The Futile yet Important Debate around the Richmond Safe-injection Site

A bold move was made by the Richmond city council on 5 February as they discussed the possibility of constructing a safe-injection site in the city. After receiving massive backlash from many Richmond residents, the council was quick to close the discussion. They have since then made it clear that instead of going forward with the original proposal, they would look for alternative means to reduce risk of overdose for those who are suffering from drug addiction. However, the debate that transpired from the issue has yet to die down. Lying in the center of this storm of words and beliefs is, as one would expect, whether or not the site was ultimately necessary or beneficial to the community of Richmond. There is, however, more than meets the eye to the controversy. People who view the discussion as a serious attempt to work out a definitive answer concerning the exigency of a consumption site may end up disappointed when they realize that both sides of the argument present themselves to be, to a certain extent, valid. It is in that sense that maybe it would be wiser for one to regard the debate as a reflection of something bigger — the public’s attitude towards individuals partaking in drug use.

For the most part, those who are in opposition of the proposal are worried that the installment of the safe-injection site would bring to the area more drug users, who may become more aggressive once under the influence. Another concern that plagues the mind of many people is how certain drugs users, even when not intoxicated, may turn to violence if they do happen to run low on money for drugs. And indeed, according to a study published on NIH, those who suffer from substance abuse are more likely to exhibit elevated levels of aggression due to drug-induced cognitive impairment.

This is where the complexity of the situation begins to unravel.

Avoidance to danger is an intrinsic and inextricable part of human nature. One cannot possibly blame the residents of Richmond for being concerned over a potential increase in the number of crimes stemming from drug use around the area. However, one can also argue that not every single drug user is prone to violence and even if most of them do experience some degree of inclination towards aggression, drug-related crimes that could have happened in Richmond due to the construction of the safe-injection site would have simply happened elsewhere as the absence of said site does not, in fact, reduce the number of existing drug users, but just disperse them from one location. Nevertheless, most people, by the urge of self-preservation, would rather remove themselves from any risks by keeping distance from all drug users. Certainly, most who possess this mentality do not mean any intentional harm against victims of drug abuse, but it is also undeniable that it is exactly this type of thinking that has led so many drug users to feel as though they were ostracized.

On a distinct yet pertinent note, some who are vehemently opposed to the construction of the consumption site suggest that said site only contributes towards drug use and instead, the council should focus on promoting rehabilitation. This proposition is incredibly interesting since there are nuggets of truth, half-concealed, embedded within that statement. What we need to understand is that rehabilitation is a holistic process, one that extends beyond the time one spends in a formal rehabilitation center. Many drug users are uncertain about rushing into rehabilitation because of various doubts like the possibility of being incarcerated for drug use. It is with this idea in mind that safe-injection sites, as judgment-free zones that are often staffed with trained medical professionals and social workers, can guide addicts towards detoxification and other treatment options. To illustrate the significance of consumption sites, a study conducted by Leonard L, DeRubeis E and Strike C in 2008 showed that out of 250 individuals suffering from substance abuse, 236 deemed safe-injection sites to be either very important or important channels to be referred to other rehabilitation services. To most of us, illegal substance is perhaps so foreign a topic that we tend to forget drug use, like many other societal issues, cannot be remedied overnight. As alluring as the glittering of that gold sitting at the end of the road may be, we must first recognize that a path must be paved for one to even begin their journey.

The war on drugs has been going on for more than a century, during the course of which the government has always been the one to take pivotal initiatives that could make or break millions of Canadians. The incident with the construction of safe-injection sites in Richmond and the withdrawal of the proposal seem to accentuate this turning of tides that, in fact, took place some time ago — the people are gaining more and more leverage on the making of drug-related policies. This, however, also means that the public is more accountable than ever for the future of individuals who are misusing drugs. For those who of us who are fortunate enough in life to be steered away from illegal substances, shouldering this responsibility would warrant a reevaluation of our reaction and attitude towards drug users. And if we fail to do so, we will face the consequences of losing the battle against drugs, not as an individual, but as a country.