BC Judge Rules

[Wilber]

I have mixed feelings about this thing but is the judge trying to say that we should have government funded sites for smokers to smoke and drinkers to drink?

Almost forgot

Edited May 28, 2008 by Wilber

[maldon_road]

I have mixed feelings about this thing but is the judge trying to say that we should have government funded sites for smokers to smoke and drinkers to drink?

Is it the role of the judiciary to determine health policy or that of the government?

But that big sigh of relief you hear is from the PMO. Now they don't have to make a decision.

[Argus]

Is it the role of the judiciary to determine health policy or that of the government?

But that big sigh of relief you hear is from the PMO. Now they don't have to make a decision.

Nonsense. They will and must appeal this decision. We can't let unelected judges grab any more power. For this judge to decide that providing free enjection sites is constitutionally protected moves the definition of that term even further into the realm of judge made law. This is an out and out policy decision and the judge has abrogated the right to set policy on his own behalf by merely using his magic judge word "constitution" in order to usurp the government's right.

Is he now going to decide what the budget should be? What about other areas of the province? Is he going to demand that more 'safe injection sites' be established all across BC? I mean, if this is a constitutionally protected right then he pretty much has to. Further - if this is a constitutionally protected right then safe injection sites must be established all across the country, with judges ordering it so, and setting the budgets for each.

Do remember that this site was only established on a trial basis a couple of years ago.

Now it's a constitutionally protected health care service!?!? The judge is an idiot.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Argus

[Borg]

Judges have garnered too much power and the politicians have bowed to them.

Judges simply administer the law - politicians create them

This judge is exercising what he thinks his power should be - in fact I think he needs a kick in the ass

Borg

[Pliny]

I have mixed feelings about this thing but is the judge trying to say that we should have government funded sites for smokers to smoke and drinkers to drink?

Almost forgot

I have yet to see an effective program from government regarding addiction. It is almost as though our medical system understands nothing about it and drug treatment is an employment program for police, social workers and pharmaceutical companies with a heavy contribution from charities also receiving government grants to "help" the addicted with housing, food, and a friendly face.

On the one hand there is a constant and continuing lack of "resources", in the form of money and personnel, and on the other the failures of government are never addressed only the lack of resources. The results of government policies regarding addiction are measured in growing social problems. If employment is part of the solution then government policies are a great success, we need more police, medical personnel, social workers, addictions counsellors, and the whole gamut of support systems for them. Since when are politicians experts on addiction? Even the medical establishment knows very little and guesses at genetic disposition, poverty, childhood abuse, parental neglect, mental proclivity, bullying, social inadequacies, whatever the latest trend or theory.

The bottom line is that when society wants a solution they will find one. I guess they don't want one. It seems that people who do understand addiction are ignored.

As you see I don't have mixed feelings about this.

[maldon_road]

Nonsense. They will and must appeal this decision. We can't let unelected judges grab any more power.

Of course they will appeal. They need to tell their base that they can't put up with this type of stuff. In your words:

We can't let unelected judges grab any more power. For this judge to decide that providing free enjection sites is constitutionally protected moves the definition of that term even further into the realm of judge made law.

And they will also solemnly declare that, unfortunately the site will have to continue unless it is worked out in the courts. In other words they put off making a decision.

I'm with you. It's turning the constitution into a ten-dollar whore. It used to be you wanted something you went to your MP. Now you go to the court whinging about "constitutional rights".

[Michael Bluth]

Of course they will appeal. They need to tell their base that they can't put up with this type of stuff.

And they will also solemnly declare that, unfortunately the site will have to continue unless it is worked out in the courts. In other words they put off making a decision.

Yes, they definitely will want to rag the puck on that one until the next election.

Any lawyers out there know how long they can wait before appealing?

[scribblet]

I don't understand how it can be a constitutional to shoot up on the taxpayer's dime. Next thing you know it'll be a constitutional right that we provide the drugs too.

[Wilber]

Is it the role of the judiciary to determine health policy or that of the government?

But that big sigh of relief you hear is from the PMO. Now they don't have to make a decision.

I don't think they will be smiling over this one. It may solve their immediate problem but the implications are huge.

[Kitchener]

Is it the role of the judiciary to determine health policy or that of the government?

The government.

The judiciary's job is (inter alia) to ensure that policies are not enforced in unfairly discriminatory or arbitrary ways. The government can write legislation to clarify this if they want; in the meantime, the judiciary's just doing its job.

[Kitchener]

I don't understand how it can be a constitutional to shoot up on the taxpayer's dime. Next thing you know it'll be a constitutional right that we provide the drugs too.

Shooting up on the taxpayer's dime is exactly what you do if you get an anesthetic. The safe site too is part of a medical program, one that treats addiction as an illness (as AA, Gamblers' Anonymous, etc have all done for decades).

[eyeball]

I don't understand how it can be a constitutional to shoot up on the taxpayer's dime. Next thing you know it'll be a constitutional right that we provide the drugs too.

The government provides alcohol to addicts, it even licences safe ingestion sites. They're called bars.

[Wilber]

The government provides alcohol to addicts, it even licences safe ingestion sites. They're called bars.

Bars are not government funded. If anything they are used to generate a lot of revenue for government. Alcohol is also a legal substance.

The Globe article is more in depth.

Judge Pitfield also declared that sections of Canada's drug laws against possession and trafficking in illegal narcotics were unconstitutional.

However, he gave the government until the end of June next year to redraft them in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The ruling is narrow in scope and not expected to lead to widespread loosening of the laws against heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other illegal drugs.

This is much bigger than one "safe" injection site and considering the past performance of the BC Supreme Court, I don't believe it will remain narrow in scope for a second.

[Keepitsimple]

Let's make sure we are clear on the issues. Providing Healthcare is a Provincial responsibilty. Any province can offer a similar In-Site service as long as the Federal Government agrees not to lay criminal charges against the users. If a Province thinks that In-site services are a good use of Healthcare funds, they should pay for it out of their Provincial Healthcare budget. The feds have now helped to fund this site for 4 - going on 5 years. The advocates say that it works - so turn off the Federal funding and fully integrate it into the Provincial Health system.

In summary, it's a Provincial Healthcare issue and a Federal Law and Order/Justice issue. Isn't it funny how the judge has ruled that it's a constitutional right to obtain "treatment".....yet it's also a constitutional right to refuse treatment. That slope is getting slippier every day.

[eyeball]

Alcohol is also a legal substance.

Why?

This is much bigger than one substance and considering the past performance of the BC Supreme Court, I don't believe it will remain narrow in scope for a second either.

Edited May 28, 2008 by eyeball

[Argus]

Shooting up on the taxpayer's dime is exactly what you do if you get an anesthetic. The safe site too is part of a medical program, one that treats addiction as an illness (as AA, Gamblers' Anonymous, etc have all done for decades).

It does nothing of the sort. AA and other such organizations are dedicated to stopping addiction. Try going to an AA meeting with a six pack and trying to get drunk there.

This site is about enabling an addiction. It tells addicts its okay to be addicts, and gives them the proper equipment so they can safely inject themselves.

The only way your comparison would work would be if you showed up at AA meetings and they had a nice bar with glasses and ice so you could get comfortably drunk.

[eyeball]

This site is about enabling an addiction.

So are government liquor stores and official licences to operate bars. What's your point?

Edited May 28, 2008 by eyeball

[Argus]

Let's make sure we are clear on the issues. Providing Healthcare is a Provincial responsibilty. Any province can offer a similar In-Site service as long as the Federal Government agrees not to lay criminal charges against the users. If a Province thinks that In-site services are a good use of Healthcare funds, they should pay for it out of their Provincial Healthcare budget. The feds have now helped to fund this site for 4 - going on 5 years. The advocates say that it works - so turn off the Federal funding and fully integrate it into the Provincial Health system.

The advocates always say these things work. They liked the crack pipe program in Ottawa too. Only thing is, a more balanced study showed it not only wasn't really helping anyone but it was expanding the number of crack addicts. The city pulled funding and tried to shut it down but the provincial liberals stepped in to restore funding.

They cant fund an extra MRI machine in Ottawa to the point waiting lists have risen by months, but they can find hundreds of thousands for a crack pipe program the city doesn't want at the drop of a hat.

Why? Because this sort of thing is a cause celebre for the lefties. As for desperately ill people waiting for diagnostic tests - well that just ain't sexy.

[eyeball]

The advocates always say these things work. They liked the crack pipe program in Ottawa too. Only thing is, a more balanced study showed it not only wasn't really helping anyone but it was expanding the number of crack addicts. The city pulled funding and tried to shut it down but the provincial liberals stepped in to restore funding.

They cant fund an extra MRI machine in Ottawa to the point waiting lists have risen by months, but they can find hundreds of thousands for a crack pipe program the city doesn't want at the drop of a hat.

Why? Because this sort of thing is a cause celebre for the lefties. As for desperately ill people waiting for diagnostic tests - well that just ain't sexy.

Shut down prohibition, tax drugs and you will soon have hundreds of billions of dollars for things like MRI machines.

[Wilber]

Shut down prohibition, tax drugs and you will soon have hundreds of billions of dollars for things like MRI machines.

You want to legalize and tax heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, crack cocaine and ecstacy among others? How would you do it considering the domestic market is only part of Canada's illegal drug business? In many cases a minor part.

[madmax]

Yes, they definitely will want to rag the puck on that one until the next election.

Any lawyers out there know how long they can wait before appealing?

The government doesn't have to renew the application which is due in a few days, if I read the article correctly.

The health centre has a permit which expires.

The government needs to get out more.

Giving out drugs isn't going to stop drug addiction. But the centre is preventing the spreading of diseases. The fact that addicts could hold it together long enough to get to a facility and a clean fix, surprises me.

There is nothing more damaging to a community then finding dirty needles in schoolyards, and sidewalks tossed aside by addicts. Sometimes reclaimed and used again.

However, nobody must be fooled by the political spin that this prevents drug use. That in itself is a difficult endeavour to get addicts free of their vice.

But that isn't what the government is fighting for or against. This isn't about the addicts or the community. It is about what the government thinks it should be doing.

[eyeball]

You want to legalize and tax heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, crack cocaine and ecstacy among others? How would you do it considering the domestic market is only part of Canada's illegal drug business? In many cases a minor part.

I'm afraid so. The rest of the world will just have to mind its own business on its own I guess.

[FTA Lawyer]

I have mixed feelings about this thing but is the judge trying to say that we should have government funded sites for smokers to smoke and drinkers to drink?

Almost forgot

Sooner or later, someone here other than me will go to the source, and not the poorly paraphrased media crap. In stead of posing a question in a cloud of confusion, just READ THE JUDGMENT!!!!!!!!!!!

What the Judge Actually Said

[144] Section 4(1) of the CDSA threatens security of the person. It denies the addict access to a health care facility where the risk of morbidity associated with infectious disease is diminished, if not eliminated. While it is popular to say that addiction is the result of choice and the pursuit of a liberty interest that should not be afforded Charter protection, an understanding of the nature and circumstances which result in addiction, as I have discussed elsewhere in these reasons, must lead to the opposite conclusion. Society cannot condone addiction, but in the face of its presence it cannot fail to manage it, hopefully with ultimate success reflected in the cure of the addicted individual and abstinence.

[145] Canada argues that the right to security of the person is not engaged because those who use Insite do not do so for the purpose of treating an illness, but merely to satisfy the craving for an illegal drug.

[146] Denial of access to Insite and safe injection for the reason stated by Canada, amounts to a condemnation of the consumption that led to addiction in the first place, while ignoring the resulting illness. While there is nothing to be said in favour of the injection of controlled substances that leads to addiction, there is much to be said against denying addicts health care services that will ameliorate the effects of their condition. Society does that for other substances such as alcohol and tobacco. While those are not prohibited substances, society neither condemns the individual who chose to drink or smoke to excess, nor deprives that individual of a range of health care services. Management of the harm in those cases is accepted as a community responsibility. I cannot see any rational or logical reason why the approach should be different when dealing with the addiction to narcotics, an aspect of which is that the substance that resulted in the addiction in the first place will invariably be ingested in the short-term, and possibly in the long-term, because of the very nature of the illness. Simply stated, I cannot agree with the Canada’s submission that an addict must feed his addiction in an unsafe environment when a safe environment that may lead to rehabilitation is the alternative.

Now you can actually debate the judge's reasons, and not the rhetoric that can be trounced up by either side of the issue.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

I don't think they will be smiling over this one. It may solve their immediate problem but the implications are huge.

I would use the word "vast". The decision has the effect of allowing the InSite facility to operate without any government permit or blessing until June 30, 2009 (or shorter if the government passes legislation in response prior to then).

What the true problem is for the government is that the way in which the judge decided the issue. The judge has declared the CDSA prohibitions against possession and trafficking of all controlled substances to be unconstitutional and of no force or effect. Absent new legislation carving out exceptions for addictions treatment programs (or a successful appeal or the use of the notwithstanding clause) prior to June 30, 2009, then as of that date, there will no longer be a Canadian law prohibiting the possession or trafficking of any controlled substance.

Obviously, that would be disaster. The silver lining for the government may be though, that they will be able to speedily pass whatever new legislation they put forward because no opposition party will want to be blamed for letting the June 30, 2009 date pass without replacement laws in place.

FTA

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

A few of the last posts have been deleted because one of them was provoking violence and the other posts quoted the original.

Please refrain from advocating violence -- even tangentially. Such comments are not conducive to the smooth operation of the forums.

Ch. A.