Evidence shows safe-injection sites work

Jason Kenney stated recently that the best way to combat drug addition in general, and the opioid crisis in particular, is by controlling supply. This demonstrates that he is little more than a cynical, career politician. He will say whatever he thinks will resonate with his base in the hope of becoming the next premier.

Mr. Kenney has routinely prostrated himself at the alter of the free market, and is one who regards state intervention in the economy as devil’s work. He knows that where there is a demand, entrepreneurs will invest capital with the aim of meeting that demand. In light of well-established and widely accepted market theory, Mr. Kenney should know — as I suspect he does — that the best way to address crises such as the one we are witnessing is to also address the demand side of the equation.

Safe-injection sites save lives. And a number of cost-benefit analyses have shown that safe-injection sites are cost-effective. Just as importantly, however, safe-injection sites afford committed and welltrained medical professionals the opportunity to engage directly with people, apprising them of the various treatment options, arguably limited, aimed at addressing not just drug use but underlying circumstances also.

If Mr. Kenney wants to attack the value of the safe-injection site model, he needs to pick up his game. He needs to present us with more than empty rhetoric, sound bites and vacuous tweets. It is my responsibility as a citizen, and in my self-interest, to support a just and civil society, in part through my tax dollars. In return, I expect public officials, including career politicians, to present policy options for debate that are theoretically sound, well thought through, and evidence based. In my view, Mr. Kenney must meet this standard before he is a serious contender.

Tom Johnston

Lethbridge