Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Drug Policy. 2007 Sep 27;19(4):332–338. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.08.004

EFFECTS OF POLICE CONFISCATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS AND SYRINGES AMONG INJECTION DRUG USERS IN VANCOUVER

Daniel Werb 1, Evan Wood 1,2, Will Small 1, Steffanie Strathdee 3, Kathy Li 1, Julio Montaner 1,4, Thomas Kerr 1,2
PMCID: PMC2529170  NIHMSID: NIHMS63392  PMID: 17900888

Abstract

Background

Drug market policing has been associated with various harms among injection drug users (IDU). However, little is known about instances in which drugs and injecting equipment are confiscated from IDU in the absence of a formal arrest.

Methods

We examined factors associated with being stopped, searched, or detained by police among participants in the Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study (VIDUS) using logistic regression. We also examined actions taken by study participants immediately following instances in which drugs or syringes were confiscated by police.

Results

Among 465 active IDU, 130 (28.0%) reported being detained by police in the last six months without being arrested. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, factors associated with being stopped, searched or detained by police included homelessness (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 3.96, 95%CI: 1.86 – 8.45), recent incarceration (AOR = 3.52, 95% CI: 1.75 – 7.10), frequent crack use (AOR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.34 – 3.74), requiring help injecting (AOR = 5.20, 95% CI: 1.21 – 22.39), and lending syringes (AOR = 3.18, 95% CI: 1.09 – 9.30). Of those who reported being detained, 34% participants reported having had drugs confiscated, and 70% of these reported that they immediately acquired more drugs. 51% of participants who reported being detained also reported having had syringes confiscated, and of this group, 6% reported immediately borrowing used syringes.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that the IDU most affected by street-level policing tend to possess various characteristics, such as homeless, that place them at heightened risk for various adverse health outcomes. Our findings also suggest that the confiscation of drugs and/or needles and syringes through discretionary policing practices have potential to exacerbate drug market activity or prompt increased syringe borrowing. These findings indicate the need for ongoing evaluation of the public health impacts of discretionary policing approaches.

INTRODUCTION

In response to large open drug scenes in urban centres, municipal police departments have employed a variety of enforcement techniques meant to disrupt and impede the trafficking and use of illicit drugs (Kerr, Small, & Wood, 2005). In Vancouver, Canada, enforcement represents one aspect of the city’s “Four Pillar Approach” to combating illicit drug use (MacPherson, 2000). Aside from enforcement, this strategy also codifies prevention, treatment, and harm reduction as fundamental aspects of the city’s response to drug addiction. The most controversial aspect of this strategy has thus far been harm reduction (CBC News, 2006); nevertheless, the city of Vancouver is currently the site of one of North America’s largest syringe exchange programs as well as the continent’s only legally-sanctioned supervised injection facility (SIF) (Wood et al., 2001), and the possession of sterile syringes is sanctioned by Canadian law (Government of Canada, 1996). While harm reduction strategies enjoy support from many sectors across Vancouver including the Vancouver Police Department (Wiebe, 2005), police officers assigned to policing the large open-air drug market in Vancouver’s downtown eastside are not required to complete training in harm reduction techniques (Pivot Legal Society, 2005), and enforcement remains the city’s central response to illicit drug use.

Studies have shown, however, that select types of police enforcement approaches –particularly large-scale crackdowns – are associated with adverse public health consequences, including increased HIV risk behaviour, reduced access to HIV prevention services, and human rights violations (Bluthenthal et al., 1999; Cooper, Moore, Gruskin, & Krieger, 2004; Csete & Cohen, 2003; Davis et al., 2005; Dixon & Coffin, 1999; Heimer, Bluthenthal, Singer, & Khoshnood, 1996; Kerr et al., 2005; Maher & Dixon, 1999; Small, Kerr, Charette, Schechter, & Spittal, 2006; Wood et al., 2003). Public health researchers have also identified specific aspects of policing and the judiciary that can affect the health of high-risk populations (Burris, Blankenship, & Donoghoe, 2004; Rhodes, Singer, Bourgois, Friedman, & Strathdee, 2005). The character of policing practices, the beliefs of street-level police officers and the implementation of prohibitive drug laws by the courts have all been shown to affect the health of injection drug using populations, and are in some settings associated with an increased risk of transmission of blood-borne diseases among these populations (Aitken, Moore, Higgs, Kelsall, & Kerger, 2002; Bourgois, Lettiere, & Quesada, 1997; Cooper, Moore, Gruskin, & Krieger, 2005; Friedman et al., 2006; Rhodes et al., 2003; Wood et al., 2003).

Some observers have also identified negative consequences related specifically to the incarceration of injection drug users (IDU), particularly with regards to the increased risk of HIV transmission in prison among this group (Beyrer et al., 2003; Tyndall et al., 2003; Wood et al., 2005) as well as increased risk of fatal overdose among IDU following periods of incarceration (Binswanger et al., 2007). There have also been increasing calls for alternatives to incarceration, as researchers and policy makers have reported on the failure of incarceration as a deterrent to illicit drug use (Spohn & Holleran, 2002). Some suggested alternatives include community treatment programs as well as police approaches that involve greater use of officer discretion in dealing with individuals found to be in possession of drugs (Heed, 2006; Maher & Dixon, 2001). Data from various settings suggest that Canada has one of the highest rates of incarceration for drug-related crimes in the world (Erickson, 1999; Fischer, Ala-Leppilampi, Single, & Robins, 2003; Walmsley, 2003). However, while incarceration rates remain high, most drug offenders given jail time in Canada for trafficking or possession generally serve between fifteen days and four months (Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, 2000).

While the effects of police crackdowns on drug markets have been described previously (Kerr et al., 2005), little is known about the potential effects of newer discretionary approaches to drug market policing. Therefore, the present study was conducted to examine the prevalence of and factors associated with being stopped, searched or detained by police in a setting which has been recognized for innovation in drug policy. We also sought to examine instances in which drugs and injecting equipment were confiscated from IDU in the absence of a formal arrest. Lastly, we examined the potential consequences of these discretionary approaches by identifying the actions IDU undertook immediately following this type of interaction with police.

METHODS

Data for these analyses were collected as part of the Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study (VIDUS), an ongoing cohort that has been described previously (Kerr et al., 2004). Study participants are recruited through street outreach efforts and self-referral, and enrollment is staggered. For the present cross-sectional study, between June 1 2005 and December 1 2005, study participants completed one interviewer-administered questionnaire, which solicited demographic data as well as information concerning participants’ drug use and other behavioural and economic data (such as involvement in the sex trade, income sources, housing situation, incarceration experiences, and involvement in the drug trade), much of which is related specifically to experiences in the six months prior to the completion of the questionnaire. While the VIDUS questionnaire is an ongoing prospective study, the VIDUS survey instrument used between June 1 2005 and December 1 2005 included particularly detailed questions concerning participants’ interactions with police. We therefore relied on data derived from this specific period in our present cross-sectional analysis of the effects of discretionary policing on IDU in Vancouver. The study has been approved by the University of British Columbia/Providence Health Care Ethics Review Boards, and all study participants provide written consent prior to enrollment.

For the present analysis, participants were asked if they had been “jacked up” (i.e., stopped, searched or detained) by police in the past six months (i.e., in the six months prior to interviews conducted between July 1 2005 and December 1 2005). The dependent variable of interest therefore differentiates between those individuals who did not have any encounters with police during the previous six months (i.e., the reference category) and those who were stopped, searched and detained by police in the previous six months (with or without an arrest taking place following the encounter). Socio-demographic and drug using characteristics considered in these analyses were selected based on previous investigations of illicit drug use among Vancouver IDU (Kerr et al., 2004; Wood et al., 2001), and included: gender, Aboriginal ethnicity, homelessness, recent incarceration, residency in the downtown eastside, participation in the sex trade, frequent heroin, crack or cocaine use, binge drug use, recent overdose, requiring help with injecting, borrowing or lending syringes, and public injection drug use. Variable definitions were consistent with previous analyses: individuals who reported heroin injection, cocaine injection, or crack use once a day or more were defined as frequent heroin, cocaine, or crack users respectively (Wood et al., 2001). Bingeing was defined as periods in which drugs were used more often than usual (Kerr et al., 2004). All behavioural variables refer to behaviours in the previous six months. Participants who reported having been stopped, searched, or detained by police were also asked if they had had drugs or syringes confiscated in the absence of an arrest. Individuals who reported having had drugs or syringes confiscated by police were then asked to describe their actions immediately following these interactions with police.

Univariate statistics were applied to determine factors associated with having been stopped, searched, or detained by police in the previous six months. Categorical and explanatory variables were analyzed using Pearson’s X2, normally distributed continuous variables were analyzed using t-tests for independent samples, and skewed continuous variables were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests. Variables found to be associated with the outcome of interest at p ≤ 0.05 were then considered in a fixed logistic regression model. Descriptive statistics were used to describe actions taken after interactions with police. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software version 8.0 (SAS, Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Overall, 465 active injection drug users were seen for follow-up during the study period, of whom 130 (28%) reported having been stopped, searched, or detained by police in the last six months. In univariate analyses, factors positively associated with being stopped, searched, or detained by police included: being homeless; recent incarceration; residency in the downtown eastside; sex trade work; frequent heroin injection; frequent cocaine injection; frequent crack use; binge drug use; requiring help injecting; lending syringes; and public drug use. Age was negatively associated with being stopped by police. The odds ratios, confidence intervals, and p values for all factors in univariate analysis are shown in Table I.

Table I.

Characteristics of IDU stratified by being stopped, searched or detained by police in the last six months (n = 465)

Stopped, searched or detained by police during study period
Characteristic NO N = 130 YES N = 335 Odds Ratio (95% CI) p value
Lending Syringes
 No 116 (89.2) 328 (97.9)
 Yes 14 (10.8) 7 (2.1) 5.66 (2.23 – 14.36) < 0.001
Borrowing Syringes
 No 122 (93.9) 323 (96.4)
 Yes 8 (6.2) 12 (3.6) 1.77 (0.70 – 4.42) 0.220
Requiring help injecting
 No 118 (90.8) 332 (99.1)
 Yes 12 (9.2) 3 (0.9) 11.25 (3.12 – 40.58) < 0.001
Cocaine injection
 < Daily 101 (77.7) 302 (90.2)
 ≥ Daily 29 (22.3) 33 (9.9) 2.63 (1.52 – 4.54) < 0.001
Heroin injection
 < Daily 75 (57.7) 279 (83.3)
 ≥ Daily 55 (42.3) 56 (16.7) 3.65 (2.33 – 5.74) < 0.001
Crack use
 < Daily 49 (37.7) 227 (67.8)
 ≥ Daily 81 (62.3) 108 (32.2) 3.48 (2.28 – 5.30) < 0.001
Involvement in the sex trade
 No 104 (80.0) 294 (87.8)
 Yes 26 (20.0) 41 (12.2) 1.79 (1.05 – 3.08) 0.033
Residency in the downtown eastside
 No 50 (38.5) 193 (57.6)
 Yes 80 (61.5) 142 (42.4) 2.18 (1.44 – 3.29) < 0.001
Homelessness
 No 94 (72.3) 316 (94.3)
 Yes 36 (27.7) 19 (5.7) 6.37 (3.49 – 11.63) < 0.001
Recent incarceration
 No 94 (72.3) 315 (6.0)
 Yes 36 (27.7) 20 (94.0) 6.03 (3.33 – 10.92) < 0.001
Binge drug use
 No 99 (71.1) 284 (70.1)
 Yes 31 (29.0) 51 (29.9) 1.74 (1.06 – 2.88) 0.029
Public drug use
 No 101 (77.7) 317 (94.6)
 Yes 29 (22.3) 18 (5.4) 5.06 (2.70 – 9.49) < 0.001
Age
 Median (and IQR) 31.7 (25.3–38.2) 34.1 (25.4–40.9) 0.95 (0.93 – 0.97) < 0.001
Open in a new tab

Note: CI = Confidence Interval; IDU = injection drug user (any report of injection drug use at any time during follow-up); IQR = interquartile range.

As shown in Table II, in a logistic regression analysis, homelessness (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 3.96, 95%CI: 1.86 – 8.45), recent incarceration (AOR = 3.52, 95% CI: 1.75 –7.10), frequent crack use (AOR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.34 – 3.74), requiring help injecting (AOR = 5.20, 95% CI: 1.21 – 22.39), and lending syringes (AOR = 3.18, 95% CI: 1.09 – 9.30) were all positively associated with being stopped, searched, or detained by police.

Of those 130 participants who reported having been stopped, searched, or detained by police, 43 individuals (34%) reported having had drugs confiscated despite not having been arrested. In response to the survey question regarding their actions following the confiscation of their drugs by police, 30 respondents (70%) reported immediately acquiring more drugs. Five respondents (12%) also indicated that they engaged in illegal or other dangerous activities such as theft, selling fake drugs, and sex trade work immediately following being stopped, searched or detained by police. The median amount of time it took respondents to buy more drugs after having their drugs confiscated by police was 5 minutes. The vast majority of this sub-group (n = 28, 90%) reported that they obtained more drugs within 10 minutes of their reported interaction with police.

Of the 130 respondents who reported being stopped, searched, or detained by police in the last six months, over half (51%) reported having syringes confiscated. The median number of encounters in which syringes were confiscated among this sub-group in the previous six months was 6. The largest number of respondents, 31 (47%), reported obtaining sterile syringes from a syringe exchange immediately following having syringes confiscated by police, while 7 others (11%) bought syringes. Four respondents (6%) stated that they borrowed used syringes immediately after having their syringes confiscated.

DISCUSSION

We found that 28% of IDU participating in this study reported being stopped, searched, or detained by police in the previous six months. Variables independently associated with being stopped, searched or detained included lending syringes, requiring help injecting, homelessness, and having served jail time in the last six months. Among individuals who reported having drugs confiscated by police, 70% reported immediately acquiring more drugs and 12% reported engaging in criminal or dangerous activities immediately following the confiscation. Among those who reported having syringes confiscated, 58% reported immediately acquiring sterile syringes and 6% reported immediately borrowing used syringes.

The individuals most affected by street-level policing in this study are IDU at heightened risk for a variety of adverse health outcomes. For example, homelessness has been shown to be associated with premature death and a variety of health problems, and homeless people often face barriers to accessing health care (Hwang, 2001; Zolopa et al., 1994). Homeless individuals may also be particularly vulnerable to street-level policing, as they are exposed to elevated levels of scrutiny given that police officers monitor public spaces (Cooper et al., 2005). Further, homeless IDU are more likely to consume their drugs in public settings (Wood et al., 2006) and locally a lack of adequate housing has been associated with an increased likelihood of HIV infection (Corneil et al., 2006). Our finding indicating that recently incarcerated IDU are more likely to be stopped, searched, or detained by police may reflect the fact that these IDU may be known to police due to previous interactions with the criminal justice system. As well, IDU who were the subject of discretionary policing practices were also most likely to lend syringes, require help injecting, be frequent crack users, and to have recently been incarcerated. It is likely that these characteristics reflect greater embeddedness in the open drug scene in our study setting, and that these individuals may be higher intensity injectors. Consequently, they may spend more time on the street and be known to police. It should be noted that assisted injection and crack smoking are not permitted in the local supervised injection facility, and therefore individuals engaging in these behaviours may be more likely to consume drugs in public settings.

Given that difficulty accessing syringes has been identified as the primary driver of syringe sharing in Vancouver (Wood et al., 2002), our finding that many IDU whose syringes were confiscated by police subsequently acquired sterile syringes from a syringe exchange is encouraging, insofar as it demonstrates the generally widespread accessibility of syringe exchange programs in Vancouver. However, of concern is the fact that some IDU nevertheless resorted to borrowing used syringes following police confiscation of syringes. While we observed low rates of used syringe borrowing among those individuals who were ‘jacked up’ in our study, the possibility exists that discretionary policing practices may inadvertently contribute, albeit in a small way, to the creation of additional pathogenic vectors in our setting. This arises from the fact that the discretionary policing strategy examined in this study does not necessarily include a provision to inform IDU about sterile syringe acquisition. In settings in which sterile syringes are not readily available or in cases in which police officers choose not to inform IDU about ways to safely replace confiscated syringes, this discretionary policing practice may therefore negatively impact the health of IDU populations. This is consistent with findings from other settings (Rhodes et al., 2003).

Previous findings have demonstrated the need to carefully evaluate evolving policing strategies in light of their efficacy in reaching their stated goals and in regards to their potential to negatively impact public health (Maher & Dixon, 1999; Wood et al., 2004). In the case of discretionary policing in Vancouver, the probability exists that the confiscation of drugs may unintentionally promote drug market activity, as the majority of IDU who had illicit drugs confiscated by police without being arrested (70%) reported subsequently making additional purchases of illicit drugs. In the case of police confiscation of syringes, studies conducted in a variety of settings have indicated that enforcement techniques that target IDU for carrying needles or syringes are associated with syringe sharing and other risky drug use behaviours, such as rushed injection, and consequently have the potential to place IDU at greater risk of contracting blood-borne viruses such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C (Aitken et al., 2002; Koester, 1994; Strathdee et al., 2003; Wood et al., 2001). Indeed, research from Russia has revealed that situational factors, such as the fear of detainment or arrest, can influence the injecting behaviours of IDU to a greater degree than the availability of sterile syringes (Rhodes et al., 2003). Therefore, concern remains that the policing practices described in the present study may have the potential to exacerbate drug-related harms among local IDU.

Considering that we found that homelessness was a factor associated with being stopped, searched, or detained by police among our study participants, resources should also be prioritized towards structural and micro-environmental interventions that serve to modify the broader risk environment of IDU (Rhodes et al., 2003; Rhodes et al., 2006), such as supportive housing and supervised injection facilities (Wood et al., 2004). Further, in light of the findings presented in this study and many others (Kerr, Small, & Wood, 2005), the investigation of the potential effects of a broader policy shift away from enforcement as the dominant response to drug-related harm is warranted. In that regard, it is encouraging that the Vancouver Police Department has officially committed itself to a strategy of harm reduction (Wiebe, 2005), though the high rate of confiscation of syringes by police reported in our study underscores the lack of clarity on this issue. Considering the diverse strategies employed in combating the problems associated with drug addiction in Canada and in our study setting in particular, attention should be directed towards devising a comprehensive and coherent federal, provincial, and municipal response to drug addiction.

Our study has several limitations. First, as with most cohort studies involving illicit drug users, VIDUS is not a random sample. Second, the present study is limited by its cross sectional design and dependence on self-report and hence we strongly caution against inferring a causal relationship between police confiscation of drugs and drug paraphernalia and an increase in frequency of drug trade activity and borrowing of used syringes. Similarly, while study participants reported obtaining drugs and syringes immediately following interactions with police, our survey instrument was unable to account for the motivations of study participants and we therefore caution against inferring a causal relationship between self-reported acquisition of drugs and syringes by study participants and the discretionary policing practices described in our study setting. It should also be noted that rates of drug-related crime and utilization of used syringes may have been underestimated due to socially desirable responding. Importantly, we were also unable to determine whether the syringes that police confiscated from our study participants were used or sterile syringes. While it is therefore possible that confiscated syringes were potentially more infectious than replacement syringes, this seems unlikely in a setting where there is widespread access to sterile syringes and where carrying used syringes may actually increase the likelihood of arrest and further police scrutiny; consequently, there is low motivation for IDU to carry used syringes in our study setting, and given previous findings linking syringe confiscation to syringe sharing (Rhodes et al., 2003; Singer, Himmelgreen, Dushay, & Weeks, 1998; Small et al., 2006), any amount of syringe confiscation is therefore of concern. Finally, future prospective research on police confiscation of drugs and paraphernalia is needed to further elucidate the relationship between police enforcement techniques and their effect on open drug markets and public health.

In sum, we found that a large proportion of high-risk IDU experienced being stopped, searched, or detained by police and that in many instances these individuals’ drugs and syringes were confiscated. Many IDU participating in this study reported immediately engaging in illegal activities and seeking out and buying drugs following this type of interaction. While it is encouraging that many IDU whose syringes were confiscated by police were able to acquire sterile syringes through the comprehensive network of syringe exchange programs found in Vancouver, we caution against basing an enforcement policy on the assumption that IDU who have syringes confiscated will necessarily obtain sterile replacement syringes, as demonstrated by our finding that a minority of IDU replaced their confiscated syringes with used syringes. These findings also indicate that discretionary policing approaches that include the confiscation of syringes and drugs should be re-evaluated in favour of alternative policing and public health strategies that have been shown to modify the broader risk environment of IDU.

Table II.

Multivariate logistic regression of factors associated with being stopped, searched or detained by police

Characteristic Adjusted Odds Ratio 95% C.I. p-value
Syringe lending
 Yes vs No 3.18 (1.09 – 9.30) 0.035
Requiring help injecting
 Yes vs No 5.20 (1.21 – 22.39) 0.027
Frequent crack use
 Yes vs No 2.24 (1.34 – 3.74) 0.002
Homelessnessness
 Yes vs No 3.96 (1.86 – 8.45) <0.001
Recent incarceration
 Yes vs No 3.52 (1.75 – 7.10) <0.001
Open in a new tab

C.I. = Confidence Interval.

Model was adjusted for all variables found to be associated with being stopped, searched, and detained by police in univariate analyses at p ≥ 0.05

Acknowledgments

We would particularly like to thank the VIDUS participants for their willingness to participate in the study. We also thank Caitlin Johnson, Bonnie Devlin, John Charette, Vanessa Volkommer, Cody Callon, Sidney Crosby, Steve Kain, Kathy Churchill, Dave Isham, Nancy Laliberte, Sue Currie, Cristy Powers, Deborah Graham, Carley Taylor and Peter Vann for their research and administrative assistance. The study was further supported by the US National Institutes of Health (R01 DA011591-04A1) and CIHR grant (MOP-67262).

Thomas Kerr is supported by a Michael Smith Foundation Scholar Award and a CIHR New Investigator award. Will Small is supported by a Michael Smith Senior Graduate Studentship and a CIHR Doctoral Research Award.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Aitken C, Moore D, Higgs P, Kelsall J, Kerger M. The impact of a police crackdown on a street drug scene: Evidence from the street. Int J Drug Policy. 2002;13:189–98. [Google Scholar]
  2. Beyrer C, Jittiwutikarn J, Teokul W, Razak MH, Suriyanon V, Srirak N, et al. Drug use, increasing incarceration rates, and prison-associated HIV risks in Thailand. AIDS Behav. 2003;7(2):153–61. doi: 10.1023/a:1023946324822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Binswanger IA, Stern MF, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, Cheadle A, Elmore JG, et al. Release from prison -- A high risk of death for former inmates. NEJM. 2007;356(2):157–165. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa064115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bluthenthal RN, Lorvick J, Kral A, Erringer EA, Kahn JG. Collateral damage in the war on drugs: HIV risk behaviors among injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 1999;10:25–38. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bourgois P, Lettiere M, Quesada J. Social misery and the sanctions of substance abuse: Confronting HIV risk among homeless heroin addicts in San Francisco. Social Problems. 1997;44(2):155–173. [Google Scholar]
  6. Burris S, Blankenship KM, Donoghoe M. Addressing the “risk environment” for injection drug users: The mysterious case of the missing cop. Milbank Q. 2004;82(1):125–56. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00304.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. CBC News. BC injection site to continue operating, for now. [Retrieved September 7, 2006];2006 from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/01/injection-announcement.html.
  8. Cooper H, Moore L, Gruskin S, Krieger N. The impact of a police drug crackdown on drug injectors’ ability to practice harm reduction: A qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(3):673–84. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cooper H, Moore L, Gruskin S, Krieger N. Characterizing perceived police violence: Implications for public health. Am J Pub Health. 2004;94(7):1109–1118. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.7.1109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Corneil T, Kuyper LM, Shoveller J, Hogg RS, Li K, Spittal PM, et al. Unstable housing, associated risk behaviour, and increased risk for HIV infection among injection drug users. Health & Place. 2006;12(1):79–85. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Csete J, Cohen J. Canada: Abusing the user. New York: Human Rights Watch; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis C, Burris S, Metzger D, Becher J, Lynch K. Effects of an intensive street-level police intervention on syringe exchange program utilization: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Am J Pub Health. 2005;95:233–6. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.033563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dixon D, Coffin P. Zero tolerance policing of illegal drug markets. Drug and Alcohol Review. 1999;18:477–86. [Google Scholar]
  14. Erickson PG. Introduction: The three phases of harm reduction. An examination of emerging concepts, methodologies, and critiques. Subst Use Misuse. 1999;34(1):1–7. doi: 10.3109/10826089909035631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fischer B, Ala-Leppilampi K, Single E, Robins A. Cannabis law reform in Canada: Is the “saga of promise, hesitation and retreat” coming to an end? Can J Criminol & Criminal Justice. 2003;45(3):265–97. [Google Scholar]
  16. Friedman SR, Cooper HL, Tempalski B, Keem B, Friedman R, Flom PL, et al. Relationships of deterrence and law enforcement to drug-related harms among drug injectors in US metropolitan areas. AIDS. 2006;20(1):93–9. doi: 10.1097/01.aids.0000196176.65551.a3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Government of Canada. Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  18. Heed K. If enforcement is not working, what are the alternatives? Int J Drug Policy. 2006;17(2):104–6. [Google Scholar]
  19. Heimer R, Bluthenthal RN, Singer M, Khoshnood K. Structural impediments to operational syringe-exchange programs. AIDS Public Policy J. 1996;11(4):169–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hwang SW. Homelessness and health. CMAJ. 2001;164(2):229–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kerr T, Palepu A, Barness G, Walsh J, Hogg R, Montaner J, et al. Psychosocial determinants of adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy among injection drug users in Vancouver. Antivir Ther. 2004;9(3):407–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kerr T, Small W, Wood E. The public health and social impacts of drug market enforcement: A review of the evidence. Int J Drug Policy. 2005;16(4):210–20. [Google Scholar]
  23. Koester SK. Copping, running, and paraphernalia laws: Contextual variables and needle risk behavior among injection drug users in Denver. Human Organization. 1994;53(3):287–95. [Google Scholar]
  24. MacPherson D. A framework for action: A four-pillar approach to drug problems in Vancouver. Vancouver; City of Vancouver: 2000. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Maher L, Dixon D. Policing and public health: Law enforcement and harm minimization in a street-level drug market. Brit J Criminol. 1999;39(4):488–512. [Google Scholar]
  26. Maher L, Dixon D. The cost of crackdowns: Policing Cabramatta’s heroin market. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 2001;13(1):5–22. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. Drug offense data - 1999/2000. North Bay, Ontario; Government of Ontario: 2000. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pivot Legal Society. Six recommendations for policing reform. Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rhodes T, Mikhailova L, Sarang A, Lowndes CM, Rylkov A, Khutorskoy M, et al. Situational factors influencing drug injecting, risk reduction and syringe exchange in Togliatti City, Russian Federation: A qualitative study of micro risk environment. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(1):39–54. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00521-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rhodes T, Singer M, Bourgois P, Friedman SR, Strathdee SA. The social structural production of HIV risk among injecting drug users. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(5):1026–44. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Rhodes T, Kimber J, Small W, Fitzgerald J, Kerr T, Hickman M, et al. Public injecting and the need for ‘safer environment interventions’ in the reduction of drug-related harm. Addiction. 2006;101(10):1384–1393. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01556.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Singer M, Himmelgreen D, Dushay R, Weeks MR. Variation in drug injection frequency among out-of-treatment drug users in a national sample. Am J Drug Alc Abuse. 1998;24(2):321–41. doi: 10.3109/00952999809001715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Small W, Kerr T, Charette J, Schechter MT, Spittal PM. Impacts of intensified police activity on injection drug users: Evidence from an ethnographic investigation. Int J Drug Policy. 2006;17(2):85–95. [Google Scholar]
  34. Spohn C, Holleran D. The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates of felony offenders: A focus on drug offenders. Criminology. 2002;40(2):329–58. [Google Scholar]
  35. Strathdee SA, Zafar T, Brahmbhatt H, Baksh A, ul Hassan S. Rise in needle sharing among injection drug users in Pakistan during the Afghanistan war. Drug & Alcohol Dependence. 2003;71(1):17–24. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(03)00072-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Tyndall MW, Currie S, Spittal P, Li K, Wood E, O’Shaughnessy MV, et al. Intensive injection cocaine use as the primary risk factor in the Vancouver HIV-1 epidemic. AIDS. 2003;17(6):887–93. doi: 10.1097/00002030-200304110-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Walmsley R. World prison population list. London: International centre for prison studies; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wiebe D. Vancouver police department: Strategic plan progress report: August 2005. Vancouver: Vancouver Police Department; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  39. Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Li K, Marsh D, Montaner JS, Tyndall MW. Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. CMAJ. 2004;171:731–34. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1040774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Li K, Small W, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Do supervised injecting facilities attract higher risk injection drug users? Am J Prev Med. 2005;2:126–30. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Jones J, Schechter MT, Tyndall MW. The impact of police presence on access to needle exchange programs. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;34(1):116–8. doi: 10.1097/00126334-200309010-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Wood E, Li K, Small W, Montaner JS, Schechter MT, Kerr T. Recent incarceration independently associated with syringe sharing by injection drug users. Public Health Rep. 2005;120(2):150–6. doi: 10.1177/003335490512000208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Spittal PM, Li K, Hogg RS, Montaner JS, et al. Factors associated with persistent high-risk syringe sharing in the presence of an established needle exchange programme. AIDS. 2002;16(6):941–3. doi: 10.1097/00002030-200204120-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Spittal PM, Li K, Kerr T, Hogg RS, et al. Unsafe injection practices in a cohort of injection drug users in Vancouver: Could safer injecting rooms help? CMAJ. 2001;165(4):405–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Qui Z, Zhang R, Montaner JSG, Kerr T. Service uptake and characteristics of injection drug users utilizing North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(5):770–3. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.057828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Zolopa AR, Hahn JA, Gorter R, Miranda J, Wlodarczyk D, Peterson J, et al. HIV and tuberculosis infection in San Francisco’s homeless adults: Prevalence and risk factors in a representative sample. JAMA. 1994;272(6):455–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES