Injection sites debated

Re: Opposition to injection sites wanes, Chris Selley, Jan. 11

I live in Vancouver and the “harm- reduction” strategy has completely backfired when you look at the big picture. The acceptance of recreational hard drug use and lack of law enforcement has resulted in more users and more addiction.

Instead of cracking down on drug trafficking and drug usage like New York City did to more or less effectively deal with the problem, we have taken a “compassion- ate” approach that has made the problem far worse. Temporarily “saving a life” only to have the addict repeatedly overdose again results in emergency services burnout and takes resources away from other efforts to save the lives of people who aren’t wilfully impairing their consciousness and inflicting damage on themselves.

This is what surrender in the battle against drugs looks like. Safe- injection sites are now mainstream policy because mainstream media such as yourselves refuse to take a critical look at its effects and blindly accept what its proponents claim. Jeffrey Hay, Vancouver B. C. Chris Selley is right on safe injection sites — Conservatives should give up on this sort of minor social question. It wouldn’t be the first time governments have sanctioned minor illegal activity for pragmatic reasons. And as long as they are not situated in a community whose residents seriously object, no harm is done.

But this certainly gave me pause: “If hundreds of people are dying easily preventable deaths and your political orthodoxy prevents you from supporting a demonstrably effective remedial measure, maybe there’s something wrong with your political orthodoxy.”

Interesting way to put it, and proof conservatism has no future. Up until now I hadn’t fully realized it’s the state’s job to solve all harms, regardless of cause. Graham Barnes, Ottawa