Police officer Wes Fung spurs debate over Downtown Eastside addicts’ civil liberties

Comments

A cop for 27 years, Wes Fung has seen a lot of things. But there’s one incident that he distinctly recalls. It concerns a young man in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. He lost his battle against addiction and mental illness.

Poll

Do you think drug addicts in the Downtown Eastside should be forced into treatment programs?

Yes 47%
176 votes
No 43%
163 votes
Unsure 10%
38 votes

He hanged himself.

“I remember we cut him down, and as I was helping bring his body down, it felt hard, cold—like a piece of wood,” Fung told the Georgia Straight. “I’m thinking, ‘My daughters aren’t much younger than this boy here.’ ”

Fung said it was this man’s despair that partly explains why he’s now talking publicly about his thoughts regarding the neighbourhood, like his idea of forcing addicts to get treatment.

Fung is the Vancouver Police Department’s liaison officer in Chinatown and Gastown, a post he has held since 2009. Inside his office at a community policing centre on Keefer Street, the 50-year-old constable vented his frustration over the “hypocrisy” about the Downtown Eastside.

“For mainstream society, as long as the ‘garbage’ is centralized down here, not in my back yard, not in Kits, not in Shaughnessy, or wherever else, no one cares,” the Vancouver-born police officer said. “So there’s no will to really do what it takes to actually solve the problems down here.”

He suggested that the province should amend its Mental Health Act to allow police to apprehend drug users deemed a threat to themselves and others. They could then be taken to rehabilitation centres and also provided with after-treatment supports such as transition housing and counselling programs.

“People say that unless someone wants to get clean, you can’t force them,” Fung said. “We try to apply logic to an illogical act. Anybody who is of a sane mind, would they want to be addicted? No! Even the addicted don’t want to be addicted. These people, they’re so obsessed at trying to chase after the next fix. Common sense doesn’t apply. So sometimes the government has to step in as the big brother to force treatment on them.”

He’s not a fan of harm reduction, which involves practices like giving out clean needles and crack pipes.

“I call it harm reproduction,” Fung said. “I understand the rationale of harm reduction, because on a short-term basis, you know, you want to stop the spread of disease and stop people from overdosing on drugs. But, unfortunately, all you’re doing is enabling the status quo…You’re only prolonging the misery.”

Vancouver city councillor Kerry Jang understands where Fung is coming from.

“The whole point is getting them [addicts] to somebody who can do something, whether you commit them or send them to a place where they can be properly triaged,” Jang, a UBC professor of psychiatry, told the Straight in a phone interview.

That’s why the VPD has been calling for an urgent-response centre where officers can drop off people with addictions and mental-health issues, according to Jang. He noted that health authorities and many nonprofits support this measure.

He acknowledged that forced treatment will invite questions about civil liberties. “However, again, it’s a definition of addiction,” Jang said. “Are they [addicts] able to make a judgment?”

Dr. Evan Wood is an expert on issues related to addiction. He’s a principal investigator with the Urban Health Research Initiative, a program of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

“I wholeheartedly agree we need to dramatically expand access to addiction treatment,” Wood told the Straight in a phone interview. “But we clearly need to ensure we are investing limited tax dollars into evidence-based interventions rather than approaches that are proven ineffective and increasingly being condemned by international bodies.”

Wood was referring to a joint statement made by 12 United Nations entities in March against compulsory drug detention and rehabilitation. “The deprivation of liberty without due process is an unacceptable violation of internationally recognised human-rights standards,” the statement reads in part.

Downtown Eastside activist Ann Livingston doesn’t buy Fung’s idea. The long-time volunteer with the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users noted that there aren’t sufficient spaces for people who want to go in for treatment in the first place.

“If the only way you can get to treatment is to get arrested because there simply isn’t enough voluntary treatment anyway, that is bizarre,” Livingston told the Straight by phone.

Fung admitted that some people might be offended by his ideas, but he said his goal is to provoke a discussion.

He even suggested that society is “complicit” about the cycle of addiction in the Downtown Eastside. “We have a guilty conscience,” he said. “Why do you think so many people come down here during Christmas to give out sandwiches to all the poor homeless? They’re not making their lives any better, but they’re making themselves feel better. So who are you helping? You or them?”

Comments (46) Add New Comment
Gentleman Jack
“The deprivation of liberty without due process is an unacceptable violation of internationally recognised human-rights standards,"

So, read between the lines.
This "police officer" believes in deprivation of liberty without due process.

Time to take this guy's colors before he hurts someone. This is the worst sort of "help" in the world, and, really, men like Fung ought to be psychologically analyzed so we can develop a profile and ensure they don't get into positions of authority.
0
0
Rating: 0
C. Baines
Yes, Unfortunately CST. Fung is right. As long as the drug addicts and down and outs are in the DTE, no one really cares. As is said, out of sight out of mind. At times you will have to force people to take treatment, as the drugs and situation takes over the mind and all looks hopeless. But, people must be helped and taught how to get away from this situation and onto something productive instead of destroying their lives.
0
0
Rating: 0
Petey
Life is very hard for people that don't drink or smoke and have worked everyday of their adult life...I'm sorry but I don't care about these people that have made thousands of BAD decisions in their life.
0
0
Rating: 0
PR
For the ten thousandth time, cops are not health experts. Why do they continually get the loudest voice when it comes to drug addiction here? Other countries have figured this out, but no - let's just do what the cops want.
0
2
Rating: -2
ugh
Hmm... whose advice should I take?

On one side, we have Wes Fung, a cop who disagrees with the fundamentals of harm reduction and has seem some pretty horrid things in his tenure as a cop.

On the other side, we have Dr. Evan Wood, an expert on issues related to addiction and a principal investigator with the Urban Health Research Initiative, a program of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

Sorry, Wes, but I'm going to put my faith in the experts here. And you aren't one of them. I agree that we need to better support our marginalized, but that should be done through proper funding of harm reduction programs, treatment programs, and community integration. Not by throwing addicts unwillingly into a treatment program which is bound to cost a fortune and do nothing.
0
0
Rating: 0
Hans Goldberg
As an alcoholic, I know quitting the habit is easy, I did it hundreds of times, made thousands excuses. The only thing that worked was complete sobriety. Any addiction not only harms the individual, but all people that deal with him or her, it is a slow form of suicide.
0
0
Rating: 0
ugh
@Petey: I agree! I'm so glad I made the choice to be born white, middle class, and without a mental illness. I just don't know why they didn't.
0
0
Rating: 0
Birdy
We should amend the Mental Health Act to allow drug users to apprehend costumed gunmen suffering from Kim Jong Il syndrome.
0
0
Rating: 0
james green
Mandated treatment is the only way to solve this problem but treatment must come with housing, clothing, food and all of the things we all need to survive.
0
0
Rating: 0
DTES
these people have made bad choices for what ever reason but they do deserve help and they are not getting it. This has been going on in the DTES for far too long. I think the only solution is to force them into rehab or move them to the North Pole to live. I agree with James Green, these people need housing, clothing, food and most of all re-hab so they can find some dignity.
0
0
Rating: 0
miguel
BC Liberals are in office, there won't be a cent available for the idea, legal or not. Other people with mental health problems are lucky enough to get pills on the modern health system. Counseling and therapy is not to be had unless you have an alternative health plan or cash.
Miguel
0
0
Rating: 0
Barb R
Awesome article from someone who really cares and wants to find a solution! As a recovered addict myself the drugs had complete control over my life until I was forced into treatment. Calling for civil liberties for addicts on the DTES is a crime against humanity. Civil liberties for the addict means allowing them to stay in the vicious cycle of addiction because they have lost the ability to choose anything else!
0
0
Rating: 0
Ian G62
According to some, ordinary, everyday people become addicted as teenagers because of some trauma in youth - surely we must address the issue of child-related sexual abuse before we address the issue of addictions. People will always become addicted as long there is sexual abuse in childhood - reduce/eliminate that and we are on our way to reducing drug addiction.
0
0
Rating: 0
DTES Resident
Everyone on the extremes of this argument are wrong, especially you Petey. And don't beat up on cops who work the DTES. Unless you walk a few blocks in their shoes, you have no right to judge. They do more for this neighbourhood than most. As someone who isn't addicted, pays a shitload of taxes and lives in and loves the DTES, I am always appalled by the simpleminded responses to this issue.

Mandated treatment does not work any better for drug addicts than it does for alcoholics. That said, Wes Fung is right that most of these people are suffering from mental health problems and are often victims of violence and abuse and incapable of making good decisions for themselves. Forcing them into treatment usually only feels like a worse punishment for them - being denied the drug they love and their liberty. Some experts believe the path to dignity and getting clean is to actually supply the drugs to addicts while in rehab incentivizing them to stay but giving them the other skills and support they need to eventually get clean. They are no longer at risk, money is no longer flowing to drug dealers and crime is generally reduced. Of course we would have to legalize illicit drugs but keeping them illegal has only been a benefit to drug dealers anyhow.
0
0
Rating: 0
Downtown Dan
This is the best idea in years. Civil liberties end when your lifestyle choices start negatively effecting others quality of life, and pulling the whole city into the sewer. Great discretion would have to be used to select the right candidates for treatment. If a program like this is not implemented immediately, it is further proof that drug profits, and those who receive them, are "above" the Vancouver Police. This is the first example of an effort contrary to that, from within the force. Wes Fong gets full credit for pushing forward with this, against the typical apathy seen for decades on this issue. Way to go Wes! Here's a cop who cares, and has ideas. Move forward with this project. Any resistance sheds light on the real problem: The drug business is huge, and it's influence is much higher than most would imagine, corrupting even those who are supposed to guard against that. Wes for chief!.
0
0
Rating: 0
JL
I know this isn't as popular as it used to be, and anyone who has watched 'Intervention' knows it's their formula for any dependancy, but there has to be a motivation to go get help. The addicts aren't going to go to treatment because it's being paid for; they're not going to go because they should, they're not going to go because we want them to...they HAVE to go because whatever services they depend on will be revoked if they refuse to make this change. Almost all are on some form of government assistance whether it's food assistance, social housing or welfare -it is not acceptable that they are using those funds to supplement their addictions. If they choose not to go, then they're going to have to find a way to survive with literally no help from the province; leaving them with two options: GO, or move to another province. For those of us who've been through treatment, it's pretty common that most people under 45 will relapse because they think they've got it under control. But after 45, the physical/psychological effects start to show - as well, the ravages of AIDS and other STI's are much harder to combat as one ages. It's in their best interest to get help, stay healthy, and absolutely get out of Vancouver upon completing treatment. DTES is not a place to send those who've just completed treatment. There needs to be a follow-up program that chooses very carefully where to place those who've successfully completed treatment, preferably a smaller town where rents are lower, and one can survive working a lower wage job. This is just not possible in Vancouver anymore.
0
0
Rating: 0
cranky mom
There was a large gasping noise at my desk when i read Petey's comment. It must be fucking awesome to have been born such a perfect human.
0
0
Rating: 0
stuartm
Society must be strong and do the only thing that gets addicts off drugs: separate users from the pushers and get them out of the DTES. Put addicts in a recovery camp in an isolated natural setting. Tents, cook their own meals over a campfire, work to keep the camp clean, chop firewood, cook meals, etc. Have staff there to guide each user to daily reduce and eventually stop using drugs. Cold turkey if needed. Once people are clean for an extended time in the camp, return them to the city and social housing - away from DTES! Then provide the usual support services.
0
0
Rating: 0
FR
Certainly there could be no downside to allowing government to start deciding who gets civil liberties and who doesn't. It's one thing to let them chip away at our freedoms in the name of security and over-reaching measures that are "for our own good," but quite another to start talking about officially demoting entire segments of society. Dangerous thinking. How fast do we want to go down this path to authoritarianism?
0
0
Rating: 0
Police Watchdog
So does Wes mean putting the drug addicts in the hands of a police organization that has a history of murdering people with mental disability such as Graham Boyd? I like the idea, but don't think it is the answer, at least we need to get someone with more expertise on this.
0
0
Rating: 0

Pages

Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.