No room for politics in life-and-death debate

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 01/07/2018 (2273 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Fans of common sense will no doubt take solace in the fact that a new Free Press-Probe Research poll reveals that nearly 70 per cent of Winnipeggers support the establishment of supervised-injection sites to help ease the carnage of the opioid crisis.

Supervised injection is not a solution in and of itself, but it does save lives by ensuring there are fewer accidental overdoses. It is controversial, but it is also effective at helping people for whom there are really no other public health options.

The only downside for the advocates of supervised injection is that despite a surge in public support — a trend that is no doubt influenced by the significant increase in the number of opioid deaths in Manitoba last year — the survey results may have little effect on political leaders.

The survey results show a surprising level of support for supervised-injection sites here in Manitoba’s largest city.

A poll last year for Postmedia showed that less than half (43 per cent) of Winnipeggers supported supervised injection; 33 per cent were either somewhat or strongly opposed.

However, the results of the Free Press-Probe poll, which has a significantly larger sample size than the Postmedia survey, changes the policy debate landscape quite significantly.

The newest poll suggests that support for supervised injection in Winnipeg now equals or exceeds support in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, the three cities that have already established safe injection sites and — not surprisingly — have traditionally demonstrated the strongest support.

Could these results prompt politicians to establish similar sites here? In short, probably not. Currently, neither the provincial nor municipal governments are bullish on the idea of supervised-injection sites.

The Progressive Conservative provincial government has rejected the idea of supervised injection and disputes its effectiveness in helping drug addicts avoid overdoses.

Health Minister Kelvin Goertzen is so philosophically opposed to the idea that he tried to hide the fact that a report he commissioned on a new comprehensive mental health strategy originally included a recommendation to establish supervised-injection facilities. This was revealed when his department inadvertently released the original, unedited report.

At the civic level, Mayor Brian Bowman is not as stridently opposed but also not passionately supportive. In a statement provided to the Free Press prior to publication of the poll results, Bowman said he is “open to discussing the advantages and disadvantages” but will not pursue the creation of supervised-injection sites without provincial support.

Why so little support for an idea that is, at the most basic level, pretty simple and cost-effective? It’s an issue that has no political traction.

Opposition to supervised injection tends to be broad and loud, largely because it’s an idea that seems on the surface to be utterly counterintuitive.

While proponents argue that supervised injection cuts down on overdoses among hardcore addictions, opponents need only acknowledge the fact that as a strategy, it does not discourage people from taking drugs.

Newly elected Ontario Premier Doug Ford probably did the best job of summarizing the case against supervised injection during last month’s election.

“I ask anyone out there, if your son, daughter or loved one ever had an addiction, would you want them to go in a little area and do more drugs?” Ford asked.

That view is embraced by voters outside the core areas of major cities, where citizens believe treatment and rehabilitation are the foundation of public health policy. And that is only when suburban dwellers take time to think about the opioid epidemic at all; in outlying regions of cities, issues such as road renewal and keeping property taxes under control tend to eclipse the debate about how to save the lives of hardcore addicts, the gross majority of which tend to be homeless and mired in poverty.

Traditionally, vocal support for supervised injection tends to be limited to medical professionals, along with citizens and public health advocates from the core area of cities were opioid overdoses are a prevalent and pressing issue.

When debate over an issue is split along the core-suburban divide, suburban sensibilities often prevail because suburban voters turn out in much larger numbers than their core counterparts. That is a dynamic that is particularly important for candidates in a mayoral election, where the winner needs to draw support from all over the city.

Thus, it’s unlikely that you’re going to see Bowman make supervised injection a staple of his re-election campaign this fall. Although he isn’t opposed to the idea, per se, it’s risky for him to embrace too closely an idea that is so poorly understood outside the core of the city.

Lamentably, Premier Brian Pallister’s government gets its support in electoral districts either outside the city or well away from the core of Winnipeg. Support for supervised injection would not, on its own, help the Tory government win any additional seats in the centre of Winnipeg. It could, however, discourage some of the base from turning out in suburban ridings.

Supervised injection may seem counterintuitive and may not play well in the ‘burbs, but it is a tool of choice for those professionals working with the most vulnerable addict population on the frontlines of the opioid crisis. It’s a strategy of last resort for a population that is living a life and death struggle beyond the reach of traditional treatment options. A population that is dying at an alarming rate.

As such, supervised injection should be an issue where common sense and practicality prevail — and where politics is left on the sideline.

Perhaps the Free Press-Probe poll will encourage mayoral candidates and provincial lawmakers to take politics out of the discussion.

At the very least, maybe it will help political leaders notice that while they remain stuck in the same old misguided arguments, the public is starting to see the method in what they once saw only as madness.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca