The actual name of the movie is “FIX: The Story of an Addicted City.” Filmed in Vancouver, the movie is being used as a gritty apologetic for safe drug injection sites. Nettie Wild chronicles the stories of Dean Wilson's addiction to heroin and Ann Livingston's addiction to the role of heroine. It even includes a politician and filmmaker in this classic tale of personal and political enabling. Be prepared, however, because there are no happy endings. None of the stars beats their addiction.
It's an odd film. It's not balanced or objective enough to be a documentary. But it's too real to be fiction. The film tempts despair, defies logic and provokes the viewer with graphic images and arguments of Vancouver addicts.
It takes you deep into a world where personal problems are literally and physically paraded as virtues. It's a world where anyone questioning the addict's rights to drugs, needles, and a publicly funded shooting gallery is either a greedy land developer, cold-hearted hypocrite, or outright idiot.
It's a world where community people protecting their legal rights are condemned while drug users pursuing their illegal habits are applauded. It's a world in which heroin addicts claim the moral high ground by force, threats and contempt.
Livingston is derisively dismissive of treatment. Wild makes no effort to include any examples of addictions programs or counselors, nothing about NA or Alanon. But I guess that would undermine her point.
Wilson comments “I don't think it's fair for people to be sentenced to death because of their indulgences.” That sounds too much like, “I don't think it's fair for people to be sentenced to death because they choose to play Russian roulette.” Who's sentencing who here?
But I shouldn't be too hard on them. The movie highlights only one aspect of a multi-pronged response to the drug problem in Vancouver. They're talking about detox treatment, better access to medical care and stiffer law enforcement against drug dealers.
Great! So we've decided not to treat the drug user as criminal. Only the dealer is criminal. When I ran this by some of the youth in our neighbourhood they said, “but without the users there wouldn't be dealers.” A dealer commented, “I'm not a criminal. I'm a businessman. Don't pick on me. I cut my drugs clean and even extend credit when people are hurting. Otherwise, they would commit all sorts of crime to buy poison elsewhere.”
I'm not against harm reduction, but let's get one thing straight. The best harm reduction is to quit. Don't get me wrong. I'm willing to talk about clean needles and points of constructive contact with those who don't yet realize they have a problem. A safe injection site is better than an unsafe injection site. But jail or a detox centre is safer yet.
The drug user's universe fits in his syringe or pipe. Emotionally immature and relationally selfish, the user's addiction overrides his conscience. The activist's perspective is limited by the object of her advocacy. The politician’s perspective is limited by despair and fiscal avoidance of more comprehensive treatment and enforcement. Don’t trust them alone to define harm reduction.
Unfortunately, “harm reduction” has been reduced to a pop philosophy, the devolution of treatment and enforcement. It’s often a buzzword employed by people preoccupied with avoidance of judgment or responsibility. Enabling, while disguised as compassion, is the ultimate in condescension and self-serving neglect.
What harm is being reduced? And just as important, what harm is being maintained – or enhanced? Have pretty casinos and clean VLT’s reduced the harm from gambling addiction?
Harm to the community doesn't come just at the point of injection. Harm also comes at the point of sale and from behavior while high or strung-out. Harm comes as addicts obtain cash to purchase drugs. Harm comes to families of the users – whether or not they have kids. Harm comes to surrounding businesses and residences frequented by non-users.
Activists must weigh the harm reduced against the harms maintained.
It would be repugnant to suggest a “harm reduction” approach or “safe sites” for incest or spousal abuse. I’ve heard nobody suggest hiring doctors to watch sniffers fry their brains in safe sniff houses.
That's because the potential and partial reduction of harm is far outweighed by the harm maintained.
This week a friend determined to quit using his drug, and to quit using his family and friends to support his addiction. Now that would be real harm reduction.
Rev. Harry Lehotsky
514 Maryland Street
Winnipeg, Mb R3G 1M5
(204) 775-4929
lehotsky@escape.ca