Jump to content

SCC ruling: Insite to stay open


Black Dog

Recommended Posts

This circular argumentation regarding use versus consumption is quite silly. In my view, American Woman is wrong to suggest that they are one in the same, and this is a subtle nuance of the law that she seems to have glossed over. Is this discussion really relevant to the OP, however? I think not.

Let's get back to talking about the SCoC is getting deeper into the business of forming public policy through judicial activism. Bear in mind that part of the reasoning for the decision was that, in the flawed view of the SCoC, that Insite causes more benefit than harm. Can you imagine such an absurd argumentation advanced in any other instance? Imagine evidence collected in an inappropriate/illegal manner accepted into a trial towards prosecuting a guilty defendant with such an argument: "well, it causes more good than bad".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 922
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

This circular argumentation regarding use versus consumption is quite silly. In my view, American Woman is wrong to suggest that they are one in the same, and this is a subtle nuance of the law that she seems to have glossed over.

I'm not saying that at all - I'm pointing out that the law itself refers to "use," and I've provided quotes referring to use being illegal from several sources, from the military, to reports to the Senate, to Legal sites, to rehab centers, to advocates for the legalization of non-medical use. On the other hand, I haven't seen one reference to drug use being legal. I've read people's interpretations over and over, but as I said, I've backed up my interpretation with several sites supporting my view.

Is this discussion really relevant to the OP, however? I think not.

It's relevant to a point that was raised, regardless of what you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that at all - I'm pointing out that the law itself refers to "use," and I've provided quotes referring to use being illegal from several sources, from the military, to reports to the Senate, to Legal sites, to rehab centers, to advocates for the legalization of non-medical use. On the other hand, I haven't seen one reference to drug use being legal. I've read people's interpretations over and over, but as I said, I've backed up my interpretation with several sites supporting my view.

It's relevant to a point that was raised, regardless of what you think.

I think use should be illegal in order to be consistent with the law prohibiting possession. And I need to correct an error I made in my above post; I used the term "use" when I should have used the term "possession". Possession and consumption aren't. Unless someone's been convicted of a crime in Controlled Drugs and Substances Act through mere consumption, then I'm quite sure you don't have a point here.

I don't see where the law in Canada prohibits "use" of these drugs. Rather, it is possession and trafficking of these drugs that are crimes, not consumption or use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This circular argumentation regarding use versus consumption is quite silly. In my view, American Woman is wrong to suggest that they are one in the same, and this is a subtle nuance of the law that she seems to have glossed over. Is this discussion really relevant to the OP, however? I think not.

Let's get back to talking about the SCoC is getting deeper into the business of forming public policy through judicial activism. Bear in mind that part of the reasoning for the decision was that, in the flawed view of the SCoC, that Insite causes more benefit than harm. Can you imagine such an absurd argumentation advanced in any other instance? Imagine evidence collected in an inappropriate/illegal manner accepted into a trial towards prosecuting a guilty defendant with such an argument: "well, it causes more good than bad".

Bob attempts to bring sobriety to a thread that has otherwise gone 'loopy'. But what do you mean, illegal evidence. Seems to be their claim that it has reduced the number of deaths or outbreak of disease is not questionable. Doesn't it make sense to treat drug addiction as a medical problem, not criminal? Given that an addict primarily does not harm others. Any argument that they support narco-terrorism by buying their dope from the black market is secondary, it stems from prohibition itself.

And in any case, possession charges are not dependent on the source of the drugs. Even if the drugs are not procured from criminals, one still will be charged with possession.

Why shouldn't the supreme court listen and acquiesce to the demands of the public? Drug laws, and laws for things such as prostitution really stem from a society's moral values, and are not necessarily criminal offenses. If in the course of time people's attitudes change, the laws are outdated and need to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, Sir B, the SCoC is not a sounding board for public opinion. It's job is to interpret the law.

Clearly, these are not matters of simple application of the law. The word you have introduced is interpret. Interpretation is required when issues are complex, like when a precedent has been set in another decision, or some requirement has not been met within a reasonable time frame. Previous cases before the supreme court have depended on factors like these. The role of the supreme court becomes most important, for example in interpreting whether or not some issue is permissible under the constitution.

Although public opinion is not binding, the appellant has the right to present their arguments toward the merits of the case. It is the interpretation of constitutional issues and charter rights that determine the outcome of the case, and decisions are binding on all lower courts. So in that sense, their interpretations do create the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob attempts to bring sobriety to a thread that has otherwise gone 'loopy'. But what do you mean, illegal evidence. Seems to be their claim that it has reduced the number of deaths or outbreak of disease is not questionable. Doesn't it make sense to treat drug addiction as a medical problem, not criminal? Given that an addict primarily does not harm others. Any argument that they support narco-terrorism by buying their dope from the black market is secondary, it stems from prohibition itself.

And in any case, possession charges are not dependent on the source of the drugs. Even if the drugs are not procured from criminals, one still will be charged with possession.

Why shouldn't the supreme court listen and acquiesce to the demands of the public? Drug laws, and laws for things such as prostitution really stem from a society's moral values, and are not necessarily criminal offenses. If in the course of time people's attitudes change, the laws are outdated and need to be changed.

Well, it comes down to our own individual opinions with respect to what role we believe the SCoC is responsible for fulfilling. I am, generally speaking, in the same camp with capricorn - I want the SCoC to interpret the law, and not engage in social engineering and public policy formulation. In this case with Insite, the latter is exactly what the SCoC did. I ask you and others again to consider that part of the reasoning behind the SCoC's decision to uphold, indefinitely, the immunity of the Insite patrons and employees from illegal drug possession and trafficking laws, was that they believed that Insite was a public endeavour where the benefits outweighed the harm. That is not legalistic interpretation, that is public policy formulation. Moreover, the legal argumentation was spurious at best - that somehow Section 7 rights guaranteed by the CCRF would be infringed upon in the event of enforcement of illegal drug possession and trafficking laws on Insite premises involving patrons or employee. It doesn't take a legal expert to see that as quite a stretch, and is certainly a ridiculously slippery slope.

The reason I mentioned the hypothetical of illegally obtained evidence being permitted into a trial was to illustrate the absurdity of the "more good than bad" argumentation, which was part of the SCoC's reasoning. Imagine if a judge permitted illegally obtained evidence into a trial, with the rationale that the benefit of convicting a dangerous criminal trumped the need to maintain ethical standards in the broader judicial system with respect to the collection of evidence. Most people would scoff at that, but those very same people (the suicidal and destructive leftists) are silent when that same argumentation is advanced in support of the SCoC's decision on this Insite case.

Another perspective, and one that I somewhat sympathize with, is that indeed the SCoC should have an ear for the public's will and be in touch with the sentiment of the people. This is what you're driving at, and it's a perspective that although I understand, I disagree with in the Canadian context. In another time and place I'd share that sentiment, where I would hope that the highest court in the land would be able to see through grossly immoral laws (such as striking down forced segregation in the USA, for example). Today's Canada, however, has no such moral failures or deficits. Many people want the judicial system to engage in public policy formulation and social engineering, but those of us with a more constrained view on the abilities of such endeavours to change society in a positive way (capricorn and myself included), take a more conservative and cautious approach: we just want the judicial system to interpret the laws as have been passed by our governments. That doesn't seem to be the case here with the SCoC's decision here in the Insite case, with part of its legal reasoning (if we can call it that) resting on a "more good than bad" line of argumentation, coupled with spurious expansions of "rights" provisioned in Section 7 of the CCRF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, Sir B, the SCoC is not a sounding board for public opinion. It's job is to interpret the law.

The reality is, however, that this is not the case. And there is room for disagreement and debate with respect to whether or not the SCoC should consider public opinion, to some degree, when making its decisions. I read this book called "The Nine" (or something like that) written by Jeffrey Toobin of CNN fame (he's their most commonly appearing legal analyst/pundit) where he profiled, the Chief Justices of the SCotUS. In that book, which I recommend as an interesting light read, the author touches on the varying degrees to which the different Chief Justices we cognizant of public sentiment (in his opinion, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word you have introduced is interpret. Interpretation is required when issues are complex, like when a precedent has been set in another decision, or some requirement has not been met within a reasonable time frame.

In my experience, I've found that interpretation of legislation also requires the determination of the "intent" of the law, as willed by the lawmakers. There have been cases where the language decided upon by the drafters of legislation, even when approved by lawmakers, did not adequately reflect the desired outcome. You've probably heard of the term "unintended consequences".

As for public opinion (or professional opinion for that matter), I don't disagree that it is germane when presented in an applicant's or an appellant's case.

Overall, we agree on the main points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there is room for disagreement and debate with respect to whether or not the SCoC should consider public opinion, to some degree, when making its decisions.

I agree. Basically, I don't think it's within the SCoC's mandate to re-write laws or strike them down strictly on the basis that they don't reflect public opinion. Public opinion changes over time on any given issue which impacts the lives of citizens. It's up to lawmakers to put forth legislative amendments to defective or outdated laws, as demanded by citizens through their elected representatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Basically, I don't think it's within the SCoC's mandate to re-write laws or strike them down strictly on the basis that they don't reflect public opinion. Public opinion changes over time on any given issue which impacts the lives of citizens. It's up to lawmakers to put forth legislative amendments to defective or outdated laws, as demanded by citizens through their elected representatives.

What should laws reflect? Some sort of irrefutable logic of justice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. The main role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply legislation.

Who is threatened by this ruling? Junkies will still be shooting heroin no matter which way the Supremes went.

Legislation should not be up for interpretation. It should be stone hard law based on moral principles - of what is good for people and what is not good for people. Governments and HIGH courts are put in place to be a protectorate of the people - not a malevolent entity of arrogance.

You ask who is threatened by this ruling ? That is like saying who is threatened by gay marriage and the re-definment of humanity and the reproductive proccess itself! If a ruling has the effect of killing one citizen whether they be Junkies or the more "respectable" citizen..then the law is not the law - it is a common error of judgement - JUDGES are supposed to judge - they do not use judgement...so why the hell to we call them judges or "honourable"? YOU have the typical mindset of a lawyer - that said to me of a ruling - "It is immoral but it is legal" - If it is immoral -or bad it harms - the things that harm should not be supported by the courts - harm or evil - should be fought by the courts and not toyed with by some elitist twits who took up law as an interesting interpretation of life....LAW is law...the bending of it for an evil purpose should be illegal...but it is not - because those sitting on the high bench - simply GET A KICK OUT OF HURTING PEOPLE - typical of spoiled overly privledged - and bored upper crust parasistes - why do you respect those that don't give a damn about you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply legislation.

FT, the judiciary does not apply legislation. Legislation is applied after legislation receives Royal Assent. It is applied by the Executive branch of government, i.e. government departments and public servants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FT, the judiciary does not apply legislation. Legislation is applied after legislation receives Royal Assent. It is applied by the Executive branch of government, i.e. government departments and public servants.

Thank you. Governments do NOT legistlate to the courts...Judges who are not elected make the decisions...ironically - Courts are not driven by judgement by stickly by policy. This policy may appear to come down from the government though legislation - but it does NOT in face stem from there - The policy in the end is handed down to judges by those that appoint judges - who again are private people..and NOT government - Legislation is a argumentive tool used by lawyers - Judges over rule matters based in legislation all the time - the courts are a quasi government not controlled by our government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in simple terms - this ruling passed down by the SCC - does not have to be based in the act of responsibity to the Canadian people for the beneifit and health of Canadians at large. The ruling originates in polciy that is dictated by those who are in debted through appointment...to those that appoint.

Plainly and in great candor I can say - those who control judges have made a clear statement here = LET THE JUNKIES KILL THEMSELVES AND BE RID OF THEM....mean spirited you say? YES - but that's the way the real world works...all done under the guise of social responsiblity and kindness...as I mentioned - these people who are part of this decisive system - are not like us - they are gold and harsh pragmatists...almost predatorial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This circular argumentation regarding use versus consumption is quite silly. In my view, American Woman is wrong to suggest that they are one in the same, and this is a subtle nuance of the law that she seems to have glossed over. Is this discussion really relevant to the OP, however? I think not.

Let's get back to talking about the SCoC is getting deeper into the business of forming public policy through judicial activism. Bear in mind that part of the reasoning for the decision was that, in the flawed view of the SCoC, that Insite causes more benefit than harm. Can you imagine such an absurd argumentation advanced in any other instance? Imagine evidence collected in an inappropriate/illegal manner accepted into a trial towards prosecuting a guilty defendant with such an argument: "well, it causes more good than bad".

All 9 Supreme Court Justices agreed unanimously that Insite is a medical facility and absolute enforcement of the possession law would cause harm to people that could otherwise be helped. If there were problems with the studies that all seem to point to the effectiveness of Insite on many levels, don't you think at least one of them would have dissented from the ruling? There is very little if any research that contradicts the small mountain of research that supports Insite. Otherwise, one of the justices would have argued that it is not a violation of section 7 because the medical effectiveness of the site in supporting a person's life and liberty would not be justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that at all - I'm pointing out that the law itself refers to "use," and I've provided quotes referring to use being illegal from several sources, from the military, to reports to the Senate, to Legal sites, to rehab centers, to advocates for the legalization of non-medical use.

You've referenced to everything but the actual law that says use is illegal.... because there isn't one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, it appears no matter what she won't accept it. Let this go now, so we can move on.

You're right. Sorry.

I'm not much sure what else there is to discuss on the matter. Insite proved to 9 Supreme Court Justices that they're saving lives. The Supreme Court decided people's section 7 charter rights supercede the possession charge under the CDSA, which makes sense considering all the other exceptions that exist under that charge. There are many different people and agencies that are allowed to possess narcotics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were problems with the studies that all seem to point to the effectiveness of Insite on many levels, don't you think at least one of them would have dissented from the ruling?
I think the SCC accepted the studies at face value and never looked at them. They simply assumed there was a legimate public health benefit and if there is one then the public health benefit supercedes the criminal law. If it is later shown that there is no public health benefit their ruling still stands for other situations where there is one. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the SCC accepted the studies at face value and never looked at them. They simply assumed there was a legimate public health benefit and if there is one then the public health benefit supercedes the criminal law. If it is later shown that there is no public health benefit their ruling still stands for other situations where there is one.

If it's shown that there is no public health benefit, then we're exactly where we started. However, it stands to reason that giving people access to clean needles and equipment is not a zero-sum equation. Even at worst, there is no way of showing that Insite is actively causing harm, while you can easily imagine how closing the site will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it stands to reason that giving people access to clean needles and equipment is not a zero-sum equation. Even at worst, there is no way of showing that Insite is actively causing harm, while you can easily imagine how closing the site will.
Sure. But don't use the SCC as "evidence" that there is a public health benefit. I don't believe they looked at the question and even if they did a finding of 'no benefit in insight case' would not affect their ruling since they are hypothetical situations where a benefit does exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...