BC Judge Rules

[Argus]

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

Liquor stores SELL their liquor, which is a legal product.

We pay hundreds of thousands to maintain this herion shoot up shack, where addicts come to break the law for free.

[MontyBurns]

We pay hundreds of thousands to maintain this herion shoot up shack, where addicts come to break the law for free.

Canadians shouldn't have to pay for druggies. Why don't the druggies get together and pay for their shoot up shack amongst themselves?

[maldon_road]

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.

It is not up to judges to determine how much of the health services budget goes to help drug addicts as opposed to, for example, cancer patients. That's a decision to be made by the health authorities - in essence, a political one.

Not surprisingly I see that some drug addict advocates are using the decision to now "demand" that other free needle clinics be established in other parts of the country. Surely an enlightened fellow like David Miller would welcome such an establishment in his fair city.

[eyeball]

Canadians shouldn't have to pay for druggies. Why don't the druggies get together and pay for their shoot up shack amongst themselves?

They probably will, once the government starts issuing licences.

[Wilber]

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

Isn't that what we have been doing. It was the judge who made the comparison with alcohol and smoking. People involved in treating drinking and smoking addictions would never agree with providing government funded places for them to indulge their habit. That is enabling not treatment. Will it some day be deemed unconstitutional if we don't provide free transportation to alcoholics in order to prevent them from killing themselves or others? How far do you want to carry this constitutional nonsense? I do have mixed feelings about the sites themselves. I have a problem with them because of what I have previously stated but if they do in fact save lives and not just postpone the inevitable, it would be hard not to have some sympathy for them even though I believe they are just a band aid to compensate for the woefully inadequate treatment options that are out there.

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.

Why is this just a problem for the government?

How long before some other judge with an agenda declares those laws unconstitutional? Because the feds don't want to sanction a so called "safe" injection site, suddenly "laws prohibiting the possession and trafficking of all prohibited substances are unconstitutional and of no force or effect"? Give me a freakin break.

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.

There are those on this forum who would say don't bother. Some days I wonder why I shouldn't be one of them.

[madmax]

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!!!!!!!!!!!

FTA

There you go again ....

[Wilber]

There you go again ....

Not if he needs 59 pages to try and get his point accross. Have you read it?

[sharkman]

We can speak to the larger issue of having legalized drug houses without caring what a judge in our drug sympathetic justice system has to say. With activist judges attempting to force politicians to issue new legislation when they won't enforce the laws on the books on other drug crime, his ruling rings pretty hollow.

[madmax]

Not if he needs 59 pages to try and get his point accross. Have you read it?

If I said no......

[stevoh]

When you decide whether or not to support a safe injection site, you have to consider the alternatives.

Addicted drug users will shoot up, regardless of whether a safe injection site is there. You prefer to see this on the street? In back alleys and parks? In gas station bathrooms?

The garbage associated with hard drug use, I would much rather see that controlled as well, I don't want my children picking up a potentially infected needle.

Jail is an alternative. But jail costs more. And its not necessarily equiped to deal with addiction effectively.

So, if we don't allow safe injection sites, what are the money saving alternatives?

[BC_chick]

Wow, isn't this interesting. Many of the people on this thread who are against this judge's ruling are the same ones who seem to feel Canada's government is too centralised as it is. I guess decentralisation is only good if it gives Alberta the power to do whatever it wants with its oil, but bad when Quebec creates its own language laws or BC makes its own decision about what to do with its addicts.

Personally, I applaud this judge. What to do with addicts, IMO, should be a provincial matter. I don't see how it's any business of some Maritimer MP what the city of Vancouver should do with its addicts. Many of the strongest opponents of this facility have never even seen Vancouver's East-Side. This is not some remote isolated area of town - commuters have to drive through it every day to get to the downtown core.

And no - it's not sweeping it under the rug when you don't have a vacuum or a dust-bin. Intravenous (sp?) drug-users exist, this is a fact. Until you find a way to eliminate them all together, it makes no sense whatsoever to have seem shooting up and/or dying on the street.

[DrGreenthumb]

Liquor stores SELL their liquor, which is a legal product.

We pay hundreds of thousands to maintain this herion shoot up shack, where addicts come to break the law for free.

Without the prohibition laws the private sector would undoubtedly take over. Also the safe injection sites do NOT provide the drugs for the addicts to shoot up, they only provide clean needles, and supervision so that there is less chance of overdose, disease spreading, and accidental contamination of third parties by dirty needles. It would be FAR cheaper for the taxpayer to even supply addicts the drugs that they will use regardless of the law than to spend billions on enforcement and punishment. Addicts don't steal because they are on drugs, they steal because they will do anything to get money to BUY their next fix, a fix that is way more expensive than it is worth because of the prohibition laws. Give the hardcore addicts their maintenance dose for pennies a shot in a legal market and "drug related" crime will be a thing of the past. If prohibition makes the world safer then why do we not prohibit Alcohol again, since it is by far the most destructive drug to society?

90% of drug dangers are caused by the prohibitions against those drugs. Heroin was practically unheard of when natural opium was readily available.

Science says that alcohol is just as dangerous a drug as any of the illegal ones. The legality of a substance is definitely not an indicator of how dangerous the drug itself actually is. Cannabis is exceedingly safe when compared with alcohol, as are MDMA, LSD, and psilcybin mushrooms.

[Wilber]

I guess decentralisation is only good if it gives Alberta the power to do whatever it wants with its oil, but bad when Quebec creates its own language laws or BC makes its own decision about what to do with its addicts.

Would you prefer provinces to have jurisdiction over the Criminal Code?

[BC_chick]

Would you prefer provinces to have jurisdiction over the Criminal Code?

No, I don't. I do think, however, that dealing with drug-users should be a provincial matter and we need to start taking steps toward reaching that goal.

Disputes between federal and provincial jurisdictions are nothing new. Sometimes these disputes end up changing these jurisdictions, sometimes they don't. This is just another example of a jurisdiction dispute - except that the ending of the chapter has not been written yet.

Furthermore, fortunately for us, laws are not static and they evolve. Just because something is the law, doesn't mean it will/should forever be the law. Imagine if everyone thought like you - we would still be using the old justice system of an eye-for-an-eye and stoning people. After all, some moralist was arguing for maintaining both those laws too back in the day, claiming it's "the law"... bit of a catch-22 wouldn't you say?

So how do laws/jurisdictions evolve? With baby steps as this judge has done. Let's see what the end of the chapter says.

Edited May 29, 2008 by BC_chick

[maldon_road]

No surprise here.

Ottawa to appeal insite ruling

OTTAWA - Federal Health Minister Tony Clement said Thursday that Ottawa will appeal the B.C. Supreme Court decision earlier this week that ruled in favour of Vancouver's controversial safe-injection site.

The minister told the House of Commons health committee he would ask Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to appeal the ruling, handed down Tuesday by Justice Ian Pitfield.

Clement hinted Wednesday an appeal would be forthcoming when he told the House of Commons in question period the Tories disagreed with the decision to keep Insite open and the government was exploring its options....

(full story)

INSITE

[Wild Bill]

Furthermore, fortunately for us, laws are not static and they evolve. Just because something is the law, doesn't mean it will/should forever be the law. Imagine if everyone thought like you - we would still be using the old justice system of an eye-for-an-eye and stoning people. After all, some moralist was arguing for maintaining both those laws too back in the day, claiming it's "the law"... bit of a catch-22 wouldn't you say?

So how do laws/jurisdictions evolve? With baby steps as this judge has done. Let's see what the end of the chapter says.

Well, isn't that the argument? How do our laws evolve with our present structure? Do the changes represent the will of the people or the values of judges?

If we have a conflict, what can we do about it? Particularly if our politicians are too cowardly to get involved.

This was one of the major criticisms of abandoning our former system of British Common Law in favour of a codified Charter of Rights. Our amending fomulae are such that in the real world amendments are almost impossible. In effect, the way it was first written is carved in stone. We better hope that it always stays perfect!

We do have the "Notwithstanding Clause" except governments have been too scared to ever use it. Except for some Quebec provincial governments, who have used the nothwithstanding clause of a constitution/charter they have never signed!

I'm saying that the baby steps you cite this judge as taking are his values. As far as I've heard there never was any referendum or plebescite to read popular opinion. You can't claim that democracy has been exercised through our elected representatives when the judge has ruled against the federal government! It may be a minority government but it democratically is in power. The judge was appointed for life. If you think he was wrong in his decision well... tough beans!

Again I say, just because you happen to agree with this one should not mean you think the system is just hunky-dory. If one occurs that you don't agree with I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment if you think that most folks agree with you and you can get the law to "evolve". It wouldn't matter if you actually got unanimous consent of every other citizen in Canada! There's no easy legal lever to exert their collective will.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Wilber]

So how do laws/jurisdictions evolve? With baby steps as this judge has done. Let's see what the end of the chapter says.

In sum, I declare that ss. 4(1) and 5(1) of the CDSA are inconsistent with s. 7 of the Charter, and of no force and effect.

Hardly baby steps.

You misunderstand, although I am conflicted on the issue, I have no big objection to this place staying open so I'll ignore the insult.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Wilber

[BC_chick]

I'm saying that the baby steps you cite this judge as taking are his values. As far as I've heard there never was any referendum or plebescite to read popular opinion. You can't claim that democracy has been exercised through our elected representatives when the judge has ruled against the federal government! It may be a minority government but it democratically is in power. The judge was appointed for life. If you think he was wrong in his decision well... tough beans!

Again I say, just because you happen to agree with this one should not mean you think the system is just hunky-dory. If one occurs that you don't agree with I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment if you think that most folks agree with you and you can get the law to "evolve". It wouldn't matter if you actually got unanimous consent of every other citizen in Canada! There's no easy legal lever to exert their collective will.

Safe Injection Sites In The Lower Mainland

Six-in-Ten (61%) Support a Safe Injection Site in the City of Vancouver; Majority (55%) Thinks Site Will Improve Drug Problem in Downtown Eastside

Six-in-Ten (63%) Prefer Multiple Sites to a Single Site (19%)

Strong Majority (81%) Supports Mandatory Treatment; Much Lower Support for Age Limits (39%) or Providing Free Drugs (41%)

Half (50%) of Lower Mainland Residents Outside City of Vancouver Would Support a Site in Their Own Municipality

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=1702

The people have spoken.

To repeat my earlier stance - I don't want some Easterner MP who has never even been to Vancouver to tell us what we should and should not do with our addicts. Maybe you'd think like us too if you had to live with this issue.

Vancouver's East-Side "problem" is one-of-a-kind. If your camp could provide an alternative, we might be more willing to listen. But "no, deal with it"... sorry. Our city, our say.

Edited to add: Shoot, I remember reading a local article which had the above stats, so when I googled the issue, I didn't look at the date. Here is a more recent poll:

63% in B.C. support safe injection site: poll

Peter O'Neil , CanWest News Service

Published: Wednesday, June 27 2007

OTTAWA - Close to two-thirds of British Columbians don't want the Conservative government to shut down Vancouver's supervised injection site for drug addicts, according to a new poll released Wednesday.

The Mustel Group poll of 852 B.C. adults found that 63 per cent of respondents want Ottawa to extend Insite's special permit when it expires at the end of this year.

Only 27 per cent oppose an extension, while 10 per cent are undecided.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...9e-7570a8c55fd5

Edited May 29, 2008 by BC_chick

[Wild Bill]

The people have spoken.

To repeat my earlier stance - I don't want some Easterner MP who has never even been to Vancouver to tell us what we should and should not do with our addicts. Maybe you'd think like us too if you had to live with this issue.

Vancouver's East-Side "problem" is one-of-a-kind. If your camp could provide an alternative, we might be more willing to listen. But "no, deal with it"... sorry. Our city, our say.

Edited to add: Shoot, I remember reading a local article which had the above stats, so when I googled the issue, I didn't look at the date. Here is a more recent poll:

Who says I don't also agree with keeping the sites open? That's not the point! I would go further and legalize ALL drugs to wipe out the profit for organized crime and free up zillions of tax dollars for more such sites, education and treatment!

All I'm saying is if it's done by an unelected judge over-ruling a government elected by the people then the time will come when a judge rules AGAINST something you believe in! If the government is supreme then you can at least try to vote them out. If you disagree with the judge there's nothing you can do! He's got his job for life!

The system is flawed. You got the decision you wanted only by a lucky fluke. It could just as easily bite you on another issue. I wonder if you will be so happy at that time to abide by the same system.

Sauce for the goose can leave a bad taste in a gander's mouth. How's that for a loopy metaphor?

[Bryan]

Addicted drug users will shoot up, regardless of whether a safe injection site is there. You prefer to see this on the street? In back alleys and parks? In gas station bathrooms?

Awesome logic there. Criminals will break the law anyway, so lets help them do it instead of enforcing the law. Imagine if we took that strategy for other types of crimes.

[eyeball]

Awesome logic there. Criminals will break the law anyway, so lets help them do it instead of enforcing the law. Imagine if we took that strategy for other types of crimes.

Like we did with gambling and drinking?

[eyeball]

The people have spoken.

To repeat my earlier stance - I don't want some Easterner MP who has never even been to Vancouver to tell us what we should and should not do with our addicts. Maybe you'd think like us too if you had to live with this issue.

Vancouver's East-Side "problem" is one-of-a-kind. If your camp could provide an alternative, we might be more willing to listen. But "no, deal with it"... sorry. Our city, our say.

Its one thing to have provinces administer their own health or substance use laws and programs but the federal government is responsible for ensuring all Canadians can depend on their provinces to do so on more or less equal terms. I want the federal government to ensure other provinces open their own Insites so that we don't end up with a disproportionate number of addicts in BC. MP's in other regions might indeed start to think more like us if they faced up to their own backyards but the fact is many just won't. This is why I have no problem at all with letting judges and the Charter do what MPs and MLA's are to chickenshit to do on their own. Sure, decisions can backfire but they usually do more so on governments and political parties I think. Generally speaking the courts seem to have a far better record of protecting human being's rights than politicians have.

Vancouver's East-Side's disproportionate drug addiction problems are also compounded by disproportionate numbers of homeless and mentally ill people. Virtually every Canadian cities population of these distressed people is weighted with a significant number of people from rural regions who cannot find the support or the services they need in their home communities. The ugly story behind this reality is that many of these people end up leaving their home communities because they do not feel welcome. The feel people's fear and loathing and above all else, the vindictivness. This is where this issue's rubber really hits the pavement, it has nothing to do with judges or politicians, its strictly about us individual human beings. It's times like this when the question what would Jesus do, is really appropriate.

Edited May 30, 2008 by eyeball

[Argus]

When you decide whether or not to support a safe injection site, you have to consider the alternatives.

Addicted drug users will shoot up, regardless of whether a safe injection site is there. You prefer to see this on the street? In back alleys and parks? In gas station bathrooms?

I prefer them to be arrested and locked up for very, very long periods of time.

Jail is an alternative. But jail costs more. And its not necessarily equiped to deal with addiction effectively.

How about work farms out in the countryside - permanently. The major cost, after all, is the lawyers. If you lock them away forever then you aren't continually pushing them through the revolving door of the legal system. Provide them with all the drugs they want there, but make them work for them. Most of them will probably have a really short life span anyway, and you can use their bodies to fertilize the crops.

[stevoh]

Awesome logic there. Criminals will break the law anyway, so lets help them do it instead of enforcing the law. Imagine if we took that strategy for other types of crimes.

I mentioned jail as one option, but jail costs more money. Some people are complaining that this site and others like it cost too much money. If we can't spend money, then jail isn't really an option either.

What is your solution?

[Wilber]

How about work farms out in the countryside - permanently. The major cost, after all, is the lawyers. If you lock them away forever then you aren't continually pushing them through the revolving door of the legal system. Provide them with all the drugs they want there, but make them work for them. Most of them will probably have a really short life span anyway, and you can use their bodies to fertilize the crops.

Would you want these people working on your farm using your machinery? You would probably get sued when one of them lopped off a body part.

I mentioned jail as one option, but jail costs more money. Some people are complaining that this site and others like it cost too much money. If we can't spend money, then jail isn't really an option either.

What is your solution?

How about treating the addicted and doing more than just go through the motions when it comes to the people who deal in this death.