Pubdate: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 Source: Bracebridge Examiner (CN ON) Copyright: 2008 The Bracebridge Examiner Ltd. Contact: http://www.bracebridgeexaminer.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2354 Author: Laura MacLean Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?142 (Supervised Injection Sites) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/insite (Insite) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hr.htm (Harm Reduction) GOVERNMENT APPEALS INSITE'S EXEMPTION Minister of Health Tony Clement has appealed a judge's ruling giving Vancouver's Insite facility a permanent constitutional exemption from federal drug laws. Open 18 hours a day and the only facility of its kind in North America, Insite is a place where public health workers provide drug addicts with clean needles as well as counselling and support in case of an overdose. "I spoke to the standing committee on health at Parliament and announced that we would be appealing the ruling," Clement told this newspaper on Thursday. "It will go on to the justice minister in order to launch the appeal. While the science is mixed, the public policy is clear. It's better to treat addicts - it's better to prevent people from becoming drug addicts - rather than to allow them to continue injecting drugs into their veins." Last week, it was announced that Justice Ian Pitfield of the British Columbia Supreme Court granted users and staff at Insite the permanent exemption. Pitfield ruled that sections of Canada's drug laws against possession and trafficking in illegal narcotics are unconstitutional and that the federal Conservative government has until the end of June next year to redraft them in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, the judge ruled that allowing addicts to inject their illegal drugs in a safe, medically supervised environment is a matter of sensible health care and they should not be under threat of being busted by police. "The judge gave one extra year for the exemption and the law impact is that we have to change the laws affecting trafficking and possessions to permanently exempt that site," noted Clement. "We think this completely throws into chaos our laws against trafficking and possession. Obviously, we're going to be fighting on behalf of Canadians that it not be the law to throw out trafficking and possession clauses to allow these injection sites to exist." The injection site was established in the fall of 2003 by Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) in partnership with the PHS Community Services Society (PHS) as a pilot project. The site is an attempt to address the increasingly risky and open drug scene in Vancouver's downtown east side. The goal of the project was to collect information on whether such a facility could be an effective way to bring people off the streets and into a place where they could access clean supplies and general support. To operate legally, Health Canada granted VCH a three-year operating exemption under Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and has since provided $500,000 every year to support it. The exemption has previously been temporarily extended twice. When asked if appealing the ruling is something he feels strongly about, Clement responded, "very much so. I believe we're on the side of compassion and keeping people alive rather than warehousing them until they shoot themselves up to death. If it was my son or daughter, I would want public health officials to do whatever they can to help them and (would want) my government to be on my side in order to help them." While scientific data collected indicates that Insite is meeting certain objectives, including reducing public injections, reducing overdose fatalities, reducing the transmission of bloodborne infections like HIV and hepatitis C and reducing injection-related infections as well as improving public order, the controversy surrounding the facility is that some believe it permits drug use by providing a safe environment for addicts to shoot up in. According to Mark Townsend, a worker for the PHS, Insite is fulfilling its duty of saving lives. "The judge concluded it's basically a health-care issue. Unfortunately, Tony was in Parliament to appeal the decision. He still wants to keep fighting us, and it's very depressing. The judge deemed them to be unconstitutional and the government has one year to make those laws constitutional. If they don't fix it, the whole law is brought down." Townsend went on to say that Health Canada established a comprehensive approach to health-care policy that recognized four key items, including prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. He said Health Canada spent only $1.4 million for harm reduction in the country in 2006-07. "In the last budget, they deleted that item," stated Townsend. "They suffocated it without anyone noticing and without even consulting the public. By cutting the funding and deleting the program, (Health Canada) is saying we're against harm reduction. If you don't have it, you basically deny it. AIDS will spread rapidly and then you have to deal with an epidemic. We've been lucky in Canada because of a deployment of harm reduction. But because (Insite) involves junkies it doesn't really matter. What they've done is refocused their priories, cancelled the funding and now there's no new funding for this. Harm reduction needs to be a part of a comprehensive drug policy . . . it's standard practice." According to a press release issued by the Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addiction Programs (OFCMHAP), the organization is in support of the decision made by the Supreme Court that recognizes addiction as a health issue that must be treated. "It is time for addiction to come out of the shadows and be addressed like other health issues," said David Kelly, executive director of OFCMHAP. "Canada's drug trafficking and possession laws are unconstitutional when they are applied to addicts using a supervised injection site." As explained by Judge Pitfield, noted Kelly, those laws, when applied to Insite, threaten a person's constitutional right to life and security "denying the addict access to a healthcare facility where the risk of morbidity associated with infectious disease is diminished, if not eliminated." - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom