Neocons oppose drug rehab centres

[Sir Bandelot]

VANCOUVER — Canada's attorney general and minister of health have lost their appeal of a court ruling on Vancouver's controversial supervised injection site, raising proponents' hopes that similar facilities will now open in other cities.

The B.C. Appeal Court decision Friday upheld a lower court ruling that provinces, not the federal government, have jurisdiction for health care, and therefore services such as the injection site.

Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV-AIDS, said the decision sends a clear message that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should abandon "his draconian, ideologically motivated public health policy-making" and embrace evidence-based research to continue operating the clinic, called Insite.

The lower court ruling found that Insite is a health care facility, and therefore provincial jurisdiction, not federal, and gave Insite immediate constitutional exemption to stay open without a federal exemption from drug laws.

The appeal court ruled that the federal government must pay the court costs for those who have fought to keep the facility open since it began operating.

B.C. injection site to remain open, feds lose appeal

The idea of putting people in jail because they are addicted to a substance is not justice. Once again the neocons demonstrate that they prefer ideology over real data, but fortunately they do not yet have so much control as to pervert due legal process. Given the opportunity, they would do it. Neocons have removed most of the prison reform programs anyway, attempting to fulfill their dream to fill up the prisons with non-dangerous offenders, not offer any therapy, not offer any retraining, just let them rot as long as possible.

Good to see that this draconian BS has been halted. For now

Edited January 16, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Riverwind]

VANCOUVER — Canada's attorney general and minister of health have lost their appeal of a court ruling on Vancouver's controversial supervised injection site, raising proponents' hopes that similar facilities will now open in other cities.

Insight is NOT a drug rehab center. It is a harm reduction center. The difference is important because a drub rehab center helps people get off drugs. A harm reduction center is designed to help people keep using drugs. AFAIK, The CPC does not oppose funding for rehab centers. Your post title is completely misleading and you should change it.

I not believe that drug use should be criminalized but I am very much opposed to facilities like insight that seek to encourage addicts by enabling their drug use. I could tolerate it if the emphasis was placed on getting people into rehab (e.g. after a few months clients should be required to go into a residential treatment facility - if they refuse they would no longer be welcome at insight). However, this is not how it is structured today according to the advocates I have heard - the entire emphasis is on giving addicts a safe place to use and any efforts to get addicts into rehab are a secondary issue.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Riverwind

[Sir Bandelot]

From the same article-

"The court has given very cogent reasons for why (Insite) is not only an essential service to drug users but one that is within the provincial government's purview," Pongracic-Speier said of North America's only such facility.

"The province has to be able to make decisions about how to deliver health care to some of the most vulnerable people in the Downtown Eastside."

(Dr.) Montaner said that since the facility opened, there's been a 30 per cent increase in the number of addicts who enter detox.

Sound like the road to rehab to me

[Moonlight Graham]

Insight is NOT a drug rehab center. It is a harm reduction center. The difference is important because a drub rehab center helps people get off drugs. A harm reduction center is designed to help people keep using drugs. AFAIK, The CPC does not oppose funding for rehab centers. Your post title is completely misleading and you should change it.

I not believe that drug use should be criminalized but I am very much opposed to facilities like insight that seek to encourage addicts by enabling their drug use. I could tolerate it if the emphasis was placed on getting people into rehab (e.g. after a few months clients should be required to go into a residential treatment facility - if they refuse they would no longer be welcome at insight). However, this is not how it is structured today according to the advocates I have heard - the entire emphasis is on giving addicts a safe place to use and any efforts to get addicts into rehab are a secondary issue.

How exactly does Insite "enable" drug users??? The logic is very simple for this facility. The drug users bring their own drugs to the facility. Insite provides clean needles to prevent the spread of disease, and medical supervision so they don't OD etc. If Insite did not exist, these drug users would still do the drugs, only with dirty needles they get from other homeless people, or simply find a dirty needle on the ground. Many dirty needles litter the sidewalks of that drug-infested area, and Insite regularly cleans/sweeps up the dirty needles that are in front of their facility so drug users don't use them while waiting for the sight to open in the morning.

Does anyone really think these drug users would not be using these drugs if Insite didn't exist?

Insite also has people the users can talk to for rehab if they voluntarily decide they want to try to quit.

[William Ashley]

When you get to the level of doing drugs in a site known to be known as a site for drug users, this akin to visiting a crack house run by the govermnet, then it is clear you arn't in control of your habit.

I don't see how the court could turn down a warrant for surveillance operations. And those operations leading to arrest and leaking of information on users, and their sources of obtaining drugs.

It is very much a pile of sugar to trace ants back to their nests. If only the Government wasn't so complaicent with the drug trade.

If the feds truely wanted to shut insite down, all they'd need to do was post a couple mounties outside its doors, and search people on entry, have a cruiser standing by and backlog the courts for small time possesion charges of scheduled drugs like heroin. Or send in the remote surviellance and drones to monitor their buying habits of repeat users - they have to be getting it from somewhere. I'm sure selectively they could hit a lot of dealers if they wanted to.

Edited January 16, 2010 by William Ashley

[Riverwind]

(Dr.) Montaner said that since the facility opened, there's been a 30 per cent increase in the number of addicts who enter detox.

Great, this is first the time I have seen any positive statistics on that point and I will look more into the why they make that claim (it is impossible to take scientific results a face value when they are used to justify politically contentious policies).

[Riverwind]

How exactly does Insite "enable" drug users???

It shields them from the consequences of their drug use and gives them an excuse to keep using.

Insite also has people the users can talk to for rehab if they voluntarily decide they want to try to quit.

You don't need insight to provide people with rehab. The only question should be is whether insight delievers a net increase in the number of people seeking treatment compared to a city with an equivalent facility that provides access to counsellers without enabling drug use. More importantly, the number of people seeking rehab should be the only criteria used to judge the success of insight - i.e. if it fails to increase the number of addicts seeking treatment then it should be shut down. Edited January 16, 2010 by Riverwind

[Smallc]

A harm reduction center is designed to help people keep using drugs.

I don't know if I'd completely agree with that. Though it doesn't help people to get off of drugs, it does help people who are on drugs to use them with less hazard involved. It's not ideal, but I think harm reduction programs in concert with programs to help people quit are the answer.

[Argus]

I don't know if I'd completely agree with that. Though it doesn't help people to get off of drugs, it does help people who are on drugs to use them with less hazard involved. It's not ideal, but I think harm reduction programs in concert with programs to help people quit are the answer.

Does anyone on the planet really need to get advise or information from BC on how to handle drug addiction? I mean, really! Vancouver now boasts by far the worst drug-riddled slums in Canada with more homeless people, more drug addicts and the highest (by far) drug crime rates in Canada.

The bizarre decision by the BC court of appeal only shows how fuzzy everything is between the ears for people out there, and hopefully will be overruled by the SC.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Argus

[Smallc]

It's not really that bizarre. Some people are going to use drugs no matter what. It's probably a good idea to reduce the harm involved for those people. As I said, it's not near ideal, but it is somewhat practical.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It's not really that bizarre. Some people are going to use drugs no matter what. It's probably a good idea to reduce the harm involved for those people. As I said, it's not near ideal, but it is somewhat practical.

The government took the first responsible step with this program. The courts have ruled on it and said that it can and will continue. The next step is a little more tricky and that is getting those citizens off drugs. The UK has a very damned interesting program for that, one we should be looking at. But those citizens need to want to get off the dope, and some don't. Yes the dope causes all sorts of crime and problems for society, all the more reason for the government to get off its ass and do something to if not prevent those things then mitigate them to the best of their ability.

[Argus]

Yes the dope causes all sorts of crime and problems for society, all the more reason for the government to get off its ass and do something to if not prevent those things then mitigate them to the best of their ability.

Here's an idea. How about we arrest every scumbag drug dealer and throw them in prison for twenty years? Then we arrest every addict and force them into treatment, and don't let them out until they're pronounced free of their addiction.

[Shady]

I'm still trying to figure out why opposing this drug centre makes one a "neocon?"

[eyeball]

If only the Government wasn't so complaicent with the drug trade.

If the government truly wanted to stamp out drug use all it would have to do is piss-test everyone and summarily execute them if they fail.

[eyeball]

Does anyone on the planet really need to get advise or information from BC on how to handle drug addiction? I mean, really! Vancouver now boasts by far the worst drug-riddled slums in Canada with more homeless people, more drug addicts and the highest (by far) drug crime rates in Canada.

The bizarre decision by the BC court of appeal only shows how fuzzy everything is between the ears for people out there, and hopefully will be overruled by the SC.

The only reason Vancouver is a magnet for addicts is because it's the only city with an Insite facility.

The BC court of appeal is as much as saying to other communities across Canada to start dealing with your own addicted people yourselves. If Canada's SC overrules our's, the province of BC should invoke the notwithstanding clause and start buying addicts from outside Vancouver one way tickets to where ever it is they came from.

[fellowtraveller]

The only reason Vancouver is a magnet for addicts is because it's the only city with an Insite facility.

baloney.

Vancouver has been a prime doper town since at least the 1960s. The reasons over time include a very generous access to welfare and social services, easy access to all drugs because the doper community is large, and a forgiving climate that lets you often sleep rough without freezing to death. Insite would make zero difference to any of those if they closed tomorrow.

I support Insite for one simple reason: you cannot get a dead person into rehab, and everybody deserves a shot at help in my Canada.. I believe that Insite also keeps many more people avoiding very expensive illnesses that we all pay for.

The feds are in a quandary, because Insite allows conduct violating drug laws offered nowhere else. Nearly everybody walking in is in violation of the Criminal Code. I agree that the operation of the clinic is a provincial responsibility, but the feds also have a duty to enforce the law. It is a pickle.

Edited January 16, 2010 by fellowtraveller

[eyeball]

baloney.

Vancouver has been a prime doper town since at least the 1960s. The reasons over time include a very generous access to welfare and social services, easy access to all drugs because the doper community is large, and a forgiving climate that lets you often sleep rough without freezing to death. Insite would make zero difference to any of those if they closed tomorrow.

I support Insite for one simple reason: you cannot get a dead person into rehab, and everybody deserves a shot at help in my Canada.. I believe that Insite also keeps many more people avoiding very expensive illnesses that we all pay for.

The feds are in a quandary, because Insite allows conduct violating drug laws offered nowhere else. Nearly everybody walking in is in violation of the Criminal Code. I agree that the operation of the clinic is a provincial responsibility, but the feds also have a duty to enforce the law. It is a pickle.

In my small BC town NIMBY's have set up neighbourhood snitch committees to drive out druggies, these wing-nuts even claim they're going after boozers too. Similarly minded people have also successfully petitioned against assisted living facilities for the mentally ill in our community based in no small part on whipping up a fear of needles rolling in the streets.

Many if not most of the homeless you see in the big cities are there because there are no facilities or concern for their plight in their home communities. There is less baloney in the link between the type of homelessness in the area around Insite and the stigmatizing reasons some people gather around them than you think. It is probably the anonymity of the big city that draws most outsiders there.

Why shouldn't Canadians expect a shot of help from their own communities? Why should Vancouver have to take on a bigger share of the burden?

[Topaz]

Wouldn't it be more helpfu if the provinces and the Feds to offer rewards to track down the suppliers? The Feds could hire more people to do a better job at the border, basic wages plus commission for every time they stop drugs coming in. There's enough people out work who could do the job.

[msdogfood]

VANCOUVER — Canada's attorney general and minister of health have lost their appeal of a court ruling on Vancouver's controversial supervised injection site, raising proponents' hopes that similar facilities will now open in other cities.

The B.C. Appeal Court decision Friday upheld a lower court ruling that provinces, not the federal government, have jurisdiction for health care, and therefore services such as the injection site.

Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV-AIDS, said the decision sends a clear message that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should abandon "his draconian, ideologically motivated public health policy-making" and embrace evidence-based research to continue operating the clinic, called Insite.

The lower court ruling found that Insite is a health care facility, and therefore provincial jurisdiction, not federal, and gave Insite immediate constitutional exemption to stay open without a federal exemption from drug laws.

The appeal court ruled that the federal government must pay the court costs for those who have fought to keep the facility open since it began operating.

B.C. injection site to remain open, feds lose appeal

The idea of putting people in jail because they are addicted to a substance is not justice. Once again the neocons demonstrate that they prefer ideology over real data, but fortunately they do not yet have so much control as to pervert due legal process. Given the opportunity, they would do it. Neocons have removed most of the prison reform programs anyway, attempting to fulfill their dream to fill up the prisons with non-dangerous offenders, not offer any therapy, not offer any retraining, just let them rot as long as possible.

Good to see that this draconian BS has been halted. For now

yes the PMO is not going to be happ;e at all!!!.

http://pcneedtogo.blogspot.com/2010/01/pmo-attorney-general-of-canada-not.html

[Argus]

The only reason Vancouver is a magnet for addicts is because it's the only city with an Insite facility

What a joke! BC has had a huge drug problem for decades. And one of the main reasons is a series of weepy, bleeding heart lefty governments which recoils in horror from the idea of actually doing anything harsh to the poor, confused addicts.

The BC court of appeal is as much as saying to other communities across Canada to start dealing with your own addicted people yourselves. If Canada's SC overrules our's, the province of BC should invoke the notwithstanding clause and start buying addicts from outside Vancouver one way tickets to where ever it is they came from.

Yeah, because BC is doing such a GREEAT job of dealing with its addicts. Which is why every single year drug crimes get worse.

[ToadBrother]

Insight is NOT a drug rehab center. It is a harm reduction center. The difference is important because a drub rehab center helps people get off drugs. A harm reduction center is designed to help people keep using drugs. AFAIK, The CPC does not oppose funding for rehab centers. Your post title is completely misleading and you should change it.

I not believe that drug use should be criminalized but I am very much opposed to facilities like insight that seek to encourage addicts by enabling their drug use. I could tolerate it if the emphasis was placed on getting people into rehab (e.g. after a few months clients should be required to go into a residential treatment facility - if they refuse they would no longer be welcome at insight). However, this is not how it is structured today according to the advocates I have heard - the entire emphasis is on giving addicts a safe place to use and any efforts to get addicts into rehab are a secondary issue.

Let's try to back away from the "DRUGS ARE BADDDD" angle. From a public health point of view, there are some serious issues that go along with drug use; sharing needles, sharing pipes, etc. which present profound risks of spreading contagious diseases like AIDS, Hepatitis and TB. Apart from anything else, I think this is an important component of harm reduction. I live in a community where drug use lead to a rather severe TB outbreak a couple of years ago, and one wonders if we could at least manage these things a little better, we could at least mitigate the harm to the general populace.

[ToadBrother]

What a joke! BC has had a huge drug problem for decades. And one of the main reasons is a series of weepy, bleeding heart lefty governments which recoils in horror from the idea of actually doing anything harsh to the poor, confused addicts.

Because we know that getting harsh on the addicts reduces drug use. I mean, there ain't no drug addicts in the States, right?

[ToadBrother]

Wouldn't it be more helpfu if the provinces and the Feds to offer rewards to track down the suppliers? The Feds could hire more people to do a better job at the border, basic wages plus commission for every time they stop drugs coming in. There's enough people out work who could do the job.

How would this dent the drug trade? The drug trade has flourished despite vast amounts of money at both the domestic and international level. If throwing more money at enforcement was a rational solution, don't you think it would have worked by now?

Prohibition doesn't work. Period. It does however assure the economic scarcity necessary for some very bad people to make lots of money, shoot each other up, and risk everyone else in the process.

What I can see your idea doing is encouraging the planting of evidence. If people get a commission for finding drugs, I'm sure they'll be finding them where they ain't.

[Argus]

Because we know that getting harsh on the addicts reduces drug use. I mean, there ain't no drug addicts in the States, right?

Like I said, I'm all for MANDATORY drug rehab - of a type where you won't get released until they're convinced you will probably not go back on the shit you were on to begin with. I'm also for severe sentencing for dealers and smugglers. In BC, you have neither. You have a permissive atmosphere which says it's okay to shoot up heroin or snort coke, and lax sentences for drug crimes.

[Bugs]

How exactly does Insite "enable" drug users??? The logic is very simple for this facility. The drug users bring their own drugs to the facility. Insite provides clean needles to prevent the spread of disease, and medical supervision so they don't OD etc. If Insite did not exist, these drug users would still do the drugs, only with dirty needles they get from other homeless people, or simply find a dirty needle on the ground. Many dirty needles litter the sidewalks of that drug-infested area, and Insite regularly cleans/sweeps up the dirty needles that are in front of their facility so drug users don't use them while waiting for the sight to open in the morning.

Does anyone really think these drug users would not be using these drugs if Insite didn't exist?

Insite also has people the users can talk to for rehab if they voluntarily decide they want to try to quit.

You make a good point, but the clinic is still probably an enabler. It runs a 'needle exchange' which distributes an incredible number of needles. The real way to judge their effectiveness would be against the reduction in AIDS cases in the area, over time. But I don't think that that works, either. Here's why ...

The facility has six to eight beds. I don't know how many junkies that can accommodate a day, but presumably they know if the have an OD on their hands or not within 4 hours. Let's assume that they can keep 4 junkies safely high a day, for each bed. That's a potential of about 200 a week. They probably do less. Guess what? They have a rule that any one junkie can only use the facility once every 15 or 21 days. My specific figures may be off, but the point is ... if someone has a $100 a day habit, they can only hit up one-time out of every 15 or 20 times they shoot up in the back alley.

The figures of Insite themselves show that they basically treat a pool of 1700+ or so, who use the facility maybe once every six weeks. Many of them are long-term junkies who are resigned to dying as a junkie. Why? Because Insite, in fact, is not very effective at successfully getting people permanently off drugs. Not surprising. Not many programs work any better than your old-fashioned 12-step programs.

I suspect this is very expensive. The building, equipment, and three shifts of professional staff ... it's easy to imagine a $750,000+ budget, all so that 1700 junkies can have $450+ worth of premium health care, and free needles, so they can trade for drugs amongst their circles.

If this is truly harm reduction ... then it should be possible to give us the cost benefit analysis. How many cases of AIDS have been prevented? How much extra money been spent, or has it been saved? The fact that nothing is ever said about this is all you really need to know, probably. They'd tell us if they had something good to say about this part of the story.

Their problem isn't who funds them. The problem is their exemption from the criminal code. And that is not entirely in provincial hands.