P & M work starting above ground:
https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/construction-to-reopen-portage-and-main-begins-this-week-1.7133119
Supervised consumption site chosen:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-supervised-consumption-site-disraeli-1.7400687
Good to see the P & m work beginning, despite the upcoming traffic issues. Sooner it gets started, the sooner it's gets completed.
The location of the supervised consumption site looks good. If you're going to have one of these it seems to make sense to tie it geographically into the area it's needed most, and link it with other social services. Apparently they help reduce mortality rates without increasing area crime, though there have been conflicting studies.
From The Lancet Oct 22, 2022:
The North American opioid crisis: how effective are supervised consumption sites?
Scientific evaluations of supervised consumption sites (SCSs) have yielded a large, consistent body of peer-reviewed research showing the effectiveness of these services in reducing various drug-related harms and generating other health and community bene- fits.1,2 We were therefore surprised to see the Commission led by Keith Humphreys and colleagues portray SCSs as a controversial intervention while exclusively citing non-peer- reviewed documents,3 and we would like to highlight a number of other inaccuracies.
First, the report misrepresents the evidence concerning SCSs as method- ologically weak.3 Although randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are consider- ed the gold standard for intervention research, RCTs of SCSs have been deemed unethical.1 Recommendations regarding SCSs must therefore rely on the best available evidence from alternative study designs, including quasi-experimental and observational studies.
Second, despite the claim of no evidence that accessing SCSs “lowers an individual’s risk of fatal overdose over time”,3 frequent SCS use was independently associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality in a prospective cohort study of people
who inject drugs in Vancouver, BC, Canada.4 The Commissioners also ignore multiple high-quality studies showing that SCSs are indeed associated with reduced community overdose rates.1,2 Of note, a seminal paper showed that following the establishment of Insite in Vancouver in 2003 (North America’s first SCS), the overdose mortality rate within 500 m of the facility significantly declined by 35%, compared with 9% in the rest of the city.5
Third, although the report correctly notes that opponents of SCSs often argue that these services promote crime and drug use, the authors overlook existing evidence suggesting an absence of such adverse effects. Indeed, quasi-experimental studies from various settings, including Canada, Australia, Spain, and the USA have documented either no increases or reductions in crime and public disorder outcomes after SCS implementation.1,2,6,7
More real-world evidence to guide the scale-up and optimisation of SCSs in the context of ongoing overdose crises is needed. However, the Commission’s characterisation of SCSs does not rest on a solid empirical foundation, suffers from errors and omissions of evidence, and should be disregarded.
Prev
Linear Mode
