Further isolation and denial isn’t acceptable

By Letter to the Editor on May 10, 2019.

What’s at the heart of local objections over a supervised consumption site? Is it actually concern over property values? Neighbourhood safety? The very concept of a harm reduction site within Medicine Hat has been eagerly maligned by a number of locals, particularly anyone in the immediate vicinity of any proposed location for such a site.

When we experienced the widespread flooding in 2013, there were few safety measures in place. A number of us were forced to relocate from our homes for days, weeks or longer. In the aftermath, we held out our hands. We asked for assistance. We asked for support and help to prevent the same devastation from occurring again.

One of the answers to our cries involved mitigating potential damage from future flooding by building berms and installing other similar safety features throughout the city. Very little currently exists within Medicine Hat in the way of services and mitigation for individuals with addictions, and, if you think differently, I suggest you have a conversation with the frontline workers.

Similar to the cost-effective measures being implemented in “ending homelessness,” a supervised consumption site is also cost-effective and would help lessen the strain on a number of our first responders. Individuals living with addictions would have less of a need to use illicit substances in public spaces such as the transit terminal and downtown core. This could possibly even result in decreasing the number of needles and drug paraphernalia being found in parks and other public areas.

Further isolation and denial isn’t an acceptable answer anymore. A widespread issue has been identified and we are not currently equipped with enough safety measures. A supervised consumption site is a safety measure, both for Medicine Hat and the individuals that would access it.

Michael Plait

Medicine Hat

8
-7