Thread by @DIsaac8

With a certain Ratepayers Association back in the news, I thought I'd take a look at the "facts" page on the group's website. #ldnont

https://twitter.com/AM980News/status/1201863852557774854

Fact 1: Calgary's Supervised Consumption Site ("SCS") led to an increase in crime.

The source for this is, oddly, a letter to the editor to a Barrie newspaper, although there were reports of increased crime near the cite (but see facts 3 and 4 below).

What the Association doesn't note with this fact is that the Calgary SCS prevented 1,055 overdoses, overdose events decreased by 336% due to the SCS's drug safety education, and each $1 spent on an SCS saves the province $5 in other costs.

s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6355…

Fact 2: A study found no substantial decrease in the rate of stopping drug use at Vancouver's SCS one year after it opened.

Recent studies show that SCSs are associated with reduced public drug use and are not associated with any increase in drug use.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Studies show that there are numerous benefits from SCSs, both to drug users and society as a whole. A method that can help everyone without making the problem worse seems like a good option to me.

Facts 3 and 4: crime increases near SCSs.

A review of 75 studies on SCSs determined that they were not found to increase drug injecting, drug trafficking or crime in the surrounding environments.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

One year after Vancouver's SCS opened, a study of the area around the site found no increases in crimes related to drug activity, including drug trafficking, assault, or robbery. Vehicle break-ins actually decreased substantially.

substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…

Fact 5: Drug overdoses increased after Insite was opened.

That article cited in this "fact" was criticized for numerous reasons, but most importantly because it looked at the whole city, not the area near the SCS, where overdoses actually decreased.

thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/…

Fact 6: "A space to shoot up, but no space for addiction treatment".

This appears to be a critique of funding allocation, but the article cited indicates that the "space to shoot up" is actually unsanctioned and the article wants funding for a sanctioned SCS.

Furthermore, SCSs refer people to treatments and social services. For instance the SCSs in Alberta made 35,000 referrals and provided 11,000 addiction treatment services in their first year.

SCSs play an important role in helping people find treatment.

s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6355…

Fact 7: overdoses in London are increasing despite the injection site on King St.

In Ontario most overdoses happen in the home and when people are alone. If we had another SCS, then more people could use drugs where an overdose could be prevented.

publichealthontario.ca/-/media/docume…

If a problem is getting worse despite a proven solution, the answer isn't to reduce the efficacy of that solution. That's like getting rid of seat belts because people are still injured in car accidents.

Fact 8: Vulnerable people don't report crimes against them, so crime statistics have a margin of error that isn't known.

I could not find this in the source they provided. But as noted above, an analysis of 75 studies found no increase in crime near SCSs.

Fact 9: The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police are against SCSs.

The source is from 2011, but in 2017 the Association backed away from their position and wants to play a role in a holistic SCS implementation.

oacp.on.ca/news-events/ne…

In short, supervised consumption sites save lives without increasing crime. There are mountains of evidence supporting their benefits to drug users and to society as a whole. SCSs should be located in areas that our most marginalized citizens can easily access.