‘This is a health service. Leave it alone’: service user and staff views on policing boundaries involving supervised consumption services

References

• Bardwell G, Scheim A, Mitra S, Kerr T. 2017. Assessing support for supervised injection services among community stakeholders in London, Canada. Int J Drug Policy. 48:27–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayoumi AM, Strike C, Jairam J, Watson T, Enns E, Kolla G, Lee A, Shepherd S, Hopkins S, Millson M, et al. 2012. Report of the Toronto and Ottawa supervised consumption assessment study. Toronto (Canada): St. Michael’s Hospital and Dalla Lana School of Public Health.
   Google Scholar
• Belackova V, Salmon AM. 2017. Overview of international literature: supervised injecting facilities and drug consumption rooms. Sydney (Australia): Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Beletsky L, Heller D, Jenness SM, Neaigus A, Gelpi-Acosta C, Hagan H. 2014. Syringe access, syringe sharing, and police encounters among people who inject drugs in New York City: a community-level perspective. Int J Drug Policy. 25(1):105–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belzak L, Halverson J. 2018. Evidence synthesis – the opioid crisis in Canada: a national perspective. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 38(6):224–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouvier BA, Elston B, Hadland SE, Green TC, Marshall BDL. 2017. Willingness to use a supervised injection facility among young adults who use prescription opioids non-medically: a cross-sectional study. Harm Reduct J. 14(1):13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 3(2):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Burman D. 2018 Aug 14. Toronto’s safe injection sites: your FAQs answered. CityNews. http://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/08/14/toronto-safe-injection-site-faq/
   Google Scholar
• Butler G, Chapman D, Terry P. 2018. Attitudes of intravenous drug users in London towards the provision of drug consumption rooms. Drugs Educ Prev Policy. 25(1):31–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Press. 2018 Apr 20. Doug Ford says he’s ‘dead against’ supervised injection sites. CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/doug-ford-says-he-s-dead-against-supervised-injection-sites-1.4628547
   Google Scholar
• Cleirec G, Fortias M, Bloch V, Clergue-Duval V, Bellivier F, Dusouchet T, Debaulieu C, Vorspan F. 2018. Opinion of health professionals and drug users before the forthcoming opening of the first drug consumption room in Paris: a quantitative cross-sectional study. Harm Reduct J. 15(1):53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cooper H, Moore L, Gruskin S, Krieger N. 2005. The impact of a police crackdown on drug injectors’ ability to practice harm reduction: a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 61(3):673–684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson PJ, Lopez AM, Kral AH. 2018. Using drugs in un/safe spaces: impact of perceived illegality on an underground supervised injecting facility in the United States. Int J Drug Policy. 53:37–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis CS, Burris S, Kraut-Becher J, Lynch KG, Metzger D. 2005. Effects of an intensive street-level police intervention on syringe exchange program use in Philadelphia, PA. Am J Public Health. 95(2):233–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duff E. 2016 Jul 1. ‘The safe room’. The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-safe-room-20160616-gpkkh2.html
   Google Scholar
• Floody C. 2018 Jul 5. Police in Toronto’s downtown core will now carry overdose-reversal drug, naloxone. The Star. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/07/05/toronto-police-to-use-naloxone-to-prevent-opioid-overdoses.html
   Google Scholar
• Glaser BG. 2004. Remodeling grounded theory. Forum Qual Soc Res. 5:4.
   Google Scholar
• Gray J. 2018 Nov 5. Toronto’s drug-use sites could shut down under new provincial rules, activists say. Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-torontos-drug-use-sites-could-shut-down-under-new-provincial-rules/
   Google Scholar
• Hinds L, Murphy K. 2007. Public satisfaction with police: using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Aust N Z J Criminol. 40(1):27–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holloway I, Todres L. 2003. The status of method: flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qual Res. 3(3):345–357.
   Google Scholar
• Houborg E, Frank VA, Bjerge B. 2014. From zero tolerance to non-enforcement: creating a new space drug policing in Copenhagen, Denmark. Contemp Drug Prob. 41(2):261–291.
   Google Scholar
• Hough M. 2010. Policing, new public management and legitimacy. In: Brookes S, Grint K, editors. The new public leadership challenge: the rhetoric and reality of public reform. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan; p. 70–84.
   Google Scholar
• Howell M. 2014. Dr. Peter Centre injection site still illegal after all these years. Vancouver Courier. http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/dr-peter-centre-injection-site-still-illegal-after-all-these-years-1.2180304?blogRssReaderId=7.6871
   Google Scholar
• Huq AZ, Jackson J, Trinkner R. 2017. Legitimating practices: revisiting the predicates of police legitimacy. Br J Criminol. 57:1101–1122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson J, Bradford B, Hough M, Myhill A, Quinton P, Tyler TR. 2012. Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. Br J Criminol. 52(6):1051–1071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kammersgaard T. 2019. Harm reducing policing: from drug enforcement to protection. Contemp Drug Prob. 46(4):345–362.
   Google Scholar
• Katz N, Leonard L, Wiesenfeld L, Perry JJ, Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Calder L. 2017. Support of supervised injection facilities by emergency physicians in Canada. Int J Drug Policy. 49:26–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr T, Mitra S, Kennedy MC, McNeil R. 2017. Supervised injection facilities in Canada: past, present, and future. Harm Reduct J. 14(1):28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavoie J. 2017 Aug 14. Toronto harm reduction workers open pop-up overdose prevention site. Toronto.com. http://www.toronto.com/community-story/7502071-toronto-harm-reduction-workers-open-pop-up-overdose-prevention-site/
   Google Scholar
• León C, Cardoso L, Mackin S, Bock B, Gaeta JM. 2018. The willingness of people who inject drugs in Boston to use a supervised injection facility. Subst Abuse. 39(1):95–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leslie EM, Cherney A, Smirnov A, Kemp R, Najman JM. 2018. Experiences of police contact among young adult recreational drug users: a qualitative study. Int J Drug Policy. 56:64–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leslie EM, Cherney A, Smirnov A, Wells H, Kemp R, Najman JM. 2017. Willingness to cooperate with police: a population-based study of Australian young adult illicit stimulant users. Criminol Criminal Just. 17(3):301–318.
   Google Scholar
• Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Davis J, Sargeant E, Manning M. 2013. Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence. J Exp Criminol. 9(3):245–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meares TL. 2017. The path forward: improving the dynamics of community-police relationships to achieve effective law enforcement policies. Columbia Law Rev. 117:1355–1368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noppe J, Verhage A, Van Damme A. 2017. Police legitimacy: an introduction. Policing. 40(3):474–479.
   Google Scholar
• Packer-Multi B. 2010. Conducting a focus group. Qual Rep. 15(4):1023–1026.
   Google Scholar
• Philbin MM, Lozada R, Zúñiga M, Mantsios A, Case P, Magis-Rodriguez C, Latkin CA, Strathdee SA. 2008. A qualitative assessment of stakeholder perceptions and socio-cultural influences on the acceptability of harm reduction programs in Tijuana, Mexico. Harm Reduct J. 5(1):36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potier C, Laprévote V, Dubois-Arber F, Cottencin O, Rolland B. 2014. Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 145:48–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M. 2010. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 33:77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone K, Shirley-Beavan S. 2018. Global state of harm reduction 2018. London (UK): Harm Reduction International.
   Google Scholar
• Strike C, Watson TM. 2019. Losing the uphill battle? Emergent harm reduction interventions and barriers during the opioid overdose crisis in Canada. Int J Drug Policy. 71:178–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strike C, Watson TM, Altenberg J, Barnaby L, Bayoumi AM, Challacombe L, Demel G, Hopkins S, Wright A. under review. Challenges, skepticism and recommendations from police about working in collaboration with supervised consumption services.
   Google Scholar
• Sunshine J, Tyler TR. 2003. The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law Soc Rev. 37(3):513–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trinkner R, Jackson J, Tyler TR. 2018. Bounded authority: expanding “appropriate” police behavior beyond procedural justice. Law Hum Behav. 42(3):280–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trinkner R, Tyler TR. 2016. Legal socialization: coercion vs. consent in an era of mistrust. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci. 12(1):417–439.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler TR. 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy and the effective rule of law. Crime Just. 30:283–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler TR. 2004. Enhancing police legitimacy. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci. 593(1):84–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler TR. 2006. Why people obey the law. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler TR, Jackson J. 2013. Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In: Tankebe J, Liebling A, editors. Legitimacy and criminal justice: an international exploration. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; p. 83–104.
   Google Scholar
• van Beek I. 2003. The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre: a clinical model. J Drug Issues. 33(3):625–638.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner KD, Simon-Freeman R, Bluthenthal RN. 2013. The association between law enforcement encounters and syringe sharing among IDUs on Skid Row: a mixed methods analysis. AIDS Behav. 17(8):2637–2643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warr DJ. 2005. “It was fun…but we don’t usually talk about these things”: analyzing sociable interaction in focus groups. Qual Inquiry. 11(2):200–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson TM, Bayoumi A, Kolla G, Penn R, Fischer B, Luce J, Strike C. 2012. Police perceptions of supervised consumption sites (SCSs): a qualitative study. Subst Use Misuse. 47(4):364–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson TM, Bayoumi AM, Hopkins S, Wright A, Naraine R, Khorasheh T, Challacombe L, Strike C. 2018. Creating and sustaining cooperative relationships between supervised injection services and police: a qualitative interview study of international stakeholders. Int J Drug Policy. 61:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson TM, Kolla G, van der Meulen E, Dodd Z. 2020. Critical studies of harm reduction: overdose response in uncertain political times. Int J Drug Policy. 76:102615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks C, Gray J. 2019 Apr 1. Ontario cuts funding to three supervised drug-use sites. Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-to-close-three-supervised-drug-use-sites/
   Google Scholar
• Wenger LD, Arreola SG, Kral AH. 2011. The prospect of implementing a safer injection facility in San Francisco: perspectives of community stakeholders. Int J Drug Policy. 22(3):239–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werb D, Wood E, Small W, Strathdee S, Li K, Montaner J, Kerr T. 2008. Effects of police confiscation of illicit drugs and syringes among injection drug users in Vancouver. Int J Drug Policy. 19(4):332–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar