistic evidence was ever made public. Perhaps because the truth behind it was rather inconvenient. It is now public knowledge that the availability of free needles made no difference in the behaviour of drug addicts, and therefore, in the health risks they undertook.
- A Vancouver study indicates that among 92% of needle supply program users, both HIV infected (40%) and HIV negative(39%) shared syringes.
- Montreal users of the program show twice the rate of HIV infection than non users.
- The Vancouver rate of HIV infections has increased by more than 20 % despite the fact that Vancouver dispenses the largest amount of needles in Canada.
More importantly, Needle Exchange was to be a stepping stone to rehabilitation. Once in the program, addicts were to be encouraged and directed to seek recovery. Not only we have no information on the outcome of this effort, the Toronto Drug Strategy openly declares that rehabilitation is optional. No wonder, UN cries foul.
Delegating a medical/scientific experiment to agencies and organizations that had no experience with the required research methods not only reduced the program to a fraud, but put an unfair burden on the communities where Harm Reduction was located. The program created ideal markets for dealers and traffickers that now openly and without fear for consequences plied their trade. The case in point – All Saints, Seaton House, Springboard, House Link, methadone clinics in Corktown and the Garden District, crack houses in Cabbagetown, countless drop in-centres or “dial M for maintenance of your chosen drug addiction”—a telephone dispatcher of the service. If the police arrested the most notorious drug dealers (40-60 arrests), the offenders were back in the street courtesy of the ever politically correct criminal justice system.
And the charade continues. In response to the massive criticism directed at the Toronto Drug Strategy and the havoc its policies generate in the community, hand-picked members of the community were invited to consider measures to control the crime and violence associated with drug sale, purchase and use. But looking at the language of the first recommendations, the community will not get any value for the time and effort expended. Once again, the addict is the victim, and law and order the oppressor. The legitimate concerns of the community fall on deaf ears at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. The needs and aspirations of the individuals and groups who as taxpayers fund the programs aimed at the addicted, and as host communities bear the fall-out of such programs, have been ignored and undermined.
Where is the accountability for the half-baked Canadian notions of legality, science or harm? The federal government cannot comprehend the terms of reference of the treaty is signs. All three governments seem to promote a society of adult children where one hand strikes and the other strokes, where there is no room or taste for a serious conversation on the pros and cons of legalization. The funding of programs for drug addiction maintenance seems to stem from the penchant of the provincial health minister for recreational drugs, and the enthusiasm of city council for alternative life-styles results in policies and practices that are illegal and harmful to the majority. The rights of the addicted constantly trump the rights of the taxpayer, and the self-induced harm takes precedence over the harm imposed. Last but not least, we are being silenced and discredited when questioning absurd claims and demanding protection against crimes advanced by discredited policies and practices.
Nowhere are these crimes more visible than in the Garden District, Corktown, Cabbagtown, Regent Park. The absence of safety and security and the economic decline of Downtown East have direct ties to the addiction fuelled behaviour – assaults and break-ins to secure means to purchase drugs, sex trade to safeguard addiction, gang wars to carve territory to deal drugs, gun violence to set score in gang wars, deadly assaults under the influence of drugs, etc. According to the police, the majority of all crime in Toronto is drug related.
The 2005 United Way Report classified Moss Park Neighbourhood (comprising parts of The Garden District, Cabbagetown South and Corktown) as that of the largest number of social services, lowest income, poor high school literacy, high unemployment and escalating crime rates including gun violence. Many government owned or run residential facilities accept criminal behaviour as police statistics on rooming houses, shelters, group homes will attest. Yet, no rooming house licenses were revoked as per Chapter 285/15-16 of the Municipal By-laws, no social service facilities were decentralized and dispersed to comply with the Group Home By-law and the Emergency Shelter By-law.
Despite these alarming facts, the authorities keep rejecting any attempt to reach consensus on the harm and risks generated by the policies and practices advocated by the out of control social services. Their refusal to effect a shared view and understanding of what is meant by the rights and responsibilities of the marginalized/addicted and the rights and responsibilities of the host community can no longer be justified by the pseudo-economic, pseudo-medical or pseudo-legal arguments. At the annual meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs held March 15, 2007 in Vienna, the UN made it quite clear that Canada must adjust its domestic policies to the terms of the treaty it has signed. Whatever approaches are recommended to legally and effectively deal with addiction, they must respect the host community right to safe, secure and economically viable neighbourhoods. To that end:
Addiction recovery programs must be delivered by licensed health providers.
Harm Reduction programs must be removed from Seaton House, All Saints, Springboard and other social service providers, and bona fide medical approaches established at medical facilities. Treatment of drug addiction must be separated from other high risk services, such as emergency shelters, residential facilities for hard-to-house individuals including the mentally ill, criminal offenders, etc.
Addiction recovery programs must not harm the community.
The venues dispensing such programs must be isolated from schools, parks, places of worship, shops and restaurants. Police and/or security forces must be present at such locations to control criminal and antisocial behaviour associated with addiction.
The Salvation Army must not locate its drug rehabilitation programs at the Jarvis/Shuter/Queen site as this facility will further expand the unacceptable densities of high risk social services in this neighbourhood.
Social Services must comply with their own regulatory restrictions.
All three levels of government must guarantee that funds are not allocated to agencies be they homeless shelters, group homes, drop-ins, that operate outside their own regulatory restrictions. Seaton House, Springboard, Street Haven, Maxwell Meighen Centre, The Gateway, Harbour Lights and every other social service agency must comply with the maximum capacity, density, separation distance limits and arterial roads only location. Further, Wards 27 and 28 must reduce the number of emergency shelter beds to 500 each as prescribed by the Emergency Shelter By-law instituted in the name of Fair Share.
Regulatory agencies must adhere to the letter of the law.
- City Planning must advance balanced neighbourhoods, not ghettoes of suffering, poverty and crime.
- The Licensing Commissioner must apply the restrictions of the Rooming House By-law and revoke licenses when restrictions are violated.
- Liquor licenses are a privilege to be earned by safe, sound and legal business activities.
- The Municipal Board should not endorse manipulation by the public or private sector so a shelter can be built in an area inundated with the homeless shelters (i.e. Sojourn House), a group home house 56 prisoners (The Salvation Army’s Banton Lodge), or a developer market facilities for the mentally ill (49 Mutual, St. Jude’s Dundas/Milan St.) in the most crime ridden area of Downtown.
Alternatives to failed policies and practices.
As the warehousing approach towards marginalized populations has not produced desired results despite massive allocations of funds, much more targeted strategies must be adopted. They are to focus on rehabilitation and not on maintenance of the status quo, be it homelessness, mental illness, addiction to illegal drugs or alcohol. If rehabilitation is not possible, better management of the condition, preferably within a residential facility, is recommended. Wasting $250 million annually in Toronto alone on emergency shelters is an affront to intelligent thinking.
Police protection for vulnerable neighbourhoods.
Police presence and its preventive actions are totally inadequate in Downtown East. Increased police patrols on Jarvis, George, Dundas, Pembroke, Sherbourne, Gerrard, Queen and Yonge, River Streets are needed to protect the area residents and businesses against gun violence, gang rapes, assaults, break-ins, robberies, theft, abuse – the crimes systematically logged by Division 51, but sadly, neither prevented nor punished.
Laws and regulations are instituted for the protection of the society at large, be they international agreements or domestic legislation. This principle has too often been forgotten by our federal, provincial and municipal officials as the UN warning so clearly demonstrates. Following on the UN, we the electorate, intend to make safety, security, and adherence to international and domestic laws the election issues, and not only in the riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale.
