Abstract
Abstract: This paper seeks to answer why Insite, Vancouver's safe injection facility, continues to be a controversial issue, given that empirical investigations of the facility have demonstrated that the site improves health and saves health care dollars. As Insite represented a shift to harm reduction policy, from historically dominant drug control policy, it has drawn opposition from local, national and international players. Using a political economy framework, this paper looks at the population around Insite, examining who the clients are and whether the facility is beneficial to them. The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, where Insite is located, is known to be one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada, and as such the population is extremely marginalized (The Globe and Mail, 2008). This paper argues that the attempts by the federal Conservative Party to shut down Insite are based on ideology rather than the effectiveness of the facility. Using the Gramscian concept of hegemony, this paper argues that the federal Conservative Party attempted to use its hegemonic dominance to close down Insite. This paper will also briefly discuss the legal history of Insite, and the empirical literature, briefly summarizing the evidence researchers have found.
Highlights
Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside experienced an injecting drug user (IDU) crisis in the early 1990s
In the sense that it views incremental change as better than utopian beliefs that are unlikely to be realized (Wodak & McLeod, 2008). It is often juxtaposed with drug control policy, which is a demand and supply control policy approach consisting primarily of restricting access to illicit drugs
This could lead to reduced opportunities to provide health care services, addiction treatment, and risks increasing the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C among IDUs (Wodak & McLeod, 2008)
Summary
Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside experienced an injecting drug user (IDU) crisis in the early 1990s. The facility came into existence when the federal Liberal Party was in power, but has faced serious political and legal pressures since the Conservative Party formed the federal government This continued until 2011, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled to uphold Insite's exemption, instructing the Minister of Health to continue its exemption under the CDSA (SCC, 2011). Harm reduction policy focuses on preventing negative consequences associated with risky activity It is realistic, in the sense that it views incremental change as better than utopian beliefs that are unlikely to be realized (Wodak & McLeod, 2008). It has been noted that intensifying the drug control approach through further criminalization may push IDUs further underground This could lead to reduced opportunities to provide health care services, addiction treatment, and risks increasing the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C among IDUs (Wodak & McLeod, 2008). The researchers found an increase in robbery and breaking and entering, though the rates of other crimes typically associated with drug addiction remained the same (Weatherburn et al, 2003)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Healthy Dialogue
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
