One of the less savory aspects of downtown Vancouver is that a block from Gastown, one of Vancouver’s most hyped tourist traps, is an area defined by its missions, needle-exchange programs, and other outreach programs. This includes people passed out on sidewalks, aggresive pick-pockets, and other homeless people.
This area of Vancouver is still safer than most of DC, but it can be a bit unnerving to realize that the person that you just denied a handout too is now following you down the street, this happened on my first trip to Vancouver. A friend of ours ate at one of the downtown cafe’s in Gastown and the waitress asked them to put their camera away as they had already had one stolen purse, and three stolen tips that day.
The drug of choice in the area seems to be Heroin, which at least produces a mostly non-violent addict. In the most recent trip I ran into an aggressive, ultra-hyper, twitchy guy with an unlikely story (even more unlikely than most) and he insisted on showing me that there were no track marks on his arms. Even though from the look of his teeth, he was a crystal-meth addict. He walked with me most of the way back to the hotel, and the twitching was a bit concerning so I kept him talking. He realized that I was not buying his story as I neared my hotel and I was able to duck inside with only the threat violence.
Recognizing that outreach, needle-exchange, and suprevised injection programs do serve the public good, to what extent do these efforts draw additional addicts to certain areas, allow people to continue with self-destructive activities, and perhaps put law-abiding citizens and visitors at increased risk of violent crime? Perhaps the two people with degrees in Public Health could shed some light here.
As a note the person’s teeth were much much worse than the picture I was able to find.
September 17th, 2005 at 9:06 am
i’m sure there are studies out there (a quick medline search on “needle exchange” +crime pulled up 16 articles; an expanded search would find more), but my hunch is this:
programs such as you describe would likely attract additional addicts — which is a good thing, as you could reach a larger population with less funding, and at the same time, reduce the burden on other areas. if the addicts are getting some sort of assistance, they’re less likely to engage in violent crime, but perhaps more likely to engage in petty theft.
there have also been some interesting studies in amsterdam.
September 18th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
It is a good thing for the addicts, but is it necessarily a good thing for the location providing the services? If location B just sits on its hands while location A sets up outreach programs, wouldn’t the general population of location B end up with all of the benefits with none of the cost?
September 21st, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Programs have to be placed in areas where they will be used. I question whether the programs in Vancouver set up and then the targeted population migrated to them. And am not too sure that if the programs moved, the using populations would follow suit. The marginalized (urban poor, drug users, sex workers, etc.) tend to exist co-dependently as a community and are not easy to transplant — even with promises of work, help, etc.
As for the programs themselves, needle exchange programs have advantage to the general population — the passage of disease does not stay within marginalized populations. Receiving clean needles at least keeps people (both those using and not using) safe.
I think it is interesting that, at least in your description, Vancouver seems to embrace the social problems without trying to hide them in isolated communities (a common U.S. strategy.) I would be curious of the efficacy of the Vancouver programs and some of the city’s long-term goals in these parts of the city.