Insite: The Battle over Supervised Injection Sites

In the 1990’s there was an epidemic of HIV outbreaks in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. Injection drug users were found to be the leading cause of this, and a public health emergency was declared (Fafard, 2012). The “mortality and morbidity” resulting from this increasing injection drug use became a major political issue. This resulted in the adoption of harm reduction by the government as one of their four pillars of their drug strategy (Fafard, 2012). Harm reduction “is a set of practical strategies and ideas aimed at reducing negative consequences associated with drug use” (Boyd, 2013). In September 2003 Insite, North Americas first harm reduction supervised injection site, was opened (Boyd, 2013). It was a three-year pilot project sanctioned by the Federal government under Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substance Act. The goal of Insite is to “improve the health and welfare of injection users, reduce the spread of disease through sharing on needles, reducing public injection use, and reducing overdose deaths due to injections” (Boyd, 2013). Since it’s opening it has been under constant political scrutiny. It had support under the Liberal government from 2003-2006, but lost that support once Stephen Harper and the Conservatives secured control (Boyd, 2013). Despite support for Insite from international organizations such the World Health Organization, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, and numerous peer reviewed research published the Conservative government did not want to grant another exemption. They stuck with their belief in prohibition being the best policy (Boyd, 2013). The battle was brought to our court systems and in 2011. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favour of Insite and found that under the Charter of Rights closing the program would be