Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 2008 Source: StarPhoenix, The (CN SN) Copyright: 2008 The StarPhoenix Contact: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/letters.html Website: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/400 Referenced: The ruling http://drugsense.org/url/IoeOUnAY Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Insite (Insite) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hr.htm (Harm Reduction) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?142 (Supervised Injection Sites) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment) CLEMENT STANCE ON INSITE RULING IDEOLOGY-DRIVEN Provided a political escape hatch that at once would allow the Conservative government to do the scientifically and economically right thing while pinning responsibility on the courts, Health Minister Tony Clement put ideology first and slammed shut the lid. In a move that seems to have more to do with pandering to hardline conservative elements within party ranks than meeting a serious public health challenge, Mr. Clement announced Thursday that he'll ask Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to appeal this week's sensible ruling by the British Columbia Supreme Court regarding a supervised drug injection site. Justice Ian Pitfield said the criminal law provisions on possession and trafficking, when applied to Vancouver's pilot project injection site, Insite, poses a threat to a person's constitutional right to life and security. He equated Insite, a pilot project established in 2003 to meet health needs of addicts, reduce their disease rate and the overdose deaths associated with about 4,600 long-term heroin addicts in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, to a health facility. Justice Pitfield found the crucial section of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act unconstitutional because it arbitrarily applies possession of drugs for any and every purpose. "In particular, it prohibits the management of addiction and its associated risks at Insite," said his lengthy ruling that caught both opponents and proponents by surprise. "Instead of being rationally connected to a reasonable apprehension of harm, the blanket prohibition contributes to the very harm it seeks to prevent ... It is inconsistent with the state's interest in fostering individual and community health, and preventing death and disease." Justice Pitfield found no justification to deny health care to injection drug addicts and to "force the user who is ill from addiction to resort to unhealthy and unsafe injection in an environment where there is a significant and measurable risk of morbidity or death." The judge wasn't saying anything new in his ruling. Even the federal government's lawyers have acknowledged that addiction is a disease and that Insite staff have managed to save lives, an estimated 1,000 addicts who overdosed at the facility and had their care managed, with no fatalities. In essence, the convoluted argument that's coming from Mr. Clement's government seems to be that: Yes, we accept that addiction is a sickness, but these people chose to become addicts; so we have the right to shut down a facility that's been saving their lives and providing them with counselling, because we're doing it to protect their health. It's pretzel legal logic in a perfect union with ideological blindness. While the clinic has operated under exemptions granted from the federal law, its latest exemption is set to expire on June 30. With Mr. Clement expressing great reluctance to grant a further extension, Insite staff would have been exposed to criminal charges. In essence, the government's opposition to the site is based upon the ideological stance that drugs are illegal and those who use them are breaking the law. Bur rather than treat the problem as a social health issue, a stance that even that conservative think tank, The Fraser Institute, long has advocated, the government sides with those who want to tackle it as a law and order issue even though the "war on drugs" approach has been a demonstrable failure in the U.S. and Canada. Justice Pitfield gave the government one year to fix a law that contravenes the Constitution by interfering with medical care for drug addicts, but it appears Mr. Clement would rather fight than switch. "We on this side of the House care about treating drug addicts who need our help. We care about preventing people, especially our young people, from becoming drug addicts in the first place. That is our way to reduce harm in our society and we're proud of taking that message to the people of Canada," he said Wednesday. It's not as if the addicts who die on the streets of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside or live a miserable and diseased existence in alleyways across major Canadian cities are a testament to the success of the current drug policy. Yet, strident talk of getting tough on crime and criminals is an easy political sell if you gloss over the actual results, even when judges, civic politicians, community activists and others who live with the reality say otherwise in the strongest of terms. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom