Talk:Harm reduction/Archive 2

"Soft bigotry" quote
Is there anearlier source than this? http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/03/03122003.html(March 2003) ? === Vernon White (talk)  12:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or this? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/9/110923.shtml(Jan 2004), or is there an earlier statement? ===Vernon White (talk)  13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Harm Minimisation
Sources that I've read in the past, especially on Bluelight, proposed the idea that Harm Reduction and Harm Minimisation are different ideologies with the same goals. I've read that Harm Minimisation should be considered to minimise harm by focusing on the reduction of use rather than safer use and thus employs tactics such as supply line reduction, strengthened law enforcement etc etc. Harm Reduction being more like the philosophy explained in the wiki article. Within this article the terms Harm Minimisation and Harm Reduction seem to be interchangeable. Is there a generally accepted standard or has any one else heard of an alternate meaning for the term Harm Minimisation? --Spuzzdawg (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the terms do cross over in their use. The National Drug Strategy of Australia has this to say on the matter:
 * Harm minimisation does not condone drug use, rather it refers to policies and programs aimed at reducing drug-related harm. It aims to improve health, social and economic outcomes for both the community and the individual, and encompasses a wide range of approaches, including abstinence-oriented strategies. Australia’s harm-minimisation strategy focuses on both licit and illicit drugs and includes preventing anticipated harm and reducing actual harm.
 * Harm reduction strategies to reduce drug-related harm to individuals and communities.
 * Here in Australia, Harm Minimisation is the oerall policy that involves supply reduction (stopping drugs reaching users), demand reduction (reducing the number of people using drugs) and harm reduction (minimising the damage caused by what the other two don't stop).
 * We coined the idea in 1985 with the national campaign against drug abuse, which was the first in the world to use this three way approach. Do people think that is an authoritative source? rakkar (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition of weasel tag
Harm reductionists contend that ...

Critics of harm reduction contend that ...

These are classic weasel terms, so I am adding the weasel tag. perhaps someone can cite a "harm reducionist"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.97.245.84 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend Gabor Mate' MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.12.130 (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

criticism of harm reduction
I recommend rewriting the paragraph copied below. No sources are cited (though I agree with the author's sentiment). I think it could be expressed less colloquially, and should be cited where possible, and edited where not. The author states several unreferenced "facts" and makes some unfounded claims...

"...Ironically anti-drug information can have the same effect, because of it's sometimes false information and the statement of some myths as certain fact, someone realizing that information given to them was false may lead to them disbelieving the other statements that are made about other drugs and this may increase use of illicit drug use.[citation needed] The fact that anti-drug information often emphasizes the statement "Don't do this drug, it's bad", but fails to give proper information on the drug's risks and those risk's causes and how they can be managed can lead to more chance of someone having a negative reaction and not knowing how to deal with it leading to possible harm or death.[citation needed]..."

I've produced a rewrite below as a suggestion.

".... Anti-drug information often fails to give factual information on a drug's risks or risk management, leaving the user without objective knowledge needed to make an educated decision.[citation needed] ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.245.11 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC) - hell, I'll remove it completely myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.245.11 (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Responsible drug use
Hi, I just changed your link on the Harm Reduction page from a Main Article to a See Also, because I feel that while they are related, Harm Reduction is a public health philosophy, and responsible drug use seems to be more a personal matter.--rakkar (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me (I don't have a rabid opinion), but I don't think I entirely agree with your reasoning. "Harm reduction" is primarily a personal philosophy, also. The fact that it is a personal philosophy about public health does not ipso facto make it a public health policy. It is certainly ALSO a public policy in places where it has actually been enacted into law, but it doesn't cease to be "harm reduction" in places where it hasn't! Which is a great many places, if you take all aspects of the philosophy together. Most of your article is about harm reduction arguments as applied to places where it is NOT public policy, so you can't exactly define it the way you're suggesting The other problem is that "Harm reduction" is badly defined in the article on it, because it doesn't include the explicit requirement that we're talking about illegal activities. Nobody calls safety training "harm reduction" for legal activities, no matter how risky they are. That includes riding the space shuttle or climbing Mr. Everest. We already have a word for that, and it's "safety." Why invent another, when it's not needed? Second, although some harm reductionists aim to reduce the harm from certain victimless illegal activities in part by decriminalizing them, but the moment they succeed in this, they're no longer taking about harm reduction, but again are merely taking about safety, like Driver's Ed or scuba classes. So again that part of "harm reduction" philosophy actualy requires the activity to be illegal, and that's why getting training for the safest way to do an illegal thing is so difficult to get enacted as actual public policy. I'll repost this on the Harm reduction TALK page to see if anybody else has something to say on the issue.  S  B Harris 03:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course harm reduction is a public health policy. It's a pillar of the national drug policy of many countries. Basically it means upholding drug prohibition, while minimising harm to drug users. And it's not a philosophy, the term is often used as "evidence-based methods of harm reduction", meaning that harm reduction methods are only enacted when they haven proven to be beneficial. In countries like Denmark, even conservative parties voted for enacting those policies. In Germany the federal leadership of the conservatives was against heroin assisted treatment, but many state-level conservatives were for it.--Hisredrighthand (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation
There is a great book on Harm Reduction called "Over The Influence" by Patt Denning Jeanine Little and Adina Glickman which could be cited as a reference for many of the statements made in this article. I don't know how to make citations or I would do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.27.199 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Soft bigotry" quote
Hi,

This is a strange paragraph:

"There is a third group that advocates an approach which is sometimes referred to as gradualism. Gradualism advocates are of the opinion that harm reduction programs are sometimes rooted in pessimism about the ability of addicts to stop their addictive behaviors and represent the "soft bigotry of low expectations." They are unlikely to categorize interventions as "good" or "bad". Rather, they tend to be more concerned that programs should urge clients toward abstinence when windows of opportunity open."

What's unusual about it is that it seems to construct a false binary between abstinence and harm reduction. If you're moving someone through Prochaska's stages of change, that person may decide that they're ready to make alcohol/drugs/etc not part of their life any more. This is harm reduction, not "gradualism." As well, the "soft bigotry" is problematic. If we look at the Webster's definition of a bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" it seems to me that the use of "bigotry" in the context of the above paragraph is with respect to racial/ethnic groups, rather than obstinate devotion to prejudice. It's a muddled quote that mixes issues and has little to do with harm reduction, unless you think most/all drug/alcohol/substance abusers are members of certain racial/ethnic groups, which would be racist. 128.189.137.17 (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Against prohibition?
The article seems to imply that "harm reductionists" are all members of some movement putting forward strategies against and to replace prohibition laws Is this the case? I can see prescription of contraceptives to someone under the legal age for consensual sex as motivated by a desire to "reduce harm", or mitigate the effects of illegal activity, without actually condoning the activity or seeking to legitimate it I can see providing clean needles to injectors of prohibited drugs similarly Laurel Bush (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have heard at least some of the proponents of "harm reduction" want their "solutions" to be applied within a prohibition approach to the drug issue. They are opposed to drugs, and believes that harm reduction, in conjunction with demand and supply reduction and a more open and fact-based debate on drug issues in general will make the problems associated with drugs smaller. I really think this is the larger group. Sure, they are polemic against the very-anti-drug-movement but not against legal constraints on drugs and the supply thereof per se.


 * So, I think you are right, harm reduction is not a alternative to, but a progressive approach within prohibition. Steinberger (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Most harm reductionists are people who have personal experience working with drug addicts. They include all walks of life from the doctors who attempt to treat these addictions through prescribing other drugs, the police officers who see first hand the sort of lives addicts live on the street, probation officers, councilors and nurses who work in rehab programs, as well as addicts themselves who have managed to stay clean, and are helping others to also stay clean.  These people have seen the damage that drug addiction can cause, and believe that addicts need all the help they can get to stay away from drugs, which of course would include restricted access.  Of course some supporters may have their own political agendas, and might be members of anti-prohibition groups, but they are generally the minority here.  The basic fact is that punitive anti-drug laws are not a solution to the drug problem.  Fines and jail are only a deterrent, they are not a cure, and in most cases they actually exacerbate the problem.  There is actually a group -- Law Enforcement Against Prohibition -- of law enforcement officers who after years of first hand experience enforcing punitive drug laws, have come to realize that they are a very poor attempt to solve a complex problem.  The harm reduction movement is an attempt to work within the existing laws to reduce the harm done by them, and also to lobby for changes to the laws to allow further reduction of harm.  --Thoric (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, harm reductionists may be (1) prohibitionist, (2) anti prohibitionist, or (3) uncommitted with respect to the prohibition/anti-prohibition divide Also, anti prohibitionists may or may not condone breaches of current law In its current form, however, the article seems intent on branding all harm reductionists as anti prohibitionists This seems to represent a less biased approach to the subject:
 * ''Harm reduction is action to reduce harm associated with activites such as illegal sex and illegal drug use. Harm reductionists do not necessarily condone the illegal activity or seek to ligitimate it.

Laurel Bush (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They don't condemn illegal activity either... My suggestion on a lead is: Harm reduction refers to certain controversial public health policies meant to reduce the harm associated with illegal activities such as prostitution and illicit drug use. The practices are non-condemning in nature and no demands is put on the patient to cede its illegal activity in order to receive the services. In a broader discussion, harm reductionists may not necessarily condone the illegal activity or seek to legitimate it. Steinberger (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers Steinberger
 * Does look like an improvement on what we have at present
 * By The practices are non-condemning in nature and no demand is put on the patient to cede its illegal activity ..., do you mean Practioners are non-condemning in their approach and put no demand on the client to cede the illegal activity ...?
 * Laurel Bush (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but after giving it a thought, maybe an "are often" should be put somewhere... In Sweden for example, the needle-exchange programs are non-condemning and does not force there clients to cede with their drug use, however, a persons on on methadone or buprenorphine must quit all other drugs and subject to drug tests to get the treatment. In for example the Netherlands, a person on methadone does not have to cede its additional drug usage. However, Sweden is quite extreme and we might implement these ideas in a still-very-anti-drug way that is atypical. Steinberger (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ... usually put no demand ...?
 * Laurel Bush (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure... Steinberger (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am thinking now we may need a lot of may and may nots
 * Maybe to be expected in an article about controversial subject:
 * ''Harm reduction refers to certain controversial public health policies intended to reduce the harm associated with illegal activities such as illicit prostitution and drug use.
 * ''Advocates and practitioners of harm reduction may or may not be condemning of the illegal activity, and may or may not require abstinence from it as a condition of access to harm reduction services. Those who condone illegal activity may put their own legal status as risk.
 * ''Where abstinence is required, a licensed alternative is offered, such as prescribed methadone or, even, diamorphine (also known as diacetylmorphine), instead of illegal heroin.
 * ''Advocates and practitioners may favour moves to make laws less prohibitionist. Equally, they may favour maintenance of relevant laws as they are, or moves to make the laws more prohibitionist. There are similar divisions of opinion as regards law enforcement.
 * ''For those who support existing laws, or favour more prohibitionist laws, harm reduction is a supplement to law. For those who favour less prohibitionist laws, harm reduction is the alternative.
 * ''Many advocates argue that prohibitionist laws cause harm, because, for example, they oblige prostitutes to work in dangerous conditions and oblige drug users to obtain their drugs from unreliable criminal sources
 * Note I do not assume all prostitution is illegal
 * Laurel Bush (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Its better then the "Harm reductionsist contend..."-thing anyway. Steinberger (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers I have decided to try changing the intro Laurel Bush (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraph
I've seen a lot of discussion about the first paragraph, but some of the information is wrong and needed a tweak. here are the rationale for my edits.


 * Harm reduction is set of policies based on research and evidence. There should be little to no room for "supposed harm"


 * Harm reduction is not strictly concerned with illegal activities, the focus is on risky or harmful behaviours. Most areas of harm reduction have some illicit element to them, but it is the risk not the illegality that is the qualifier


 * Harm reduction does not require abstinence, that would cease to be harm reduction. it aims to try and protect people while they partake in the harmful behaviour. So later, when they no longer want to take part in that behaviour, they are still alive/better off than without harm reduction.


 * Harm reduction is a public health initiative, it does not seek to break the law. There may be "guerilla harm minimisation" organisations in operation, but they are operating outside the public health framework, for example, the same as doctors who perform organ trafficking transplants are not working as health professionals.


 * Methadone and other opiate substitute treatments are not harm minimisation. they are strictly controlled medical treatments.

--rakkar (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC) I reverted the changes made to the opening paragraph this afternoon. While I acknowledge what it was trying to say, it was unsourced, in the wrong part of the article and was attempting to create unfounded controversy. It also made the opening sentence very clunky.--rakkar (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of safer injection facilites
The number of 47 SIFs worldwide is too low. There are 18 in Switzerland, 16 in Germany, 16 in the Netherlands, thats 50 in those 3 countries already.

Article too broad
I think this article should be entirely about harm reduction as part of an evidence-based national drug policy. At least that is the way the term is used in discussions, like at the recent UNODC conference in vienna. Decriminalization is separate thing, although some form of localized toleration is needed e.g. to maintain a safer injection facility.

Decriminalization is more of a means to reduce the harm done by prohibition (e.g. through incarceration) than a means to reduce the harm done by drugs. In Switzerland they tried decriminalization first (needle park comes to mind) and then abandoned it to implement harm reduction strategies. Now h.r. is one pillar of their national drug policy, but repression remains another. --Hisredrighthand (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Harm reduction, or harm minimisation, . ..
Can "or harm minimisation" be removed from the opening sentence please? Harm Reduction & Harm Minimisation are not the same thing. Harm Minimisation is a threefold model which is inclusive of Harm Reduction, Supply Reduction & Demand Reduction. See the "Policy Response" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illicit_drug_use_in_Australia for clarification. Thanks, Swampy 203.48.101.131 (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinions wanted at related article
The Safer sex article, which this one summarizes, has suffered from edit warring and talk page mis-communications for a while. One of the issues appears to be whether the article should be primarily about what the idea is, or about what the name is (and the many, many, slightly different definitions). There are legitimate reasons for Wikipedia to have articles about ideas, and also to have articles about terminology/definitions (e.g., for obsolete medical terms). Talk:Safe sex asks any and all editors to express an opinion about what they think the proper scope of the article is. For example, you might think that the article should be about the term, or about the idea as most commonly understood ("how person A can avoid catching a disease from person B, who is infected"), or about something else (e.g., rape avoidance, or emotional safety in sexual relationships, or pregnancy prevention).

Whatever your idea, if you want to express an opinion, I'd be happy to hear it. (Please respond at Talk:Safe sex, not here.) Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence & validity of Harm Minimisation as public health
I've just removed a large number of edits to the page. I've included below my specific reasons for each section, but in general it harks to wider debates about Harm Reduction. Wikipedia is not a battleground for this topic, but rather it should seek to portray each side as objectively as possible. I'm happy for the article to include the perspective Minphie wants to write, however it needs to have good references (as opposed to some of the bad ones pointed out below) and should avoid weasel words.

... Where Harm Reduction is used to alleviate the harms of illegal practices or behaviours, critics () of the approach cite concerns about its strategies sending a message of sanctioned acceptance of the very behaviours which the community, through its legislators, do not accept. (References?)

...

Critics  of this intervention cite the high costs to any community providing heroin maintenance programs. For instance, the British heroin trial initiated in 2005 costs the British government £15,000 pounds per participant per annum. (Adam Baxter's article actually supports opiate treatment as having better financial outcomes for the community and psychosocial outcomes for the client. This article appears to have been deliberately misquoted by Minphie to say that heroin treatment is costing the community money when in fact the author says that prescription heroin has huge savings in the long run.)

The trial claims that the illicit heroin use of participants is reduced from £300 to £50 per week, that is from £15,600 acquisitive crime per year to £2,600 per year. Yet for the £15,000 investment, the community is still £2,000 worse off in terms of ongoing acquisitive crime.(This simplistic maths classes as original research. Academics spend months producing research to support claims like this, it's not verifiable to make assumptions like this.)

Alternatively, Sweden’s policy of compulsory rehabilitation of drug addicts has yielded the lowest illicit drug use levels in the developed world. (Firstly, on what page of this mammoth document is this fact drawn from? Secondly, Sweden is not opposed to harm reduction at all - http://www.ihra.net/Assets/1556/1/HarmReductionPoliciesandPractiveWorldwide5.pdf ) ... Critics  of this harm reduction intervention reject the harm reductionists’ (What is a harm reductionist?  Another weasel word) claims of ensuing lower rates of blood-born viruses on the grounds that there has never been a weight of scientific evidence which supports the claim. See Needle Exchange Programme for discussion of the evidence. (Needs to be referenced properly.)

... Critics  of this intervention point to evaluations of safe injection sites.

For example, the 2003 evaluation of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre[13] found:

○ that there was no evidence that the injecting room reduced the number of overdose deaths in the area (p. 60)

○ no improvement in ambulance overdose attendances in the area (p. 60)

○ no improvement in ambulance overdose attendance during hours the injecting room was open (p.60)

○ no improvement in overdose presentations at hospital emergency wards (p. 60)

○ no improvement re HIV infections (p. 71)

○ no improvement in Hep B infections (p. 72)

○ either worse or no improvement (depending on the suburb studied) in new Hep C notifications (p. 80)

○ discarded syringe counts on street reduced only in line with reductions in numbers handed out due to heroin drought (p. 123)

○ drug-related loitering and drug dealing worsened at the station entrance immediately opposite the centre (p. 147) (As for this section, I don't have the time to address each one, however the general consensus regarding the matter is that the first evaluation had methodological flaws which have been corrected in later evaluations. See Dr. Van Beek's book, Eye of the Needle [] around page 85 for further info.  Secondly, the centre has been running for seven years since that report came out and there is more evidence of the positive outcomes the centre achieves.)

An analysis of this evaluation by an epidemiologist, addiction medicine practitioner, and social researchers and practitioners found overdose levels in the MSIC 36 times higher than on the surrounding streets of Kings Cross, with clients averaging only one in every of their 35 injections in the room, evidencing low utilization rates in light of the ever-present risk of fatal overdose to each heroin user.[14] Testimony of ex-clients of the MSIC reported to the NSW Legislative Council[15] alleged that the extremely high overdose rates were due to clients experimenting with poly-drug cocktails and higher doses of heroin in the knowledge that staff were present to ensure their safety. (Hansard is a good source for references, however the section in question was a comment made by a former client. No analysis or research was included.  There are many other comments from current and former clients who strongly support the centre however they are of no more value as references than my opinion or Minphie's)

The 2003 evaluation noted that, “In this study of the Sydney injecting room there were 9.2 heroin overdoses per 1000 heroin injections in the centre. This rate of overdose is higher than amongst heroin injectors generally. The injecting room clients seem to have been a high-risk group with a higher rate of heroin injections than others not using the injection room facilities. They were more often injecting on the streets and they appear to have taken greater risks and used more heroin whilst in the injecting room.[16] (Overdose does not equal death - the MSIC reports clinical overdoses which are very precisely assessed and recorded.  Overdoses on the street are not.  Also, see previous comment about the 2003 report.)

It is this injecting room effect of increasing the trade for local drug dealers that has been condemned by critics. 

... --rakkar (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am returning text vandalized by Rakkar on the grounds that there is no substance to his rationales for removing text. It is not enough to dream up some sort of fanciful rationale, not based in fact, as reason for removing carefully cited and factual information from Wikipedia.

1. Rakkar removes text because specific critics have not been named for a very general criticism of harm reduction. I point out that if a critique of a particular intervention is typed into Wikipedia that there is ipso facto 'critics' of the view. Thus the term 'critics' is accurate, not requiring further elucidation, where a valid criticism is entered into the text. Valid criticism is judged, of course, by the logic or evidence adduced. Therefore the paragraph "Where harm reduction . . . " is correct and needs no further citation. I could of course add some of the organisations, such as the many involved in the International Taskforce on Strategic Drug Policy, or the UN International Narcotics Control Board, that do make this critique, but it would be entirely superfluous to the argument.

2. Rakkar again appeals to unspecified 'critics', but because there is a criticism entered into the text 'critics' are in fact already validly implied.

Further Rakkar appeals to the private perspectives of a staff member in the program, Adam Baxter, wishing to promote his private views of cost effectiveness over the very clear mathematics that are related in newspaper articles elsewhere quoting John Strang, the leader of the project. It should be noted that until there is a peer-reviewed journal article on the outcomes (psycho-social or whatever else) on this project, we cannot take the private views of a staff member as guidance for Wikipedia. Presently, there is no journal article on outcomes, only Strang's financial comparisons in a media release.

3. It is not enough to remove a properly cited fact ie Sweden having the lowest drug use levels in the OECD, as found in the comparison figures of the UN World Drug Report (pages are given in the citiation). To remove this text, the onus is on Rakkar to disprove the UN World Drug Report data. And of course my statement is correct, so cannot be removed by whim or unfounded contentiousness.

4. See above on the use of word 'critics'. Again a clear and valid criticism is outlined, so there are ipso facto critics.

5. The term harm reductionist is an accurate title, used by the movement itself. Just as those who advance prohibition are called prohibitionists, with no concern about the labeling by its proponents, Rakkar's criticism of the term is unfounded. Of course, Rakkar is welcome to change the term to 'proponents of harm reduction' if he wishes, but to remove a whole paragraph is clearly vandalism.

6. Rakkar removes a section on needle exchange, in which the linked article on Wikipedia is very tightly and carefully referenced (at least for the critique part of the article). If Rakkar removes this section again I will take the right to reproduce ALL the needle exchange references on that other WIKIPEDIA page, making it a much more cumbersome article, but all the more damning of the intervention.

7. Critics of the safe injecting sites are many, but again who they are is not germane to the critiques. The critiques speak for themselves. Drug Free Australia's website carries a comprehensive critique, of course. Rakkar has removed the entire added text on suppositions simply not supported by fact. This is clear vandalism.

a. Stating that the first evaluation had 'methodological flaws' is no reason to remove the facts. In fact, every one of the cited facts from the evaluation, where each can be checked according to the page number listed, has not been contested by anybody. Dr van Beek has taken issue with the estimate of users in Kings Cross on a daily basis, from which overdose statistics are extrapolated, but has not taken issue with any of the data that Rakkar lists above his fanciful criticism (above).

b. If Rakkar wants to take issue with the overdose statistical comparisons he is welcome to add, in brackets, that Dr van Beek, Medical Director of the MSIC, has questioned whether the evaluation estimated too high a number of users in Kings Cross on a daily basis, but there is absolutely no justification for removing something which is entirely factual, as per the 2003 evaluation. Even when van Beek's concerns are taken into account the number of overdoses inside the room remain many times higher than on the streets. This discussion can be found on Australia's Update listserver.

c. Rakkar quite evidently has no idea whatsoever as to what is in later evaluations on the MSIC, guessing at their contents for the sake of contentiousness. There is only one, Evaluation 4, which has data which contradicts anything in the 2003 first evaluation. This is the statement that ambulance callouts have dropped by 80%, (but which is clearly the result of the heroin drought - heroin deaths AUSTRALIA-WIDE dropped by 75% in the same period, so we would expect ambulance callouts to drop similarly whether there is an injecting room or not in Kings Cross). Also there is data in Evaluation 4 that quite intriguingly conflicts with the first evaluation, whereby no. 4 states that the Kings Cross area had a greater drop in callouts than other adjacent suburbs. The 2003 evaluation said there was NO DIFFERENCE between Kings Cross and adjacent suburbs, while Evaluation 4 has a graph showing differences. Who are we to believe? This is not for Wikipedia to resolve. And there is no case for removal of a factual statement by Minphie.

d. The testimony of ex-users is extremely important. These are ex-clients who have gone to rehab, and who are more likely to speak with honesty and candour. The debate in NSW Parliament is as good a reference as is required for this kind of evidence, and Rakkar cannot remove the sentence simply because he doesn't like the reality.

e. Rakkar's intended rebuttal of overdoses inside and outside the room shows no basic understanding whatsoever of statistical comparisons. These comparisons were checked by one of Australia's most internationally renowned epidemiologists, Dr D'arcy Holman of WA Uni, and his e-mail to Drug Free Australia can be found on the Drug Free Australia full analysis website documentation.

Minphie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk •contribs) 11:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC) -

I've changed the article somewhat. Minphie has reverted the article again, so rather than start a revert war, I've tagged some of the weasel words in the article as well as some of the unverified claims. It's been good actually, I've tagged a few other unverified claims already in the article. I don't want to spend hours arguing every point above, and I don't want this to turn into an edit war. Minphie's edits have a place in this article, hopefully we can all turn this into a better article. --rakkar (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC) - I have removed the spurious 'refuted' from the text re criticisms of SIFs because the cited evidence most certainly does not refute the statement that was previously written. I have also removed any reference to reduced hospital presentations because there was no data comparison available to make any such judgment.

Rakkar has cited an unpublished Addiction article which relies on the 4th Evaluation of the MSIC dated June 2007. This evaluation does claim that there were reduced ambulance attendances in the immediate area of the MSIC, a reduction of 80%, according to their figures, which also coincided with Australia's heroin drought during the period studied. It is noted that heroin deaths Australia-wide reduced by 67% over the period studied by the 4th evaluation due top the heroin drought. However it should be noted that Evaluation 4 contradicts Evaluation 1 despite purportedly using the exact same dataset. Whereas Evaluation 4 found a greater reduction in ambulance attendances in postcode 2011, which surrounds the MSIC, than in the 2010 postcode adjacent, the 2003 conclusion from exactly the same data contradicted the 2007 evaluation. The 2003 evaluation clearly says on p 49, commenting on Table 3.1 which compares ambulance attendances AFTER the MSIC opening against the heroin drought effects between January 2001 and May 2001 that "Analysis of the postcode areas 2010 and 2011 separately showed no different pattern of results" and yet the graph in Evaluation 4 shows a recognizable difference. This contradiction has yet to be explained.

Also Evaluation 4 was not able to compare Kings Cross hospital presentations with the rest of NSW and clearly says that no conclusions can be made in light of the heroin drought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)  Signed ---minphie

Hi Minphie, I have removed your new headings and combined each reply into a single discussion. Helps other editors know this is an ongoing conversation. You obviously fundamentally object to Harm reduction on principle, but it would be helpful if you could acknowledge that it does have it's strengths as well as weaknesses. It would be good to work together on this, I certainly acknowledge that it has failings. You're obviously fairly well up on the debate here in Australia, do you work in a related field?


 * 1) I have removed the sentence "See Needle Exchange Programme for discussion of the evidence." again because it is not in keeping with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Summary_style#References.2C_citations_and_external_links Summary style].  We don't reproduce all information on a topic whenever it is mentioned, we direct readers to the main article to read further.  As you noted, reproducing it would make the article cumbersome and unreadable.

1 - I have removed the sentence "(but it is also noted that data from this later study uses the data for the same ambulance services as the 2003 evaluation, but with obviously conflicting data for the years 2001 and 2002)". It obviously references something from the Salmon, van Beek et al article, but I don't know what. As noted on the edit summary, its possible to analyse the same data with different methodology and get valid results. Plus, it's probably a bit long to be in brackets.

2 - In regards to ambulance call outs, I changed the word balanced to corrected, as the conflict was not in opinion but in statistical analysis. It didn't balance the old analysis, it replaced it.

3 - Removed mention of claim in DFA pamphlet that on average users only visit MSIC for 1 in 35 injections. The maths underlying the statement is BAD, and has not been reproduced by anyone else. It assumes that EVERY client of the centre uses 3 times a day, every day. Some would use more, some would use less.

4 - Removed sentence - "and drug-related loitering and drug dealing worsened at the station entrance immediately opposite the centre (p. 147).  This claim has been disproved - "[The] results suggest that setting up an MSIC does not necessarily lead to an increase in drug-related problems of crime and public loitering"  from From "Freeman K., Jones C. G. A., Weatherburn D. J., Rutter S., Spooner C. J., Donnelly N. The impact of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) on crime. Drug Alcohol Rev 2005; 24: 173–84. Here's the whole abstract "''The current study aimed to model the effect of Australia’s first Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) on acquisitive crime and loitering by drug users and dealers. The effect of the MSIC on drug-related property and violent crime was examined by conducting time series analysis of police-recorded trends in theft and robbery incidents, respectively. The effect of the MSIC on drug use and dealing was examined by (a) time series analysis of a special proxy measure of drug-related loitering; (b) interviewing key informants; and (c) examining trends in the proportion of Sydney drug offences that were recorded in Kings Cross. There was no evidence that the MSIC trial led to either an increase or decrease in theft or robbery incidents. There was also no evidence that the MSIC led to an increase in ‘drug-related’ loitering at the front of the MSIC after it opened, although there was a small increase in ‘total’ loitering (by 1.2 persons per occasion of observation). Trends in both ‘drug-related’ and ‘total’ loitering at the front of the MSIC steadily declined to baseline levels, or below, after it opened. There was a very small but sustained increase in ‘drug-related’ (0.09 persons per count) and ‘total’ loitering (0.37 persons per count) at the back of the MSIC after it opened. Key informant interviews noted an increase in loitering across the road from the MSIC but this was not attributed to an influx of new users and dealers to the area. There was no increase in the proportion of drug use or drug supply offences committed in Kings Cross that could be attributed to the opening of the MSIC. These results suggest that setting up an MSIC does not necessarily lead to an increase in drug-related problems of crime and public loitering.''"

--rakkar (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC) -- In light of not being able to find the Wikipedia convention that would point readers in the Harm Reduction page to the evidence against the effectiveness of needle exchanges on the Needle-exchange programme page, I have reproduced the relevant evidence in the Harm Reduction page.

If Rakkar wants to provide a correct link to the Needle-exchange programme page he could help readers to find the information they need there rather than be reproduced on the Harm reduction page. But the removal of the link that was there serves to remove any reference to evidence whatsoever when the evidence is indeed against any claims of proven effectiveness. --- Minphie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk • contribs) 11:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

-- Rakkar has removed, again, sections which are factual and cited, and I have reinstated these for the following reasons.

1. Rakkar's statement, "Later research corrected these initial findings, noting that "the Sydney MSIC reduced the demand for ambulance services, freeing them to attend other medical emergencies within the community" immediately follows my paragraph citing 4 conclusions in the 2003 MSIC evaluation which showed no evidence of change after the commencement of the MSIC.

It is a distortion to say that Evaluation 4, in 2007, corrected all of these four findings because Evaluation 4 studied only two of the 2003 conclusions, failing once again to demonstrate an effect on overdose deaths in the area, and secondly stating that there was a 20% drop in ambulance attendances which applied to the postcode surrounding the MSIC. Note that they did not make conclusions in the 2007 evaluation on ambulance attendances over every 24 hour period, and did not have comparative data to judge hospital presentations. Curiously the 2007 evaluation used the same dataset as the 2003 evaluation, and the 2003 evaluators had compared postcodes at that date without seeing any comparable differences in postcode attendances (p 49) as per the 2007 evaluation. So I have changed the wording to reflect the reality of the two evaluations.

2. Rakkar removed, in an act of vandalism, the Drug Free Australia analysis conclusion that injecting room clients had only one of every 35 injections in the room. His rationale is that Drug Free Australia worked on a multiplier of 3 injections per day to get that figure. He also stated that some users have less injections per day and some more. Drug Free Australia has surveyed users and find use of between 1 and 6 injections per day are quite normal.

What Rakkar needed to do was read the full Drug Free Australia documentation before hitting the delete key. The Drug Free Australia detailed documentation clearly states (and reproduces in screen copy from the evaluation document) that the MSIC's own 2003 evaluators used three injections per day as the realistic daily injections multiplier in their calculations. As now stated in the text, Drug Free Australia used precisely the same methodologies and data as did the 2003 evaluators. The Drug Free Australia analysis was conducted by an epidemiologist, an addiction medicine practitioner with one of the largest practices in Australia, a medical doctor/social researcher, another senior social researcher and a welfare industry senior manager.

Furthermore, the Drug Free Australia analysis was verified by one of Australia's best known epidemiologists internationally, Dr D'Arcy Holman of WA University. D'Arcy is reportedly sympathetic to Drug Law Reform, so his verification is notable. His e-mail confirming the same is reproduced in the very reference which is given for Drug Free Australia's conclusions. There really is no excuse for Rakkar to unilaterally assume what he thinks is correct without being able to soundly refute Drug Free Australia's analysis. Rakkar, read the evidence before you swing into print.

3. Rakkar further claimed that "Numerous health professionals working in the addiction medicine field have pointed out the errors in the various calculations and extrapolations in the Drug Free Australia report." There is absolutely no truth to this statement. Of course professionals in support of injecting rooms will say anything - what counts is whether they can falsify the Drug Free Australia analysis or not, verified as it is by a very eminent Australian epidemiologist. This has never been done.

The only issue of note is that Dr van Beek has taken issue with the EVALUATOR'S assumptions regarding the number of heroin users in Kings Cross on a daily basis. Drug Free Australia uses the evaluator's assumptions and data, and so Dr van Beek has claimed that the Drug Free Australia conclusions (which are absolutely and correctly deducted from the evaluation data) are based on evaluator's assumptions which may distort the picture somewhat. Even using Dr van Beeks's own revised estimates, the injecting room still has 9 times the street rate of overdoses, still hugely greater than on the street.

4. In a clear act of vandalism, Rakkar has removed a conclusion he may not like, but which is a clear deduction from the quote immediately above which comes from the 2003 MSIC evaluation itself. If the evaluation says that injecting room clients are injecting higher doses of heroin, and drug dealers are at the station opposite (as per p 147) then the clear deduction is that the drug dealers opposite the injecting room, or elsewhere for that matter, are being paid more money for the extra heroin sold which is consumed in greater quantities in the injecting room. Please leave the statement where it is - it is an absolutely correctly-deducted statement.

5. The removal of the statement about the station opposite the MSIC being a site for drug dealers and loitering is unconscionable and is an act of vandalism once again. Rakkar, please desist.

Here is the evidence with quotes directly from the 2003 evaluation.

“We’ve got problems at the entrance [of the train station] with people just hanging around. We’ve got members of the public complaining about drug users, homeless and drunks hanging around the entrance on Darlinghurst Road.” (City Rail worker, 12 months interview – p 146)”

“The police who participated in the twelve-month discussion group commented that they had received complaints from the public and the City Rail staff about the increase in the number of people loitering at the train station. They noted that, while other factors, such as police operations, would have contributed to the increase in loitering outside the train station, there was a notable correlation between the loitering and the MSIC opening times.” (MSIC Evaluation p 146)

“The increase in loitering was considered to be a displacement of existing users AND DEALERS (my emphasis) from other locations.” (MSIC Evaluation p 146)

“The train station never featured as a meeting place before. It used to be Springfield Mall and Roslyn Street.” (Police 12 month interview – p 147)

Rakkar, if you make changes like this again I am going to take this further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minphie (talk • contribs) 11:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC) -- Minphie, First, please be civil to me and assume that my edits are in good faith, as per wikipedia policies, WP:AGF & WP:CIV. Threatening to "take this further" doesn't make it sound like you're trying to reach a consensus here. I also moved the opening sentence that had just been written into the safer injection sites as it pertained only to SIFs. I'll have a look at the rest later.--rakkar (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Safe_injection_site

A Balanced introduction
Rakkar has relocated a general criticism of Harm Reduction, making it a specific criticism of SIFs particularly, when in fact the citation given as AN EXAMPLE of the criticism is used by Rakkar to justify removing the general criticism. This is simply not valid.

The rationale for moving it back is that the statement is manifestly general to ANY harm reduction for illegal activities, and drug-taking happens to be just one eminent example which is the most visible example. Not only SIFs are seen as promoting illegal behaviours, but also needle exchanges attract this same criticism, heroin prescription programs and other non-drug issues.

So Rakkar's moving this to the SIF section because the example citation focuses on SIFs in particular could appear as a cynical attempt to rid the introduction of its balance. But balance is surely what Wikipedia idealises, as does any mature discussion.

I will happily add INCB citations for other harm reduction approaches which it deems as promoting drug use, but it will only add to the bulk of the footnotes when one example suffices. Minphie (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Minphie, I'm going to revert the changes, because I think it worked quite elegantly as an introduction to criticisms of SIFs. Can I suggest rewriting the intro with a more general focus, and quoting sources that refer to Harm Min in general rather than just the MISC.--rakkar (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Shortening
I have started trying to shorten this article as the Safer injecting facility sub-heading was becoming longer than the Safer injecting facility article itself. I've tried to write a succint summary of the criticisms of SIFs and moved the longer discussion to the Safer injecting facility article. Minphie, all your content is there, could we resume the discussion about what to include there? --rakkar (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rakkar has removed the general criticism of harm reduction, refashioning it into a criticism of one intervention only. But of course the criticism is used generally, and therefore must be entered in the general introduction.

Further, Rakkar has written a totally uncited and incorrect statement alleging that Drug Free Australia and Drug Free America wish to lock up users or have them thrown into compulsory treatment. While compulsory treatment is one option that Drug Free Australia recommends on the basis of Sweden's success, (as is explained in the United Nations Office of Drug Control booklet on their successful policies), the uncited nature of the comment indicates that there is no evidence that either organisation advocates for such responses to the exclusion of a whole range of other earlier interventions. It is a clear and spiteful distortion to say that these organisations just want to lock users up and there is no place for such subjective provocation in Wikipedia.

Minphie (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

--

Minphie, I haven't removed anything - everything you wrote is now located at Safe injection site. This article is a brief overview of Harm Mimisation, and detailed critical and supporting arguments are now located on the new page. I'm happy to continue working on it over there. As for the new paragraph I wrote, I didn't at all intend for it to be a one sided criticism of DFA, I intended it to be a fair summary of their position. Please feel free to rewrite the paragraph and outline what anti-harm-minimisation organisations believe should be done instead. We should just keep the content brief on this page. I haven't vandalised anything and would be happy to discuss this with other editors. Appealing to "administrators" is a last resort, and wikipedia policy directs editors to make a thorough effort to resolve these things by consensus. Sadly, we have only been discussing it between ourselves and it has descended into a fairly adversarial process. I'm going to revert the changes back to my edits from earlier today as they are not vandalism, all your content is intact on a more relevant page. If you are unhappy with my synopsis of criticisms of harm min, please re word it, but I think brevity is the key. Save the details for the main article. --rakkar (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC) -- I'd like to suggest the following plan for shortening & avoiding revert wars: --rakkar (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC) --
 * The opening paragraph: We keep it as the current three line structure, and if you could write the third line outlining objections to the approach. Can you find a source that talks about general objections to the philosophy, rather than just SIFs? For example, United Nations International Narcotics Control Board only objects to a few harm min programs relating to drugs, not the philosophy in general. If you look at the other two references in the opening paragraph, you'll see that they are broad in scope.
 * Syringe exchange and related programs: Currently there are two paragraphs describing NSPs and four criticising them. The article is too long, when editing the whole article, this warning is up the top- "Warning: This page is 45 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." Can you condense the four paragraphs into one? If readers want more, they can go to the main article.
 * Safe injection sites: Again, let's discuss the content later, but I feel this section needs to be condensed. I have replicated your content on the main SIFs article and we can carry on the discussion there. Could you shorten your content down into one paragraph again? And I feel that in it's current form, it's too focused on the Sydney MISC, could it be more about SIFs in general?

I've been waiting for Minphie comment on the proposed changes above, but it's been 8 days without a reply so I've made the edits myself. If other editors don't like them, feel free to rewrite them, however, the aim of the exercise to keep them short :) --rakkar (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement of evidenced and factual statement on HR critics
I have reinstated a statement about critics of harm reduction removed by other contributors on the grounds that the citation only covered drug use (so I have added a citation on HR and illegal prostitution) or that the statement about the community not accepting various behaviours or actions through their legislators was not evidenced. Of course the latter rationale for removal shows a clear ignorance of the meaning of government, which is foundationally and definitionally by the will of the people or for some nations ostensibly by the will of God which in turn determines the will of the people. It is the most basic concept of government that if it does not rule according to the will of the people it will be removed and replaced by one that does. So the statement about critics is entirely factual and correct. There is a possibility that other editors may not like the fact, but this is never a reason for removal of a factual statement. Minphie (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that every monarch by divine right would disagree with your "basic concept of government". The idea of "the people" getting to choose their government is, in fact, a rather new idea in human history.
 * However, the major issue here is proving that someone else has published this specific opinion. If you can show reliable sources that explicitly connect harm reduction (not just drug use) to these ideas, then we can probably find a good way to present that.  If not, though, then we shouldn't include it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Minphie, I've made a few changes, to your edits, and I've done them one edit at a time. Hopefully this will help to avoid block reverting.


 * Heroin maintenance programs: We discussed this in January & March 2010 on talk page - you commented noted that "It should be noted that until there is a peer-reviewed journal article on the outcomes (psycho-social or whatever else) on this project, we cannot take the private views of a staff member as guidance for Wikipedia. Presently, there is no journal article on outcomes, only Strang's financial comparisons in a media release." As you noted, the article is more subjective qualitative evidence than a proper assessment. It also means that we shouldn't synthesise conclusions from the figures noted in there as that would be WP:OR. why not find some of the good evidence you mentioned from John Strang?


 * Syringe exchange and related programs: Firstly, I changed the location of your reference as the link you provided was dead.

--rakkar (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Also, I'm not sure you can cast Harm Min initiatives like the MISC as clearly "undemocratic". Harm Minimisation doesn't equate to drug legalisation. As the "2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: first results." shows, there isn't much of a mandate for legalisation. However, in 2007 support for SIFs is almost at 50% (page43), up 10% from 2004 figures. People can see that methadone, NSPs, SIFs etc... are not explicitly promoting the free use of drug. Also, as a measure of the democratic support for MSIC, see this page, MSIC Supporters, for a list of democratically elected representatives who support the operation of the centre. The Mayor of Sydney & the State Member (moot difference, I know :) was elected with a platform of support for the MSIC. So was the Federal Member for Sydney. Many (all?) of the churches in the local area involved in providing support to disadvantaged groups support it. A large number of professional organisations support the service.
 * Syringe exchange and related programs: I though that the quotes you had used appeared somewhat out of context with the page referenced. Page 149 said that NSPs had an at least modest effect on BBV infection rates if done properly.  The line multiple studies show that NSEs do not reduce transmission of HCV went on to explain that this was the case because injectors were not getting alcohol swabs, cotton, sterile water etc.  I've updated the article to reflect this.

I know it's not clear cut and there are many who oppose harm min, but it think there is enough demonstrated support for the running of the MSIC to be within community expectations.

--rakkar (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of heroin trial financial figures
Rakkar has removed factual and correct statements on the costs of the British heroin trial, citing that a previous discussion about the reliability of an opinion by a nurse, or some such other employee in the trial, regarding the source of heroin user income, was not valid grounds for Wikipedia evidence. However Rakkar has removed the financial figures which are undisputed, most definitiely not opinion in this case, and are otherwise well-evidenced elsewhere, although we note that the CONCLUSIONS from these figures have not been submitted yet for peer-review. Of course there is no reason to doubt the figures, which any peer-reviewer would accept before scrutinising what John Strang and his team wish to extrapolate from these figures. Our statement does not represent any extrapolation beyond the facts of the figures themselves and therefore cannot be disputed. Minphie (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Better clarity on needle exchange section
1. Rakkar replaced a quote from the IOM 2006 review with his own interpretation, which said less than the direct quote I had written into the text. The IOM conclusion was not just that there was insufficient quality evidence to make highly reliable conclusions about needle exchange, but for the 14 or so studies that did pass muster for the IOM, when balanced against each other they remained INCONCLUSIVE on NSP effect. Rakkar's removal of text relating to the inconclusive nature of the acceptable studies is not permissible. Also changing the object of the IOM study on this point from "HIV' to the much braoder 'BBV' is inaccurate and changes the intent of their conclusion.

2. I have also ensured that Rakkar's paraphrasing of the IOM quote re NSP and HCV is rendered without his interpretation, which is not true to their statement. The IOM note that the failure of NSP regarding HCV transmission is 'attributed to' various reasons which they quote from other reviewers. This is of course speculation on the part of other reviewers, and the IOM record of the fact that they attribute this to these various other reasons does not give the weight of IOM authority to those speculations. Indeed, Australia has NSP supply regarding clean needles which is at saturation point - they cannot give away any more, and they have extensive education on sharing the rest of injecting equipment yet they still have HCV rates like anywhere else that doesn't have NSPs. There is at least some anecdotal likelihood that HCV transmission is happening with NSP-provided needles which certain users might otherwise have not used if they were not already intoxicated with other illicits first. Minphie (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Steinberger has reverted my factual and fully-cited text to a sanitized and incorrectly interpreted version of previous text written by Figs Might Ply, who thinks remarkably like the holidaying Rakkar who worked on this paragraph back in March/April. The IOM report cited is NOT saying that no assessment of needle programs can be made at all from the available studies. They cite 14 studies (case controlled. ecological etc) with SUFFICIENT SCIENTIFIC RIGOUR to make conclusions about the effectiveness of needle exchanges. Indeed the World Health Organization's paper on needle exchange effectiveness by Wodak and Cooney did claim a conclusive case for their effectiveness from much the same studies, but unfortunately could only do so by misrepresenting the conclusions of a number of the studies. But because these studies have MIXED RESULTS (NOT INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS FOR EACH STUDY as Figs Might Ply's text might possibly imply) they give an inconclusive result which FAILS to demonstrate the effectiveness of needle exchanges. The text by Figs Might Ply suggests something quite otherwise by its use of words, thus misrepresenting the IOM. Figs Might Ply wrote that "the current evidence has not yet delivered a conclusive assessment of the programs" which is really only saying what the previous part of the same sentence had said - that more studies need to be done before a conclusive result might be possible - however Fogs Might Ply's sentence assumes that the results of these many studies SHOULD BE or WILL BE conclusive either for or against needle exchanges, which may never be the case. The many new studies may only give more mixed results which would then yield the conclusion that despite sufficient studies the results are STILL inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of needle exchange. We must be careful not to say something that the IOM hasn't said, and my more literal rendering of the IOM statement is more correct. Maybe the direct quote from the IOM would best be placed into the text and I am open to that discussion.Minphie (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Greater accuracy on British heroin trial
Having noted that prostitution in England can be legal within certain strictures, I have attempt to reflect that some heroin users funding their habit from prostitution are not doing it illegally, and this may not all be an added burden to the public. If heroin users are street prostitutes then they are funding their heroin habits illegally, but if operating from their own home with no other shared occupancy they are procuring it legally. Of course legal prostitution would seem to be less likely than the illegal for heroin users. Minphie (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance seems difficult
Looking over the evidence provided in the overly extensive "criticism" section attached to each drug initiative seems to reveal three groups of evidence. Spurious conclusions, outdated reports and papers from small organisations with little or no support from wider literature.

Example, the argument in the opening sentence, "concerns about [it] sending a message of sanctioned acceptance of ... behaviours which the community ... do not accept" is rather speculative. There is huge support in the Australian population for the idea of NSPs (67%) and SIFs(49%). Of the other 33% & 51%, there is no break down of those who have no opinion and those who oppose. It's possible to oppose drug use and support these measures as a public health measure. I do, and I'd say that many Australians do too.

As I see it, there is a problem with two opposing views on responses drug use that haven't been reconciled. The vast majority of scientific research supports harm min programs like Methadone, SIFs and NSPs. Then there is the "Abstinence Only" lobby, who believe that Harm Min is morally/ethically unsound. It looks like the abstinence only view has informed the content of the criticism paragraphs. Evidence abounds that NSPs, SIFs, etc are an effective but small part of drug policy. They should be specifically targeted towards at risk populations, and remain so.

So, ranting aside, how do we work this out? I believe that we need to re-examine all evidence given in this article and weed out the spurious and the unsupported assertions.--Figs Might Ply (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful to find a couple of top-quality scholarly sources (books, maybe?), and to structure the article around that. Right now, there's too much reliance on sources that amount to "Last night, some politician read a speech that said..." or "A politically motivated poll produced the following meaningless numbers..."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Figs Might Ply, I don't think that it is as clear cut as you make it out to be. There are legitimate concerns regarding "controlled addiction" and managed addiction etc. For example many heroin addicts are not employed and the supply of methadone can significantly boost their weekly income, and it is often resold on the street. Also heroin addicts often use illicit drugs on top of methadone, although there is evidence of reduced illicit drug use. Granted there is evidence of benefit in some outcomes but there are two sides to the debate and it is a hugely controversial area. Also a lot of it is bureaucracies and governments chasing statistics of "more addicts in treatment", "drug related crimes reduced" etc so it is not entirely a health initiative unless it is the health and wellfare of gov stats we are talking about. Abstinence is of course the ultimate harm reduction strategy, although admittedly this is not always possible and other harm reduction strategies have merit. There is more grey than black and white. As has been suggested, improved sourcing and following WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV should help improve this article and resolve disputes.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement about Amundsen Study on Needle Exchange Questionable
Steinberger has disputed the statement about the Amundsen study (Needle and Syringe Programs section), saying that the methodology of this study has been criticized, citing a document in Swedish which cannot be checked by an English-speaking contributor.

His statement was:


 * Although that study have been criticized for having a flawed methodology, for example it failed to recognize that both Norway and Sweden did have needle exchange programs for a large proportion of its intravenous drug users.

I have taken the liberty of e-mailing Dr Kerstin Kall in Sweden. Dr. Kerstin Käll holds an MD and PhD as well as a Specialist in Psychiatry which she received in 1996. She has practiced as a clinical psychiatrist working with dependence issues and since 1998 has been in charge of drug rehabilitation at the Clinic for Dependency Disorders at the University Hospital in Linköping, Sweden. Her reply to my question on the cited study was:

Hello (Minphie)

I have missed that comment. The truth is as follows:

In Sweden, there are so far (2010) only two needle exchange services, both in the very South of Sweden (Malmö and Lund). We have injection drug users in all major cities of Sweden and none of these except those in Malmö and Lund do not have access to needle exchange services. In fact they can not buy needles and syringes in pharmacies either, since you need a prescription for that. It is now free for all communes to start needle exchange services and within short there will probably be one in Stockholm.

Best wishes

Kerstin Käll

With the reality that there is very little needle exchange in Sweden, (quite the contrary to what Steinberger appears to allege) and with the Amundsen study asserting that "in Sweden there was no legal access to drug injection equipment except for two NEPs in low HIV prevalence areas" (p 256) Steinberger's charge appears misguided. Perhaps this discussion can progress if Steinberger is able to translate the Swedish criticism of Amundsen into English, ensuring that the translation is correct, and then any issues can be checked against her study which I have filed. Minphie (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Minphie, can you clarify? Quite literally, the email says that there are IDUs all over Sweden and that they all have access to NSPs except those in Malmö and Lund.

--Figs Might Ply (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Minphi wanted a translation of the source SPRUTBYTESFRÅGAN - En granskning av en forskningsgenomgång om effekter av sprutbytesprogram:


 * "... Av de elva studier som anförs [av Käll et al] är det bara en som försöker att jämföra effekterna av sprutbytesprogram med andra interventioner. Det är en svagt underbyggd och metodologiskt mycket tveksam norsk undersökning av Ellen Amundsen et al. (2003) som försöker påvisa att hiv-test och information är bättre än sprutbytesprogram genom en jämförelse mellan Sverige, Norge och Danmark. Ingen av de andra undersökningarna har som ambition att jämföra sprutbytesprogram med alternativa interventioner."


 * "Of the eleven studies cited [by Käll et al], the only one who tries to compare the effects of syringe exchange programs with other interventions. That is a weakly founded and methodologically doubtful Norwegian study by Ellen Amundsen et al. (2003) that tries to demonstrate that HIV testing and information is better than syringe exchange programs through a comparison between Sweden, Norway and Denmark. None of the other tests have the ambition to compare the syringe exchange program with alternative interventions."


 * Fruther down:


 * "Författarna anger följande slutsats:
 * A comparison of HIV prevention strategies in Denmark, Norway and Sweden suggests that a high level of HIV counselling and testing might be more effective than legal access to needles and syring/needle exchange programmes. Sweden and Norway, with higher levels of HIV counselling and testing, have had significantly lower incidence rates of HIV among IDUs than Denmark where there was legal access to needles and syringes and a lower level of HIV counselling and testing. In Sweden there was no legal access to drug injection equipment (Amundsen et al., 2003, s256).


 * Men jämförelsen haltar i högsta grad. I Norge finns både möjlighet att köpa sprutor på apotek och tillgång till sprutbytesprogram. I Sverige har omkring en sjundedel av landets injektionsmissbrukare tillgång till rena sprutor, hiv-information och testning via sprutbytesprogrammen i Malmö och Lund. Författarna väger inte in hiv-spridningen bland andra riskgrupper och hur dessa påverkar gruppen injektionsmissbrukare i respektive land. Inte heller tas hänsyn till skillnader mellan länderna avseende vårdsituationen, traditioner i samband med injicerandet, boendesituationen för injektionsmissbrukare – faktorer som i andra undersökningar visat sig ha stor betydelse för riskbeteenden. Det finns i författarnas material inte underlag för slutsatsen att hiv-information och testning skulle vara mer effektiv än sprutbytesprogram. Det är märkligt att studien är inkluderad i en genomgång som har den angivna ambitionen att enbart ta med högklassiga vetenskapliga studier som mäter effekter och har en kontrollgrupp (vilket inte är fallet här).


 * "The authors indicate the following conclusion:


 * A comparison of HIV prevention strategies in Denmark, Norway and Sweden suggests that a high level of HIV counselling and testing might be more effective than legal access to needles and syring/needle exchange programmes. Sweden and Norway, with higher levels of HIV counselling and testing, have had significantly lower incidence rates of HIV among IDUs than Denmark where there was legal access to needles and syringes and a lower level of HIV counselling and testing. In Sweden there was no legal access to drug injection equipment (Amundsen et al., 2003, s256).


 * But it's a very lame comparison. In Norway there is the ability to buy syringes at pharmacies and [IDU have] access to needle exchange program. In Sweden, about one-seventh of the country's intravenous drug users access to clean syringes, HIV information and testing via syringe exchange programs in Malmo and Lund. The authors do not consider the HIV spread among other risk groups and their impact on group of injecting drug users in the respective country. Nor does it reflect the differences between countries in respect to the heathcare situation, traditions associated with injecting, living conditions for injecting drug users - factors that in other studies have proven to have significant effects on risk behaviors. The the authors' material does not support the conclusion that HIV information and testing would be more effective than syringe exchange programs. It is curious that the study is included in a review which has the stated ambition to bring only high-quality scientific studies measuring impact and have a control group (which is not the case here)."

Steinberger (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Harm Reduction and Community Non-Approval of Illicit Drug Use
WhatamIdoing deleted text which is definitionally correct, questioning whether Harm Reduction has anything to do with people's acceptance or otherwise of illicit drug use. This is a clear misreading of what the sentence says, because it posits absolutely nothing about the community's acceptance or otherwise of harm reduction measures, which are quite a separate issue to their acceptance or otherwise of illicit drug use, which is what the evidenced statement addresses. Minphie (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

'No empirical evidence' of HR concern by critics
I have removed the statement that "There is no available empirical evidence to support this argument" - the argument being that HR may create perceptions that lead to increased drug use - on the grounds that there is empirical evidence that suggests that it can. Taking cannabis decriminalization as a harm reduction measure:
 * In 1975 California introduced a law that classified minor marijuana offences as misdemeanors. A survey took place 11 months before and 10 months after.  Following the change, in the 18-29 age group, the increase in marijuana use was 15 percentage points.  Adult use of marijuana rose 7 percentage points.  3% began using marijuana as a direct result of the change.   The proportion who described themselves as current users rose 5 percentage points.  And this after 10 months.  (See Cuskey Berger and Richardson (1978) Contemporary Drug Problems 7(4) 491-532).  The US Household Surveys show an increase in marijuana use during these years, but far more moderate than the sharp increases experienced in California.
 * Oregon changed its laws in 1973, with surveys of the use of marijuana at one and four years after the change. In the 18-29 age group, the increase was 12% immediately after the change.  There was a rise of 6% in the overall population immediately after the change.  In 1974 46% of 18-29 year olds stated that they had ever used drugs while in 1976 it had risen sharply to 62%.  (See Cuskey Berger and Richardson (1978) Contemporary Drug Problems 7(4) 491-532 and also Maloff D. (1981) Contemporary Drug Problems 10(3) 307-322).  These increases are further contrasted with the US National figures from the Household surveys which showed no appreciable increase during the years of these two studies.

The National Household Surveys in Australia conducted between 1988 and 1995 show that the ACT, with liberalisation in 1993, has had permanent and sharp increases, and SA, with liberalisation in 1987 also showed sharp increases in use. www.health.gov.au/pubhlth/publicat/document/mono31.pdf Added to this is the injecting room experience in Sydney, Australia where p 59 of the 2003 evaluation document, found at the Sydney MSIC website, suggested that the extremely high overdose numbers were due to more heroin being used in the room. Minphie (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Unformatted contribution
I've deleted the following contribution by as it is unformatted and not worked into the structure of the article. I dump it below so there is the possibility to salvage useful information or whatnot. Steinberger (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Harm Reduction

Rehabilitation programs have, until now, predominantly used abstinence as their major goal for treatment. Even the laws in the U.S. regarding alcohol and drug use are characterized by prohibition and abstinence. Even though alcohol remains legal for those over the age of 21, there still exist ‘zero-tolerance’ mandates for underage drinking (MacMaster, 2004). Although prevention and rehabilitation has been the dominant policy for most of this century, there continues to be a significant rise in the number of people serving time for drug and alcohol related offenses (more than 1,000 percent between 1980 and 1997)(MacMaster, 2004). The critical thinker would be inclined to ask why this is so, it is evident that the way we are treating the problem of alcohol dependence is not working for the most part.

Harm reduction is increasingly used within substance abuse practices and was introduced in the 1980s with regards to lessening the spread of viral diseases, namely, HIV. Harm reduction was defined in 1993 at an International Conference on Reduction of Alcohol Related Harm by Ernst Buning. Buning stated, “If a person is not willing to give up his/her drug use we should assist them in reducing harm to himself or herself and others” (Cameron, 2003). Harm is identified as any detrimental alcohol-related consequences; examples of this could be blackouts, DUI’s, family conflict, health problems, etc. A common term associated with harm reduction is controlled drinking, which entails continued use of alcohol but under controlled circumstances and quantities. Harm reduction involves educating people about their drug use and teaching ways in which to reduce harm caused to themselves or others by their drug/alcohol use.

Harm reduction is a conceptual framework that provides for individuals willing to be engaged in services, but not immediately seeking abstinence. Practitioners using this perspective develop interventions that reduce drug/alcohol related harm without necessarily promoting abstinence as the only solution.

In 1992, Prochaska introduced a model for the process of change. The model of change involves different stages of which a person will go through when making any type of change in their life. The five stages of change are:
 * 1) Precontemplation; during this stage there is no intention to change. This is 	often due to a lack of awareness. A client may attend substance abuse services because of outside influences, however the individual resists recognizing that there is a problem.
 * 2) Contemplation; an awareness of the problem develops at this point of the process. The individual begins to consider that he/she may want to overcome the problem, but has not yet made the commitment to act.
 * 3) Preparation; this stage combines intention to make a change with behavioral 	modification plans, the individual has decided to act and makes plans to do so in the near future.
 * 4) Action; at this point in the process the individual incorporates actual changes in behavior and surroundings to overcome their problem.
 * 5) Maintenance; the behavior change enacted in the action phase is maintained and the individual works to prevent relapse (MacMaster, 2004).

An individual attempting to incorporate change in their life may sway from one phase to another in either direction as they progress or relapse through the stages of change. Rather than viewing these individuals as treatment failures or questioning the usefulness of substance abuse programs, it is of vital importance to provide services relevant to the individual’s needs. It is estimated that 85 to 90 percent of addicted people seeking the assistance of substance abuse programs are not yet in the action stage (Fromm & Orrick, 2004). Total abstinence, which is what many existing programs insist, occurs at the action phase of change.

Many counselors have dedicated their research to the field of rehabilitation. The main focus is to discover whether or not harm reduction has a validated position within drug and alcohol programs. Geubaly (2005) asks in his article whether or not attempts at moderate drinking by patients with alcohol dependency are a form of Russian roulette. Geubaly reports that it appears to be situational dependent. The level of dependency plays a large role in predicting the ability of a person to continue controlled drinking habits. Socioeconomic status, age, and gender also have an effect on the ability to continue controlled drinking. The more money someone has is typically indicative of the type of social network that is available to them, the stronger the social network, the more of a chance the person has to continue controlled drinking. Younger individuals were more able than older people to engage in controlled drinking as well as women in comparison to men. MacMaster (2004) has already identified harm reduction as a substantial form of therapy and explores ways in which to incorporate it into social work practice in his article entitled “Harm Reduction: A New Perspective on Substance Abuse Services”. MacMaster advises that it is important to meet the client where they are in the process of change and to carefully monitor their progress towards change. Cameron explores the importance of listening and meeting the client where they stand instead of forcing them to conform to constructs they may not be ready for (2003). The new “Alcohol Reduction Strategy for England” is discussed by John Foster as well as the reasons for implicating these strategies. England has discovered that attempts at abstinence regarding alcohol have been in vain and educating the general public regarding avenues of harm reduction has shown more promising results (2004). Neil McKeganey (2004) explores the perspectives of drug users and what they are personally looking for when they seek out treatment. McKeganey reports that many drug users are unaware of the services available to them and because of this they have the tendency to think that abstinence is the only road to change. He concludes that clients should be educated about the services available so that they can participate in the type of rehabilitation best suited for their individual needs. An interesting article written by Kim Fromm explores a new movement taken by colleges of using harm reduction when counseling college students. Fromm states that when a ‘just-say-no’ approach is not applicable to college students who have already made the choice to drink alcohol “a “harm reduction” or “risk reduction” approach holds much promise to successfully minimize the direct effects of heavy alcohol consumption” (2004). These articles are a great beginning to discovery of what the literary world is saying about harm reduction.

It is crucial that we decide what methods are useful in treating people who use drugs and alcohol because drug and alcohol use is one of the leading problems in our society. There are thousands of drug and alcohol related deaths each year and we have not succeeded in reducing these numbers (Geubaly, 2005).

Tobacco, Sex and Self-mutilation
"Harm reduction" as a concept have for me always been something exclusively associated with illicit drugs. Sure, there is ways to reduce harm in other areas, but are they in the scoop of "harm reduction"? Non of the sources used speak seem to speak of harm reduction in that sense, so it might be OR. Steinberger (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will have to correct myself to drugs in general, including tobacco (EMCDDA talks of it in their monograph). But still sex (when it does not involve IDU prostitutes) and self-mutilation seems to be WP:OR. Input? Steinberger (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Support for Safe Injecting Sites a Minority View World Wide
Steinberger, you are now insisting on a novel reason for deleting my text from the Harm Reduction page re SISs. Undue weight, you have averred, should not be given to a minority view, and it seems that you are wanting to delete this section on that basis. But SISs are most demonstrably the world's minority view in drug policy. (Go to the Safe Injection Site: Discussion for evidence on who has the majority). We of course can be sure that you are not deleting anything due to your erroneous assumptions of 'synthesis' or 'original research' because the reference listed after the first word 'Critics' list the Taskforce and other references, all published, which give these critiques. The text is now best left alone.Minphie (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Steinberger, I am replacing the text on Safe Injecting Sites because the concerns expressed by Figs Might Ply on the Safe Injection Site Discussion page have clearly been demonstrated to:
 * 1) not engage the Drug Free Australia criticisms of SISs in any defensible way ie they don't even address the arguments in the Opposition section
 * 2) contain irrelevant arguments, as outlined in that Discussion, which address issues others than those discussed in the Opposition section
 * 3) be an appeal to extraneous positives for the MSIC which Figs Might Ply appears to think should negate any criticism whatsoever of the MSIC.  See the full discussion again as to why this is indefensible in any forum, not the least Wikipedia
 * 4) based on cited evidence which is speculative and demonstrably in error
 * 5) have not engaged the citations re Vancouver's Insite, or European consumption rooms, despite these being summarily deleted for no given reason.
 * 6) be totally incorrect re Drug Free Australia publications (in what I am supposing is an assertion) that only peer-reviewed publications can be cited, rather than an organisation's publications (sent to every politician in Australia, used by Parliamentary inquiries etc) per se.

Given that this section on the harm reduction page references the work of critics of safe injection sites which cover Australia, Canada and Europe, there is no case for original research that can be made.Minphie (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Read WP:Citation; References are not supposed to include an assortment of sources in one reference. There is nothing wrong in having multiple references after one statement, one for each source.
 * 2) As pointed out in the header of this discussion page, this subject is within WP:MED. The standards of sources should be higher here then in more trivial subjects. See: WP:MEDRS So, propaganda papers from DFA should not be treated as equal to more reputable articles or reviews, although there is no policy forbidding their use.
 * 3) Don't selectively pick what you what to present from sources, and by so implying that reviews you cite are more critical then they are. For example, noting that the Canadian expert panel feel doubts about the validity of self-reported decreases in risk behavior, while omitting that they feel reluctance towards the mathematical models projection "only" one saved life as well.
 * 4) Note that what we are warring about was presented as evidence at WP:NORN and was deemed to fail WP:NOR. Don't put it back without addressing the issues. Steinberger (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Steinberger, very happy to create separate citations and have changed these, however beyond that I see no need to yield to desperate obstructions.
 * 1) safe injecting sites are not medical facilities nor are they in any shape or form dealing with modern medicine.  Heroin is specifically rejected for medical use by the International Conventions against illicit drug use.  Heroin used in the rooms is not legalized as medicine either.  So your quibble about this being a medical article is just more baseless obstructionism.  You also need, in assessing the quality of the evidences for SISs, to remember that the Sydney MSIC evaluations are by and large not peer-reviewed.
 * 2) I have changed my description of the Canadian Expert Advisory Committee to include their own words.
 * 3) I am happy to accept your concern about caution re 'lives saved' mathematical modelling, and have modified the statement which will nevertheless remain because this is one of their conclusions.
 * 4) You are referencing my text here on Safe Injection Sites and there has been no such discussion on WP:NORN.  This is another baseless obstruction.
 * 5) Go to SIS Discussion page for the credentials of the Drug Free Australia analysts who created our materials. They are authors of multiple peer-reviewed research articles or well-attested professionals.  This negates any assertions you make about the lack of credibility for the Drug Free Australia publications.
 * 6) The formatting of citations is not a Wikipedia criteria for deleting slabs of text off the page.  These are things I can do at my leisure if some other kind soul doesn't come and do it for me beforehand, as Wikipedia suggests they might.Minphie (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Stop writing in the references. They are exclusively for sources. Didn't you click on that link?
 * 2) See at the header in this discussion page: This article is assessed as mid-importance within WP:MED. It is within scoop of WP:MEDRS. Don't bundle sources of different quality together. Disclose when you are quoting problematic sources. Moreover, "Medically supervised injection centers" as it is called in Sidney are very mush medical/healthcare facilities. Further, any drug on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs can be used medically, including heroin.
 * 3) Do not falsely imply Insite experts review as if it would be negative. Do not imply anything that is not explicitly stated in the sources. That is WP:OR.
 * 4) It have been discussed at NORN, look at the diffs I provided there. (eg, this) Steinberger (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Steinberger, this article is not a pure medical article, infact it is not even 50 percent medical article in my view. It has significant, political, social as well as medical implications and involvement. WP:MEDRS, only applies for when talking about specific medical statements. Currently I feel the article does not reflect the controversies and criticisms of harm reduction fairly. Instead of mass deleting large additions of sourced content added by Minphie, based on "writing in the references", failure of attributing who the source is from etc etc, why don't you make those changes instead of mass deleting? I do agree that Miniphie's editing is not perfect but I also am concerned that you may not understand WP:NPOV and do not understand WP:OWNERSHIP of this article as well as the WP:TRUTH. Why is this article so biased in favour of harm reduction when there is extensive controversies throughout the world? Can anyone enlighten me? I do not know who is most or least to blame for this but the article is not balanced.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On a further point, I am concerned to see an RfC has been filed and I have expressed additional concerns on that RfC.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you have looked at his actual edits and looked at his actual sources? Then you would have noticed that WP:RS in general was a question to. The discussed section was like: There are critics(four links) that point to evaluations.(going back to the four links, one link, a blog, does in fact mention some of the evaluations to come) The most evaluated...(no sources) The cost of those are...(source to support the figures, although in this context of "criticizers" they should also say that that is a high cost as that is what is implied) One life is saved there (link to a expert review, they openly doubt the models used witch is disclosed) less then a life are saved there (unattributed and from a partisan evaluation, they have no doubt in their models, although other have - witch is not disclosed) And so it goes.
 * I can agree that there is a slight slant now, omitting the opposition that exists and their arguments. However, look at the history and you will find that it was even worse before the war started and way worse from a wiki-policy standpoint when Minphie have his way. Steinberger (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * REAL Women of Canada seems to be notable enough for a criticisms section as it has its own wikipedia article and is a non-governmental organisation (NGO), although admittedly I am sure better quality sources could be found. Drug Free Australia document seemed comprehensive and from my brief look the organisation seems to be notable. This source, is a government source but was part of the revert, certainly a reliable source for a criticisms section. This source, is another reliable source but was also reverted. I have got about half way through reading the large revert of text you performed and much of it seemed to be fairly cited. For example, one source did say it costs $3,000,000 per year for their injection room and they also estimated that they save just one life per year. That is a huge amount of money and not statistically significant outcome, 1 life saved, a very valid criticism, why did you revert it? It was not WP:SYN or original research and Health Canada is not a partisan source as claimed. Almost all sources it can be argued are partisan, the idea of WP:NPOV is to report all of the notable viewpoints and allow the facts to speak for themselves. I could think of a lot of drug and alcohol services who could do immense benefit to society with 3 million dollars.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should not be mass reverting these content additions but rather if other views exist then add them for balance. If the content section gets too big then we can always split it off into a new article called harm reduction controversy.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First, one fault above. This is the partisan source that requires attribution - Health Canada is fine with me and I have never said anything else.
 * Second, I still argue that there was a synthesis. Such as when cost-inefficiency is implied by letting the "facts speak for themselves" by stating cost and lives saved - refresh your knowledge of WP:NOR if you doubt me. In fact, there are lots of other benefits that effect cost-effectiveness then saved lives that where omitted and both Sidney and Vancouver] seem to be cost-effective. In the latter case even according to the source he used for the cost figure. Steinberger (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If Health Canada is fine with you why did you revert it? Why did you revert Drug Free Australia then if all that was required was mentioning who the source was from (attribution)? That is not synthesis, it is reporting two facts side by side from the same source. It was not coming up with a "new conclusion" based on combining two sources which is what a synthesis is. It reported the facts as described in this source that the service cost 3 million dollars and saved an estimated 1 life per year. If other benefits were ommitted then you could have expanded on the source to add balance.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So after "Critics of this intervention point to the same evaluations of safe injection sites" I would write that they are cost-efficient, or what? Steinberger (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines of, "However, other positive outcomes of the service were found,,," and add these outcomes from the Health Canada source. Something like that.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure exactly where the best location for that "However," text is within that paragraph.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems more cooperative than Minphie's edits, perhaps Minphie would agree to stand down for a while and let LG work out a solution with us if LG has the time to spare?--Figs Might Ply (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)