SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[Guest American Woman]

You can't be charged with possession if the drugs are not in your possession. Once consumed the drugs are not in your possession. You can't invent new meanings for english words just because you want to argue the law says something it does not.

I didn't say you could be charged with possession once they are consumed, but one definitely could be charged as they were using the drugs - and I'm not so sure they couldn't be charged after. If someone were high on heroin and committed a rape/murder/whatever, and they tested positive, I'm not so sure they couldn't be charged with drug charges. But one can be charged with Public Intoxication after consumption.

And if the police were to make a drug raid and everyone at the house/party/whatever quickly consumed all of the drugs in the presence of the police, I doubt if the police would just walk away because the drug users were no longer in possession.

Again. Bottom line. It's impossible to "use," to inject, to consume, without being in possession. The drugs are illegal, that fact alone would make using illegal, but the definition of possession does include "use."

[TimG]

But one can be charged with Public Intoxication after consumption.

Public intoxication is a different word and a different law. You are making my point for me.

And if the police were to make a drug raid and everyone at the house/party/whatever quickly consumed all of the drugs in the presence of the police, I doubt if the police would just walk away because the drug users were no longer in possession.

They would have no choice. No possession. No charges. A more likely scenario is they get flushed down the toilet. Same problem.

Again. Bottom line. It's impossible to "use," to inject, to consume, without being in possession.

You are making a different argument. Your are claiming that being intoxicated is a prima facie evidence of prior possession. But that would be a very hard case to make. It is also different from saying use is illegal. Edited October 2, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I'm not so sure they couldn't be charged with drug charges.

the definition of possession does include "use."

Prove it. Show me the charge for use or the definition of possession that includes consumption.

[Oleg Bach]

Sorry, no apology coming - the definition includes "use" - "for the use or benefit of himself..." If it's illegal to possess it for "use," it's obviously illegal to "use" it.

So really, you tell me - how does it feel to end up looking like an embarrassed fool?

Mummy used to say - `they have no shame - you could piss in their face and they would insist that it is raining`...

[Bryan]

You can't be charged with possession if the drugs are not in your possession. Once consumed the drugs are not in your possession.

How does one go about consuming something without possessing it? If what you claim were true, there would be no such thing as cavity searches for suspected drug smugglers.

[Guest American Woman]

Public intoxication is a different word and a different law. You are making my point for me.

Not really, from where I was going with it, but I'm not going to pursue this any more... this is going to be my last post. I do thank you for the civil discussion, but I feel as if I've been through it all. I even posted a link to a study prepared by the CFDP for the Canadian Senate that specifies not all use of illicit drugs is illegal. If "not all" is, ie: under doctor's care/orders, then the rest of the drug use IS illegal.

They would have no choice. No possession. No charges. A more likely scenario is they get flushed down the toilet. Same problem.

If they get flushed down the toilet, it is a problem. But if they are under the influence, if they injected the drugs and would test positive, I doubt they'd just walk away.

You are making a different argument. Your are claiming that being intoxicated is a prima facie evidence of prior possession. But that would be a very hard case to make. It is also different from saying use is illegal.

No, I'm not. I'm saying using drugs = being in possession, therefore using drugs is against the law.

I'm willing to bet if I were to call a government agency and ask if it's legal to take drugs in Canada the answer would be no. I've seen enough evidence from sources I find reputable and reliable to believe what I see is obvious within the law.

[Oleg Bach]

How does one go about consuming something without possessing it? If what you claim were true, there would be no such thing as cavity searches for suspected drug smugglers.

The drugs are most certainly in your keeping when injested....if a cop believes you for instance swallowed your stash - they will put you in a room with a toilet and wait... Why is it that people think getting high to the point and frequency that it destroys you and those around you should be a right..........

[charter.rights]

Not really, from where I was going with it, but I'm not going to pursue this any more... this is going to be my last post. I do thank you for the civil discussion, but I feel as if I've been through it all. I even posted a link to a study prepared by the CFDP for the Canadian Senate that specifies not all use of illicit drugs is illegal. If "not all" is, ie: under doctor's care/orders, then the rest of the drug use IS illegal.

If they get flushed down the toilet, it is a problem. But if they are under the influence, if they injected the drugs and would test positive, I doubt they'd just walk away.

No, I'm not. I'm saying using drugs = being in possession, therefore using drugs is against the law.

I'm willing to bet if I were to call a government agency and ask if it's legal to take drugs in Canada the answer would be no. I've seen enough evidence from sources I find reputable and reliable to believe what I see is obvious within the law.

Wrong again. No obvious possession, no charges. It is not illegal to use drugs in Canada. You are wrong and can't admit. What a fool you are to ignore these facts.

[cybercoma]

Not really, from where I was going with it, but I'm not going to pursue this any more... this is going to be my last post. I do thank you for the civil discussion, but I feel as if I've been through it all. I even posted a link to a study prepared by the CFDP for the Canadian Senate that specifies not all use of illicit drugs is illegal. If "not all" is, ie: under doctor's care/orders, then the rest of the drug use IS illegal.

If they get flushed down the toilet, it is a problem. But if they are under the influence, if they injected the drugs and would test positive, I doubt they'd just walk away.

No, I'm not. I'm saying using drugs = being in possession, therefore using drugs is against the law.

I'm willing to bet if I were to call a government agency and ask if it's legal to take drugs in Canada the answer would be no. I've seen enough evidence from sources I find reputable and reliable to believe what I see is obvious within the law.

And yet you still can't point to a law that states drug use or consumption is illegal.

[jacee]

AMWO ... you can be a nice person but you obviously have a drug bug.

It's like an addiction to you, and I'm glad you are finally going cold turkeyif that was indeed your last post on this topic. Addictions can be damaging.

Not really, from where I was going with it, but I'm not going to pursue this any more... this is going to be my last post. I do thank you for the civil discussion, but I feel as if I've been through it all. I even posted a link to a study prepared by the CFDP for the Canadian Senate that specifies not all use of illicit drugs is illegal. If "not all" is, ie: under doctor's care/orders, then the rest of the drug use IS illegal.

The only thing that matters is the law.

The law does not define 'under the influence' as 'possession'.

If the law wanted 'under the influence' to be defined as 'possession', it would make that clear. It doesn't.

If they get flushed down the toilet, it is a problem. But if they are under the influence, if they injected the drugs and would test positive, I doubt they'd just walk away.

Yes they would.

They have no evidence, not even a reasonable suspicion. Detaining the person, under those circumstances, would violate his charter right.

No, I'm not. I'm saying using drugs = being in possession, therefore using drugs is against the law.

I'm willing to bet if I were to call a government agency and ask if it's legal to take drugs in Canada the answer would be no. I've seen enough evidence from sources I find reputable and reliable to believe what I see is obvious within the law.

It doesn't matter who you ask. The law is clear.

If your point is that being under the influence of an illegal drug SHOULD be illegal, start a campaign ... in your own jurisdiction.

But just a warning ... if cops start hauling people in and giving people invasive blood tests ... just because they 'look like' they might be under the influence of a possbly illegal substance ... be prepared for a LOT of lawsuits!

No police officer can make that judgement call, so they won't support your campaign.

Now you just go for a walk and see if you can tell the difference between a person under the influence of an illegal substance vs. their prescribed medication vs lack of sleep vs MS/MD or any other motor disorder ...

Now let it go ...

[Shwa]

How does one go about consuming something without possessing it? If what you claim were true, there would be no such thing as cavity searches for suspected drug smugglers.

One they have consumed it all, there is no charge available under the Criminal Code. When a person consumes drugs, and are high from them, they are still "using" the drug. i.e. the drugs are still acting on the system to produce the effect; the drugs are actually still in the process of being consumed. But that isn't against the law. Being high isn't against the law unless it is combined with another act that induces impairment to that act such as drive a car or fly a plane.

Workplace policies are not Criminal Code offences, but have enforcement at the local level only. So an employer can, under certain and usually very specific circumstances, order a drug test on an employee they suspect is using drugs. However, even IF the employee is fired for using drugs, they cannot be charged under the Criminal Code unless it is combined with another act in a situation that is a chargeable offence.

[Black Dog]

It seems inevitable that since studies show that there is a correlation between illegal drug use and crime, that a greater number of drug users would result in more crime; not to mention a need for more drugs. I'm guessing the drug dealers must be happy with this ruling.

Why would this ruling lead to a greater number of drug users? The people who are accessing InSite are already users and I doubt there's many people who are really excited to try heroin, but were put off by the lack of spaces to shoot up safely.

[cybercoma]

Why would this ruling lead to a greater number of drug users? The people who are accessing InSite are already users and I doubt there's many people who are really excited to try heroin, but were put off by the lack of spaces to shoot up safely.

Moreover, they're not passing out heroin to people that want to try it. They're simply providing medical supervision and clean tools. Of course, American Woman seems to think they're doing other things, but she won't specifically say what it is. That way when someone claims that she's saying they give out drugs she can feign indignation and say, "that's not what I was saying." She holds that they "must be doing more, otherwise there would be no need to go through the courts." Of course, she didn't bother to read the decision to see that the federal government wanted to arrest the drug users for possessing drugs when they enter the facility. Thankfully, in an entirely unified decision, all 9 justices agreed that as a medical site, closing it down because people are allowed to possess drugs would cause undue harm on people (requiring them to use dirty needles, puddle water, etc.) and infringe upon their s. 7 rights. What's missing from their decision is any discussion on using or consuming the drugs because there is no law against it, according to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. So, now that it has been shown that the Supreme Court and the Criminal Code make no mention of using drugs, American Woman is trying to shift the argument to say, "using is illegal because you can't possess the drug." However, using is still not illegal, while possession is and no one is arguing that possession isn't. The problem with making use and consumption illegal is that the police could require biological samples of people they "suspect" are using drugs. As jacee pointed out, however, how do you determine by sight that someone doesn't suffer some sort of disability or isn't using prescription drugs or perhaps accidentally mixed a legal prescription with legal alcohol? You can't tell. And, American Woman is still wrong about drug use, regardless of the oversimplifications stated on the Canadian drug website and the code of conduct for military personnel, which does not in any way supercede the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Supreme Court of Canada.

[The_Squid]

One can use drugs without being in posession of them. All you need is a friend....

The law is rarely as black and white as we would wish it to be....

It seems inevitable that since studies show that there is a correlation between illegal drug use and crime, that a greater number of drug users would result in more crime;

Studies also show that the opposite is true with Insite. It leads to less disease, less overdoses, and less drug users since it is a gateway for them to access help. All of this saves the taxpayers money.

not to mention a need for more drugs. I'm guessing the drug dealers must be happy with this ruling.

Drug dealers are never happy when there are less drug users.

Edited October 3, 2011 by The_Squid

[Oleg Bach]

One can use drugs without being in posession of them. All you need is a friend....

The law is rarely as black and white as we would wish it to be....

If law was real law it would be black and white - right and wrong..but it is not. The real trick to get this policy of facilitation together would be to go 100% full speed ahead and not only give them clean needles and crack pipes but the drugs also - and a place to do them - and when they run out - give them more so they do not commit crimes when the monkey comes back to roost. It would be like lining up all the suicidal people and handing our ropes with fashionable nooses all ready prepared. Why mess around and go half way - as it says in scripture - "strong drink should be reserved for the dieing"

[TimG]

Why would this ruling lead to a greater number of drug users? The people who are accessing InSite are already users and I doubt there's many people who are really excited to try heroin, but were put off by the lack of spaces to shoot up safely.

The issue for me is how much effort is put into outreach while these people are in the clinic. If it is run like a fast-food outlet where people come in, shoot up and leave with no questions asked then I think it only enables the addict and will prolong addictions. If every client is offered an immediate bed in a detox/treatment center each time they come in then that would mitigate the enabling aspect to the clinics. Edited October 3, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

The issue for me is how much effort is put into outreach while these people are in the clinic. If it is run like a fast-food outlet where people come in, shoot up and leave with no questions asked then I think it only enables the addict and will prolong addictions. If every client is offered an immediate bed in a detox/treatment center each time they come in then that would mitigate the enabling aspect to the clinics.

There is one problem with treatment ..that it is a greed driven industry - Methadone...is also addictive - I have seen clinics where people are slowly destroyed by the use of alternative drugs...Spoke to a doctor a long while ago regarding smoking - the old lady said..You can not treat nicotine addiction with nicotine - cold turkey is the only way to go. As for corrupt treament facilities - they are a very lucritive buisness....There is a woman that I knew of that is dead now - supposedly they had her on methadone...it all came from her revealing to her private doctor that she had toyed with pain killers - she was NOT an addict..but they put her through the program.

The Methadone constipated her to a degree where she had to under go emergency surgery...then she passed away --- she was actually a very nice lady..but they used her...I drove her to the clinic one time and noticed - that this governmentally sponsored place was a run down shit hole - and profit was the motivator - eventually the closed the place down and reprimanded the parasitic doctor.

[fellowtraveller]

Would we supply smoking addicts cigarettes for as long as it took for them to quit? I've read cigarette addiction is just as bad, if not worse, as a heroin addiction. We've come down hard on smokers with smoking bans and higher taxation yet tobacco is not an illegal product. We've turned smokers into second class citizens because they can't beat their addiction. But it's OK to enable injecting drugs that are illegal to help the addicts stay alive.

Nope, because you are intelligent enough to understand that heroin injection has a clear and present danger to your survival in the minutes, day, and months after the injection, whereas nicotine is far more subtle and longterm.

You'll have to much better than that in your search for an analogy, cigarettes vs heroin is a dog that just does not hunt.

Insite is and should be part of a treatment regime for a health problem, and it neatly helps solve an immediate and unique aspect of that health problem- keeping the patient alive long enough to be treated.

A lot of this discussion hinges on a persons opinion as to whether or not they think a)junkies are human beings and human beings worth salvaging.

My answer to both is 'yes'.

[yarg]

I know most of you like to sit around and split hairs all day, but can any of you describe a situation where a drug addict can use a drug without being first in possesion of a drug? Also, where did that drug come from, how did the drug user come to posess that drug? Their is a whole chain of illegality before the use of the drug, so if a place is helping drug users they are affecting the whol chain of illegality that they rely on, there will be other legal implications to this ruling.

Again how can one use what one does not posses?

[Oleg Bach]

The SCC might just be a crimminal force - when was the last time they did something good....................really....what good have they ever done the people of Canada..................This just goes to show you that you can not take this shadow government seriously - a government is supposed to take care of the people - not help them kill themselves!

[segnosaur]

Sorry about joining this thread rather late. The thread seems to have rapidly grown; I skimmed through it, but didn't see anyone address a few issues that were brought up way on the first page...

Nice to see science and reason win the day.

Isn't saving human lives always the most important thing?

Hey look! Science! http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/12/994.abstract

Risk elevations for HIV infection associated with Needle Exchange programs attendance were substantial and consistent in all three risk assessment scenarios in our cohort of injection drug users.

So, what that says that there is some evidence that, even though Needle Exchange programs are supposed to reduce HIV, they can have the opposite effect. (Basically what happens is that, while clean needles are provided, drug users don't always use the clean needles. However, the presence of the needle exchange is that it causes drug users who might never have met otherwise to interact, thus enabling the spread of HIV and HepC.)

I do want to point out that this was a more general study... (i.e. it was not specifically examining the Insite situation.) And not all studies or exchange programs have the same result.) I also want to point out that yes, Insite might save some lives by preventing overdoses, etc. But its quite possible that the presence of Insite and other systems could increase the spread of HIV and HepC, and thus counteract the lives saved through overdose prevention.

(This looked like it was cut/pasted from somewhere, but I'm not sure of your source... but I'll address it anyways)

By offering a clean, safe, non-judgmental environment to shoot up, the reasoning goes, Insite allows drug users to connect with other services, whether that be treatment for a drug-related abscess or dental care. Last year, Insite staff made more than 5,000 referrals to other social and health agencies, including 458 admissions to Onsite, a neighbouring detox facility..

Before we applaud Insite for convincing drug users to "clean up/go straight", I'd want to see more data. After all, total admissions are not necessarily relevant, since some of those individuals might have still entered rehab facilities anyways, even if not referred by Insite.

Among the many studies published on Insite are papers that conclude the clinic has not led to an increase in drug-related crime, is not a negative influence of those seeking to stop drug use and has resulted in a drop in public injections in back alleys and doorways.

Before you applaud Insite for its its effect on crime and "public injections", keep in mind that the Insite site was not created in a vacuum. In fact, there was also a corresponding increase in police presence in the area (including, if I remember correctly, additional patrols.) If you have more police in the area, you're probably going to deter crime (with or without a 'safe injection site'.)

From: http://www.bcmj.org/premise/supervised-injection-sites%E2%80%94-view-law-enforcement

What is lost in many of the discussions about supervised injection sites are the uniformed officers who patrol the areas around the sites....People have become used to thinking of the DTES as a centre for public urination and defecation, prostitution, open sex, panhand­ling, drug trafficking, assaults, and violent crime. It is not fair. This is a great neighborhood, a unique community made up of many fine, law-abiding citizens. It was never more obvious when 40 additional officers patrolled the DTES in 2003.

Now, that said, I have not yet made up my mind about the Insite site. I do believe that drug laws should be reformed/liberalized (both for pragmatic as well as philisophical reasons.) However, I just recognize that some of the reasons given for Insite (as well as things like Needle Exchange Programs) might be flawed.

Edited October 3, 2011 by segnosaur

[Oleg Bach]

The translation of the ruling - `we the sinister super privledged rich in our black robes grant the right to sick people to commit suicide...we will not be non-partial observers - we will particiapte in this genocide of what we consider sub-human garbage..

[GostHacked]

In a second read of the decision, I saw this:

That wording leaves the impression that provincial governments approve of safe injection sites. I doubt that's the case.

If the provincial government is allowing them to continue, then yes, they are approving these sites. Better to have them take their drugs in a safe place than all that risky behavior in the back allies and such.

People are still trying to approach this as a criminal issue. While there is criminal behavior in acquiring the drugs, if they were not addicted, then they would not be criminals. Addictions can make someone do really crazy stuff. So if we treat it as health issue (and that seems to be the approach taken here), then we have a better chance of reforming these people and truly helping them overcome their addictions. Treat them as people and help them through a safe site so they have the chance and opportunity to get off the drugs. In many cases the addict does not know they are an addict. They cannot think straight, the do not react normal, so the best way some people can think of is to throw them in jail for some time, then release them back into the streets? This solution is not effective, never has been, never will be.

Drug use has not gone down at all. I'd say it is always increasing. Addicts are people too, and some are asking for the help, so let's treat them like people and that will garner a better chance of them getting back to being productive respected members of society.

This method could have saved two of my uncles from being 6 feet under.

[charter.rights]

I know most of you like to sit around and split hairs all day, but can any of you describe a situation where a drug addict can use a drug without being first in possesion of a drug?

Where the drug is in the possession of another and the recipient is injected by them.

[waldo]

Hey look! Science! http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/12/994.abstract

Risk elevations for HIV infection associated with Needle Exchange programs attendance were substantial and consistent in all three risk assessment scenarios in our cohort of injection drug users.

So, what that says that there is some evidence that, even though Needle Exchange programs are supposed to reduce HIV, they can have the opposite effect. (Basically what happens is that, while clean needles are provided, drug users don't always use the clean needles. However, the presence of the needle exchange is that it causes drug users who might never have met otherwise to interact, thus enabling the spread of HIV and HepC.)

hey look! More Science! The same doctor, the same city... long term trending analysis:

Trends in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Incidence and Risk Behavior Among Injection Drug Users in Montreal, Canada: A 16-Year Longitudinal Study

The authors sought to investigate trends in the incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, evaluate changes in risk behavior, and assess associations between syringe access programs and HIV seroconversion among injection drug users (IDUs) in Montreal, Canada, who were recruited and followed for a prospective cohort study between 1992 and 2008.

In conclusion, HIV incidence has declined in this cohort, with an acceleration of the reduction in HIV transmission after 2000.