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