Counterpoint: As parents, we support harm reduction in our community

Article content

By Trish Starling and Alison Symington, on behalf of the Leslieville Harm Reduction Coalition

A group of our neighbours is advocating in the media, with the government, in community forums, and most recently in the courts, for the closure of the supervised drug consumption site (SCS) in our east Toronto neighbourhood, Leslieville. Their opposition to the site at times relies on myths about people who use drugs, rejects scientific evidence about the effectiveness of harm reduction services, and tugs at heartstrings by asking, “but what about the children?”

Article content

Article content

While parents of young children may not call it harm reduction, we practice it every day. We insist our youngsters wear bike helmets and we watch endless YouTube clips on correct car seat installation. We might limit screen time or set parent controls on the WiFi. We tell them to sit down when they eat so they don’t choke. These actions don’t eliminate the risk of harm but they reduce the likelihood of a bad outcome.

Parents of older children may recognize other actions more explicitly as harm reduction. We promise our teenagers that we’ll pick them up from parties and overlook underage drinking in favour of getting them home safely. We keep condoms under the bathroom sink with the extra Kleenex and toothpaste. We might explain how naloxone can reverse an overdose and where to access it. Most importantly, we try to teach them to think critically, ask questions, and look at the evidence.

Article content

Article content

Despite our regular reliance on harm reduction as parents, supervised drug consumption sites — a key harm reduction intervention — are sometimes misleadingly framed as dangerous for children. This narrative obscures the fact that communities with no SCSs also experience needles in parks, public intoxication, and drug use — but without the benefit of having a place where people who use drugs can go to receive health care, referrals to drug treatment, and other crucial supports. What if relocating the SCS or reducing its services puts our kids in more danger (or does not reduce the danger children face while dramatically increasing the danger to people who use drugs)?

If people lose access to the supervised consumption site and places to safely dispose of drug-use equipment, this could result in more public drug use and more litter in parks, schoolyards and laneways. Without access to life-saving harm reduction services, overdose deaths could escalate in our neighbourhood.

Our local SCS is located within a health centre that provides access to a wide range of supports and referrals, so reducing the services could impede people from accessing treatment, primary health care, nutrition supports, and frontline workers who understand their needs. And realistically, we know that some of our children and their friends will try drugs as they enter their teens and adulthood. We worry about their fate if accurate information, harm reduction supplies and less toxic drugs are not available.

Article content

People do not start using drugs because of the availability of harm reduction services. Harm reduction services were put in Leslieville because of existing drug use in the area. It may now be more visible to some residents because of gentrification — dive bars and cheap eating establishments have disappeared, and many affordable housing options have given way to high-value real estate. In the wake of COVID-19, the need for mental health and social supports has increased across the board while social and health services have been stretched beyond recognition, trying to address increasing levels of need while receiving less funding.

The local SCS has been part of our neighbourhood for over six years, alongside a 20-year-old, busy harm reduction program that includes needle distribution. The recent rhetoric demonizing this vital health-care service stands in opposition to extensive evidence that SCSs save lives and can contribute to reducing public drug use and overdose deaths in surrounding neighbourhoods.

Some of our neighbours say that their perspectives — in particular their call to move the SCS out of the centre of Leslieville — have been ignored, and that they as community members need to be heard. Community perspectives must always be considered when making decisions about the provision of health-care services. Our community includes the people who use the SCS, too, although their perspectives are often downplayed, as well as diverse residents who want to ensure comprehensive health care, and supports are available for all of our community members who need them, including those traditionally marginalized from mainstream services.

Article content

We are not a fringe group of activists. Over 2,000 people signed a statement supporting the Leslieville supervised consumption site — 40 per cent of whom live in the immediate vicinity of the site.

We are advocating for research-informed, expansive and inclusive services in our community as our children grow — including more, not less, availability of harm reduction programming. In the midst of the toxic drug crisis that is killing 22 people in Canada every day and has killed over 40,000 people since 2016, we cannot afford to get this wrong.

Special to National Post

Trish Starling and Alison Symington are parents and members of the Leslieville Harm Reduction Coalition.

Article content