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 6 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. Fifty-one percent 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 homelessness, 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 the 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.
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 6 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. Fifty-one percent 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 homelessness, 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 the 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.
Authors: Evan Wood; Mark W Tyndall; Patricia M Spittal; Kathy Li; Robert S Hogg; Julio S G Montaner; Michael V O'Shaughnessy; Martin T Schechter Journal: AIDS Date: 2002-04-12 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Samuel R Friedman; Hannah Lf Cooper; Barbara Tempalski; Maria Keem; Risa Friedman; Peter L Flom; Don C Des Jarlais Journal: AIDS Date: 2006-01-02 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Evan Wood; Mark W Tyndall; Zhenguo Qui; Ruth Zhang; Julio S G Montaner; Thomas Kerr Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ingrid A Binswanger; Marc F Stern; Richard A Deyo; Patrick J Heagerty; Allen Cheadle; Joann G Elmore; Thomas D Koepsell Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tim Rhodes; Jo Kimber; Will Small; John Fitzgerald; Thomas Kerr; Matthew Hickman; Greg Holloway Journal: Addiction Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Trevor A Corneil; Laura M Kuyper; Jean Shoveller; Robert S Hogg; Kathy Li; Patricia M Spittal; Martin T Schechter; Evan Wood Journal: Health Place Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Mark W Tyndall; Sue Currie; Patricia Spittal; Kathy Li; Evan Wood; Michael V O'Shaughnessy; Martin T Schechter Journal: AIDS Date: 2003-04-11 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Kora DeBeck; Tessa Cheng; Julio S Montaner; Chris Beyrer; Richard Elliott; Susan Sherman; Evan Wood; Stefan Baral Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2017-05-14 Impact factor: 12.767
Authors: Sabriya L Linton; Hannah L F Cooper; Mary E Kelley; Conny C Karnes; Zev Ross; Mary E Wolfe; Yen-Tyng Chen; Samuel R Friedman; Don Des Jarlais; Salaam Semaan; Barbara Tempalski; Catlainn Sionean; Elizabeth DiNenno; Cyprian Wejnert; Gabriela Paz-Bailey Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Alexandra B Collins; Jade Boyd; Samara Mayer; Al Fowler; Mary Clare Kennedy; Ricky N Bluthenthal; Thomas Kerr; Ryan McNeil Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2019-09-18