Talk:Insite/Archive 2

Having not been able to edit Wikipedia for many months I return to find the entire section on the Expert Advisory Committee's review of the research removed - and on entirely subjective grounds which have no substance. Minphie (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The police crackdown ended some weeks into the Insite project. So it is not "continuing until this day". Any "reductions in crime, public drug use and litter" can there not be "accorded to policing". The authors of the original article makes other counter-argument to DFA's analysis. As does Paul Gallagher, that also notes that, unlike the original Lancet article, DFA's analysis has not gone trough peer-review. He also claims that DFA manipulated their input data for their analysis. . Steinberger (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On your point about the crackdown continuing, no lesser authority than the very same City of Vancouver evaluation cited by the Lancet authors here to demonstrate their false assertion says, "as of August 2004, the initiative is still ongoing, albeit in a slightly modified form.” That quote comes from a document published 1 September 2004. So there is no question that the crackdown was ongoing, and testimony from the senior police officer in charge of the crackdown personnel in the DTES is found in the international analysis document proving that it was still continuing in 2011. Furthermore, all of this evidence is in the letter to Lancet by Christian et al. and the international analysis document is directly referenced by Lancet. Minphie (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah. "This evaluation, sponsored by the Vancouver Agreement Coordination Unit, was designed to assess the impact of the Vancouver Police Department’s City-Wide Enforcement Team (CET) initiative implemented in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) area of the city during the during the months of April-September, 2003." "Concurrently with the above-noted activities, the VPD was also planning for the role that it would play in relation to the Supervised Injection Site that was to be opened in September, 2003 and operated by the VCHA. [...] An attempt was made to clarify the role of the police and the position was taken that the VPD would support the public health objectives of the SIS by encouraging intravenous drug users encountered outside of the site to use the SIS. It was also understood that the police were required to provide enforcement in a way that would “balance the need to ensure open and ready access to the SIS by drug users while ensuring that disorder, violent behaviour, and unlawful activities were kept under control”." Steinberger (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the authors in Lancet are wrong and already demonstrated to be wrong. The evaluation they cite to prove a six month-only crackdown does not support what they say, contradicting them. So the text must stand as is. As must the section on the Expert Advisory Committee's review of the research. Minphie (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong as I already have demonstrated. And also the word "crackdown" itself implies that it only is intermittent, if you don't believe me think about the law of diminishing returns or ask a police officer why that is. And how do you explain that the VPD had another crackdown in the district in 2009 if it, as you say, rather have been continuous since 2003? And for the fifty-sixth time: DFA's publications do not fit MEDRS, neither do really letters (comments) in peer-reviewed journals as they are not peer-reviewed. But I can take the latter. However, everything DFA must be chucked, the remaining EAC is obtuse and you should not censor the authors response. Steinberger (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Steinberger, first let me say that your English above is much improved. Appreciated. Now, can I take up the issue of the changed policing in the DTES step by step?

1. The City of Vancouver evaluation,here which you have cited, very definitively says that before the changes in policing commencing April 7 2003 the policing policy for the DTES was, "The long-standing policy of containment, within which VPD officers did very little proactive policing and responded to specific incidents on a reactive basis, did not require the VPD to take any risks and was viewed as maintenance of the status quo." (p 38) Contrast the new approach . . . "In March 2002, the District Two management team held a planning meeting to develop a strategy for addressing the issues in the DTES. During the meeting, a vision statement was adopted: “Our vision for District Two is communities where all citizens feel safe and secure”. Borrowing language from a “zero tolerance” policing philosophy, a statement was also developed that defined the Mission of District Two in terms of making the District an “intolerant environment for criminal activity”. (pp39-40) So we have a kind of ad hoc containment before 2003 (with a few isolated trials of the approach immediately before April 2003) and a kind of zero tolerance policing implemented April 2003. If, as the Lancet authors suggest, the crackdown ceased a few weeks after Insite opened, then the policing, which reduced indicators of drug use in the four city blocks by 46%, according to the CMAJ measurement applied by Wood, Kerr & Montaner,here the very same authors who in Lancet denied any knowledge of changes in policing, would have to go back to the containment policing described in the City of Vancouver evaluation. I will need evidence from you that indicates that this is what happened, because anything less than that will be policing changes which may have been entirely, mostly or partly responsible for the 35% reductions in mortality in the area close to Insite, a responsibility not entertained by the Lancet authors which thus destroys the Lancet study's conclusions.
2. Now the City of Vancouver evaluation document does say that "The purpose of this independent evaluation was to assess whether the CET had achieved its stated goals during the six month time period April 7-October 5, 2003 during which it was operational" but it goes on to immediately say, "and thereafter when the CET was replaced by a more permanent strategy of policing the DTES." There is no suggestion of a return to ad hoc containment and it most definitely asserts an ongoing initiative.
3. Page 49 of this same evaluation document, which was published September 1 2004, clearly says, "The initiative was first designed as a three-month project and was later extended for an additional three months after an early internal evaluation of the initiative had been conducted. In fact, as of August 2004, the initiative is still ongoing, albeit in a slightly modified form." The crackdown was most definitely ongoing, continuing to displace drug users (and as the international evaluation here on pages 7 & 8 points out) and their crime, litter, public drug use AND OVERDOSES from the area around Insite.
4. On page 50 this same evaluation document mentions the number of police involved in the CET. "To assemble the sixty police positions required, 20 were assigned from District Two (the “Core” officers) in which the DTES is situated and a total of forty additional positions were taken, through secondment . . ." How many police before the CET? Not many. How many between April and September 2003? 60 assigned police, in contrast to the handful pre-CET. How many after September 2003, when Insite opened? Well the international analysis on page 7 cites a statement from Vancouver Police stating that the number once Insite opened was . . . 60 officers.
5. Even a 2004 speech by Mayor Larry Campbell,here that the Lancet authors cite in a November 2011 response to the international analysis,here as supporting the notion of a discontinued crackdown says, “The city is continuing to work closely with police to focus on property crime, and the Vancouver Agreement has supported an enhanced enforcement initiative on problem premises in the DTES.” Compare p 58 regarding the chief operational objectives of the CET.

Of course the crackdown was ongoing. Don't try pretending it was otherwise when the evidence contradicting their defence comes from the police department itself AND the same evaluation documents cited by the Lancet authors to try and cover their errors. And why is the pre-Olympic crackdown relevant? They were targeting the homeless particularly. I don't see this as the aim of the CET initiative. Yes they may have cracked down harder on dealers than ever before - that does not mean that all these statements above are saying that they did little against dealers from September 2003 until the Olympics.

I am very happy to allow you a response before I start reinstating text. Minphie (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of CET/BET (City-wide Enforcement Team is now called Beat Enforcement Team) is not in any way to displace drug users and especially not the IDU sub-group (page 12). At the inception of CET/BET there was an effort to disrupt and disperse the drug markets (among other objectives) trough a initial general crackdown. And not just any drug markets, but specifically the open drug market that tends to be hotspots of violence and disorder (page 11). But that crackdown did end in October 2003 and since some of the drug markets have reappeared (page 222). Since there have been other crackdowns (projects) though, but none of those I have checked up on have tried to displace drug users. For example Project Raven, Project Lucille, Project Haven... From the inception of Insite forward the police where to "encouraging intravenous drug users encountered outside of the site to use the SIS" (page 55). For example, police officers "actually escorted drug users with their drugs in hand" or simply by giving publicly injecting drug users hell for not using it . And the evaluation on the crackdown did in fact control for overdoses, and "there is no evidence that the CET had a measurable impact on the number of fatal drug overdoses in the DTES" (page 8). Steinberger (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me take your points one at a time.

1. You say that the purpose of the CET/BET was not to displace users. Purpose or not, that is what it did. Page 1 of the evaluation document reads, "In anticipation that the initiative would result in the displacement of persons and criminal offending, the initiative was not limited to the DTES area, but, as the term “City-wide Enforcement Team” connotes, was to be much broader in scope. To this end, a special task force was envisioned that could intervene in different parts of the City as significant crime and disorder problems arose." The evaluation talks often about the VPD anticipating 'displacement' of users. This is precisely what it did, as is so nicely documented by the very same Lancet authors who failed to mention the changed policing here. So your point has no validity.
2. You cite later 'projects' as proof that the crackdown had ceased in September 2003. Any ongoing crackdown lasting years would expect to have many sub-battles, so your point has no validity. And then there are statements from the VPD like this one from June 2004, 15 months after the CET started Project Lucille here which says, "We launched the first part of our strategy in April 2003, with the creation of the City Wide Enforcement Team. This involved the dedication of 60 police officers to deal with the open-air drug market and the crime and disorder issues of the Downtown Eastside. Over the last 15 months, the City Wide Enforcement Team has been successful in bringing a level of stability to this community not realized for many years. Project Lucille is a key element in the current phase of our strategy." More proof verifying the other VPD statements recorded in the international analysis saying that the CET/BET was ongoing.
3. You appear to think that reappearance of drug markets in a crackdown indicates there never was or is a crackdown happening. On page 102 the evaluation says, "it was noted that, on numerous occasions, the police would “sweep” through the area and the big groups of drug dealers would leave. However, they never stayed away. Less than ten minutes after the police had walked through most of the dealers had returned." Also, "The field observations also revealed that open drug use continued in the DTES during the CET initiative and persons were observed on a daily basis openly using drugs, including injection drugs." So, again there is no substance to your objection here.
4. Controlling for overdoses? The evaluation did not compare overdoses in the four city blocks patrolled, but rather surveyed the overdoses for the entire DTES, an area of 400 city blocks (into which many users from the 4 city blocks were displaced). No substance to your argument again.

In summary, there is only more proof here that the CET/BET crackdown was ongoing, just as the VPD always said it was. The upshot is that the 46% reductions in drug use indicators in the first 6 months would be expected to be replicated to a greater or lesser extent throughout the ongoing crackdown, which extends till this day, but which definitely covered the years 2003-2005, which was covered by the Lancet study. These authors claim to not have known of any police activity which could have reduced overdoses in a 500 metre radius circle around Insite after its opening. The fact was that there was police activity quite capable of reducing drug use and overdose in the epicentre of that area by 46%. Minphie (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How can the purpose be irrelevant? "Disruption of the drug market may encourage the movement of drug users to different parts of the city and may affect their access to medical and other social services and create an increased public health risk. | In the case of the DTES, new services were recently designed to increase access to the health care system, and that may have mitigated the effect of the CET initiative." (page 25) There is displacement pressure from increased police activity (the sustained presence and the crackdowns) but the new facilities act as a pull. On the balance, one officer in the report stated: “There is a proliferation of services for drug users in the DTES. It is not clear that the concentration of services in one area is the best strategy. Some agencies have accused us of taking away their clients. I do not know whether there is any truth to it. That was not the intent.“ (page 172) It is thus somewhat odd, that officers in the area are unsure wither the initiative had effect on the numbers of prospective clients to Insite and other facilities in the DTES and you, from behind a computer screen in Australia is not.

I also find it odd that it is me that have to prove that the crackdown is not sustained, when the evaluation clearly say that it initiative ended. It do only implies that something roughly similar was ongoing in 2004. It is really up to you to prove that this roughly similar thing is the sustained crackdown, and not just the consequence of a lesser shift from the previous containment strategy into putting eyes and ears in the area. And they monitored overdoses in the whole region, to heard in any effects of the displacement. Not just the DTES. Steinberger (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Steinberger, whether police meant to or didn't mean to displace drug users is irrelevant to the question of when the crackdown ceased. That is what we are discussing here. And I fully accept all arguments about services being under-utilized in a crackdown, but it is still irrelevant to the question we are addressing. Officers did indeed have questions about the impact of a crackdown on Insite, but that is not the question we are addressing. And the reason I have asked you to demonstrate that the crackdown was not sustained is because there are half a dozen strands of evidence listed above to say exactly the contrary, and from no less a source than the VERY POLICE THEMSELVES before all the other strands are added. Minphie (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

First, it does not even matter what we discuss and what we establish. At the end of the day we must stick to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. That means that we can't ignore the response of the authors to Christians et als letter, no matter who are right. If something, the least prominent view should go and that is not the views of Marshall et al. And second, to say Marshall is wrong you need a source that explicity say that. And third, the evidence above do not point towards a continued crackdown. The evaluation explicitly say that the CET initiative ended. And by CET one means the end of a endless string of crackdown under the overreaching containment strategy and the start of a new marked by continuous police presence in the area. This new strategy was not envisioned as a crackdown, but still, and at least in its initial phase, it had some crackdown characteristics. The evaluation also say that CET have continued, "albeit in a slightly modified form". It is your interpretation of the evidence that indeed means that the crackdown had continued, but that is by no means explicit. Steinberger (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Steinberger, there are three issues I need to deal with here. First, yesterday I posted two 3O third party input requests which have disappeared overnight, with no third party input. Therefore the requests should still be showing on the 3O listings. But they are not there. Can you tell me what happened to the two banners on this page which have disappeared, especially as you appear to be the only other person accessing this part of the Talk page at present?

Secondly, I have given full citation for every point of any discussion we are having about the validity of my text on the Insite page. My text on the Insite page is also fully cited. When it comes to the discussion we are having here about the crackdown, there is no onus on any editor to demonstrate that their background discussion of issues NOT appearing on the main page is voiced already somewhere in a documented source. In fact, my information on the Vancouver City evaluation document (which again is not discussed in any way on the main page) derives from the ongoing Australian debate between the Drug Free Australia representative listed as one of the authors of the international analysis and Lancet letter, and Paul Gallagher on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia drug policy debate listserver here.

Thirdly, I fully agree with you that the author's response to the international analysis is important to the main Insite page, and has only disappeared because I performed a general undo of your text which had much of my text removed. To be honest I have not read your additions, but they have a place. It is the rest which is under dispute. Minphie (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)