THIS MAGAZINE: BECAUSE EVERTHING IS POLITICAL

Search for:

• FEATURES
• THIS & THAT
• ARTS & IDEAS
• FICTION & POETRY
• LETTERS
• BLOG THIS
•  
• SUBSCRIBE
• BACK ISSUES
• SUPPORT THIS
•  
• ABOUT THIS
• CONTRIBUTORS
• CONTACT THIS
• ADVERTISE
• SITE MAP

Home » Blog This

May 29, 2007

HIV? Thanks, officer.

Posted by shawnsyms at 09:38 AM ET

Police crackdowns on drug use lead to increases in HIV transmission. This assertion is supported by "Do Not Cross," a just-released report from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

To avoid HIV, hepatitis, abcesses and other health problems, ideally an injection drug user should use a new, clean needle each time. But when people are afraid of being thrown in jail, they avoid carrying needles on their person, re-use them often, and hide them in dirty places—bushes, garbage cans—to avoid detection. They inject as quickly as possible to reduce the risk of getting caught in the act, often injuring themselves in the process. They can be forced to store their drugs in any available bodily orifice on approach of the cops, which is harmful and dangerous. In some cases, they may switch from smoking to injecting a drug like heroin, even though this is riskier, because it can done faster and requires less of the drug itself.

When people are displaced to random neighbourhoods as part of anti-drug legal strategies, they have less access to support services and clean needles, and they may introduce others to drug use and attendent harms who would not have otherwise been exposed.

And when drug users end up in jail, they suffer from a variety of HIV-related harm and risk, including "lack of access to clean syringes or sterilizing materials in prison, lack of access to information and education on HIV/AIDS, lack of reliable access to opioid substitution therapy, lack of access to condoms, failure to prevent sexual violence and coercion, and interruption of antiretroviral treatment." The last point is an important one: HIV treatment is a form of HIV prevention, as a person on anti-HIV meds is less likely to transmit the virus to someone else.

Not all drug users are affected equally by police crackdowns. As Do Not Cross author Joanne Csete notes, "Those who have the most marginal housing, the lowest income and the least developed social networks will be most at risk." Read the whole report here.

More entries on: HIV/AIDS | Harm reduction | Prisons

Previous: Friday Links: What does a billion trees look like? Giant inflatable rats and Happy 100th Rachel Carson
Next: When tragedy strikes, community media steps in

---

Reader comments:

Wow...interesting insights. I hadn't thought about these ramifications of crackdowns on users...thanks for posting this.

Posted by: The Junky's Wife at May 29, 2007 12:42 PM

•

I probably wouldn�t have bothered responding at all to this piece if not for the title, it literally blames law enforcement for the spread of HIV. Yes, there is always some abuse of police power but it is limited for the most part in the US and Canada. Got a beef, the police only enforce the laws so take it up with the citizens and the government. I am all for helping people that have addictions because there was a time I needed it too. But in our zeal to help others we should never forget that no matter how unfair it is, there is only one person you can point the finger at when it comes addictions (and even the spread of HIV) and its not me or your neighborhood officer.

Full post at The Discovering Alcoholic.

Posted by: The Discovering Alcoholic at May 29, 2007 05:54 PM

•

Junky's Wife (JW) and Discovering Alcoholic (DA), thank you both for your comments.

DA, there are two aspects of your reply and your own response post I want to comment on. First, this issue from my perspective (and that of the report) is not so much "the abuse of police power" or even necessarily the efforts of specific individual officers.

Many police officers care deeply about drug users and the problems associated with drug use. (For instance, the documentary "Fix: The Story of an Addicted City" makes this very clear. I recommend it to both you and JW as it shows the views of both harm-reduction advocates and law-enforcement personnel fairly.)

The problem is basically that specific police-force decisions and policies around cracking down on drug users have been demonstrated to (1) not effectively address the problems associated with drug use, both to the users and to society and (2) to actually create an environment in which people are exposed to greater risk of HIV. People in the grip of an addiction are taking greater risks directly because of specific things that the police are doing, on orders from their forces.

Second, you say "there is only one person you can point the finger at when it comes addictions (and even the spread of HIV)."

The idea that a person is solely responsible for their own fortune or misfortune is a common one in some recovery circles (and other political circles too). It's basically an ideological idea, and one I don't personally fully agree with. On the one hand, yes, people have personal agency and decision-making power, and are responsible for their choices. But it's not that simple though. Social factors do make a different in how empowered people are to make various choices. Not everyone in society is treated equally or has the same power. This social inequity is relevant, and it can have a huge impact on different individuals' ability to survive, let alone change.

Posted by: shawnsyms at May 30, 2007 09:40 AM

•

Thank you Shawnsyms,

I hope you don't mind, I posted your reply on TDA.

I appreciate the recommendation on the documentary, I will most certainly check it out. As I later said to TJW, it was mostly the title that threw me off, both the study and your article raise legitimate points. I still wonder however how they measure up when compared to the behavior that is going to occur regardless of police policies.

"This social inequity is relevant, and it can have a huge impact on different individuals' ability to survive, let alone change." In this I am in total agreement, ultimate choice is always left to the addict but one's station in life plays a great deal in how likely it is an addict will ever have an opportunity to make that choice in the first place.

Take care Shawnsyms, come over to The Discovering Alcoholic and let us know the next time you have an addiction related topic we can review.

Posted by: The Discovering Alcoholic at May 30, 2007 07:31 PM

•

>>I hope you don't mind, I posted your reply on TDA.

Of course not; that's fine. Thanks.

>>I still wonder however how they measure up when compared to the behavior that is going to occur regardless of police policies.

Oh, I hear you. Many of us make harmful choices regardless of our social position. And change isn't possible until we reach the point that we make a decision to change. The reason I value a harm-reduction approach is that I personally believe it helps make it possible for more people to stay alive until they are fully capable of successfully making such a choice.

>>Come over to The Discovering Alcoholic

I shall certainly check it out. Take care.

Posted by: shawnsyms at May 31, 2007 09:41 AM

•

---

Post your own comment:

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

---

 Subscribe to the feed

---

Blog This Must-Reads

---

---

---

Blog This Archives

May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
March 2000

---