Punitive Drug Law and the Risk Environment for Injecting Drug Users: Understanding the Connections
Authors: Jessica Chiu and Scott Burris (pictured)
Below is an excerpt from the working paper which highlights some positive examples of training police in harm reduction.
6.10 Police training
Growing recognition of police influence on the HIV risk environment for IDUs has resulted in a variety of interventions targeting police abuse of people who use drugs. For example, public health officials harm reduction experts and drug user organisations have undertaken police training to facilitate the smooth implementation of harm reduction policies. Law enforcement officials have also implemented broader policy changes, including training and collaboration with public health officials, to integrate harm reduction services into law enforcement practices. Police training can provide basic education and understanding about the HIV risk environment for IDUs and is shown to better integrate public health policy into drug enforcement strategy. Coordination and collaboration between law enforcement and health officials can also have positive influence over the HIV risk environment for IDUs with respect to advocacy based on aligned interests [294]. For example, in Australia the recommendation
to establish the Sydney Medical Supervised Injecting Centre came from 1996 Wood Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. Eleven independent evaluations find that the site is meeting its objectives, has no adverse outcomes and is cost-effective. Today, the Centre is responsible to the New South Wales Department of Health as well as the New South Wales Police Force [279].
6.11 Perhaps two of the most important outcomes of police training are improving police understanding about drug use, including reducing stigmatising attitudes about drug users, and improving across-agency collaboration. In Australia, for example, the National Community Based Approach to Drug Law Enforcement provided police officers
in four trial sites with training in harm reduction for IDUs. Trained officers demonstrated willingness to direct people who use drugs towards harm reduction services instead of resorting to arrest or confiscation [212]. The change in and police response was monitored with respect to whether changed attitudes resulted in greater referrals [165]. Some IDUs seeking treatment from referral services noted that police had referred them to treatment centres. The programme was subsequently expanded and comprehensive harm reduction training was provided to all police officers in two of the four trial sites. Trained officers spoke highly of a trainer who had formerly used drugs and the experiences shared with them [212]. Most importantly, however, health officials and police reported significant improvements in the quantity and quality of inter-agency collaboration [212].
6.12 Research shows that police officers are receptive to harm reduction training, “particularly when that information is coupled with content directly relevant to the health of the law enforcement trainees and is delivered by a trusted source” [78]. In New York, United States of America (US), the state Department of Health funded the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police to provide training about state syringe law and harm reduction programmes to law enforcement. Education materials include podcasts and fliers that summarise syringe laws and harm reduction policy in the state. Fliers include practical information such as the limits of possession laws, whether an identification card is necessary for exemption under the law, and provides examples of what an identification card
for a participating SEP looks like [218].
The key principles that govern program implementation include inclusiveness and partnership with the target population, peer education, harm reduction, flexibility and continuity of activities, capacity building, experience sharing, partnership development, and confidentiality.
a coincidental pcieluarity more than anything else, but the Swedish experience’ is also a focal point for arguments over sex work. except it runs the other way from tobacco harm reduction Sweden criminalised the act of the purchase of sex (so the buyer commits the offence, the seller does not) which critics argue hasn’t been helpful in reducing the harms that occur during sex work.I mention it is as a consultation on similar proposals is underway in Scotland, and I’d like to read more evidence about the Swedish experience, but like tobacco, it’s hard to find commentary on the evidence of the Swedish law that is free from bias (on both sides). if anybody reading this knows any good refs for research on this, I’d be grateful if they could share.at a presentation on THR I heard Karl Fagerstrom a Swede, but as far as I know not an expert in sex work say something like it probably hasn’t made things worse, but it also probably hasn’t made things much better’ of the law, but interested to know more.