SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[TimG]

The Lancet study used coroner data. So, yeah. There's a considerable difference when you add in a bunch of different types of deaths that the original study didn't consider, nor should they have.

Sorry - I don't see any evidence that the difference is material:

http://dpnoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Lancet2011InsiteAnalysis.pdf

It must be noted that the Coroner's data includes drug overdoses judged to be intentional suicide, homicide or some other undetermined rationale. These make up 8.4% of the BC total. The BC Vital statistics likewise include suicides, homicides and undetermined rationale, but additionally include accidental deaths from the legal use of prescribed drugs.

8.4% is not going to skew the numbers enough to justify the Lancet study. It really does appear to be a case of cherry picking the start date.

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/coroners/publications/docs/stats-illicitdrugdeaths-1997-2007.pdf

[TimG]

It's you who has failed to show why 30 studies by reputable organizations are all wrong.

All I have said I have found one study that makes claims which is not supported by the data. If you can simply admit that "yes it appears the Lancet peer reviewers screwed up and allowed a crap study to be published" then we can discuss the other 30 studies with this failure in mind. The problem is you think you can avoid talking about the flaws this study by pointing to others. It is pure evasion.

As for the Drug-Free America source: I fully acknowledge their biases and don't claim that they are the authority. I am looking at specific claims they have made which seem to have merit from my perspective. That means their biases are irrelevant because I am looking at the source data.

Edited October 7, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

As for the Drug-Free America source: I fully acknowledge their biases and don't claim that they are the authority. I am looking at specific claims they have made which seem to have merit from my perspective. That means their biases are irrelevant because I am looking at the source data.

what reputable and appropriate journal was that dpnoc sponsored "study" published in? You know... the journal that would have followed a rigorous peer-review undertaking... you know, the published results that would allow the authors of the Lancet study an equal opportunity to formally respond, in kind (should they believe it appropriate). Which journal was that dpnoc sponsored "study" published in?

[cybercoma]

This nonsense aside.

The Vancouver Sun posted an interesting article that suggests the section 7 reasoning from the Insite case could be extended to prostitution.

An oversimplification of the argument is that by making prostituion illegal it arbitrarily limits prostitutes' right to life because they do not have the same access to police and legal protection from abusive Johns.

I don't suspect it would carry in court, since the Insite decision hinged on ss. 55 and 56 that allow the Minister of Health to exempt individuals and groups from the CDSA. Choosing not to do this with Insite arbitrarily denied drug-users the right to life. There is no such exemption clause in the prostitution laws.

However, it is possible to see how the same thinking could possibly extend to all forms of "victimless" crimes.

[cybercoma]

Also, an article in The Barrie Examiner suggests that there is a push to use harm-reduction strategies in prisons, which could translate into another legal challenge.

On Tuesday, John Howard executive director Catherine Latimer suggested to the Commons Public Safety Committee in Ottawa that the Supreme Court's controversial ruling should have an impact in the country's jail system.

Read more: http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3324278

The Conservative government understandably resists this suggestion, since drugs and alcohol are strictly prohibit in prison and the institutional nature of prisons mean that those incarcerated are under state control.

While my first reaction is to support the Conservative government's position, after thinking about it, this moralizing is akin to celibacy-only education in schools. Regardless of whether or not they want to face the fact, kids are having sex, so they need to be informed and protected. Refusing to do so could be seen as abrogating a responsibility for their protection. In this way, regardless of the strict prohibition of drugs and alcohol in prison, they are still a reality.

Prisons, as a government institution, may have the responsibility of allowing harm-reduction programs to operate with exemption in their walls, due to the section 7 rights of prisoners. However, the notwithstanding clause complicates the issue. Perhaps it could be seen as a reasonable limit within a prison not to allow this exemption. The concentration of drug-users in prison, though, make it the ideal site to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, etc. Therefore, the notwithstanding clause may not hold any weight.

This is another interesting discussion would could be having, rather than bitching about scientific validity and the legitimacy of academic journals.

[capricorn]

So I guess I am asking you what should laws be based on if not public opinion?

I don't disagree that as a general rule, that's how it goes. I would contend it is synonymous with "the will of the people".

From my view, public opinion has been writing and re-writing laws for as long as recorded human history and likely a little longer. There is precendence built into some of the longer lasting systems of justice, of course, but by and large laws generally reflect that of the public. As they ought.

It's not public opinion that is writing the laws. It's people acting on behalf of those who want to give effect to a certain code of conduct that is acceptable to society at large. Or put in today's context, writing and re-writing legislation by elected lawmakers is based on public opinion, or the will of the people.

Take the age of consent or capital punishment as your example.

Expand please as I don't understand the link you're trying to make.

As the highest court in the land, the SCC is the exact sort of instrument to write or re-write those laws.

I strongly disagree. The actual writing or re-writing of legislation is the exclusive domain of lawmakers (the House of Commons and the Senate), not the SCoC. The SCoC forms part of the Judiciary. The Judiciary's job is to interpret legislation. From the SCoC website:

Supreme Court of Canada

The highest court in Canada; it hears appeals of decisions made in lower courts and interprets the country's laws and constitution.

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/rep/glossary-lexique-eng.asp

That is why we ask them questions and they provide us with their opinions.

You're making my point. The SCoC renders "opinions". I'm not saying the SCoC doesn't have the power to rule that a given law be given a certain interpretation. But it has to follow the rule of thumb of one basic question which is, was the "intent" of the legislation followed. The SCoC can certainly put forth opinions that a law, as constituted, is deficient and should be given a certain interpretation, but it cannot re-write it or amend it.

[charter.rights]

You're making my point. The SCoC renders "opinions". I'm not saying the SCoC doesn't have the power to rule that a given law be given a certain interpretation. But it has to follow the rule of thumb of one basic question which is, was the "intent" of the legislation followed. The SCoC can certainly put forth opinions that a law, as constituted, is deficient and should be given a certain interpretation, but it cannot re-write it or amend it.

No. The Supreme Court issues "rulings" on the application or constitutionality of law.

In McIvor, the BC Supreme Court did exactly that - they ordered the government to change the definition of an "Indian" under the Indian Act to be more inclusive. In McIvor, the court ruled that the present definition violated the Charter of Rights. Indian Affairs had 1 year to change the definition and eventually complied. An appeal to the Supreme Court was disallowed and rejected.

The Courts have the authority to alter the law, or to change its meanings or clarify their intent. That is for all intents and purposes following quasi public opinion set out in aboriginal jurisprudence.

[Guest American Woman]

If you agree with enabling addicts, open up your house to junkies so they can shoot up in your can. There's no reason for tax payers to fund this. Heroin is illegal.

That's what I don't get. Since it's illegal, what is the government doing funding the safe injection of it? What if someone high on heroin goes out and commits a crime? Is the government complicit in the crime? Why should someone on heroin be given government funds to protect them while a drunk driver has the book thrown at him/her? I don't see why drug addicts should have medical teams at hand to prevent them from overdosing as alcoholics don't have free rides available to prevent them from getting into an accident.

And again, there's something to the adage that God/whatever helps those who help themselves. Is is unreasonable to put resources where it will do the most good for those making the right choices/with the most likelihood of success?

As for the idea that drug addicts can't be "forced" to change, the thread on Portugal's drug laws tends to show otherwise.

[The_Squid]

That's what I don't get. Since it's illegal, what is the government doing funding the safe injection of it?

The laws are evolving to treat drug addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one. It's not that hard to understand.

What if someone high on heroin goes out and commits a crime? Is the government complicit in the crime?

No. The government in BC controls liquor distribution and sells booze. They are not complicit in crimes committed when drunk. Not sure why they would be considered complicit in this case. Especially considering this harm reduction facility is reducing harm from heroin by assisting addicts with getting treatment, reducing the spread of disease, etc.

Why should someone on heroin be given government funds to protect them while a drunk driver has the book thrown at him/her? I don't see why drug addicts should have medical teams at hand to prevent them from overdosing as alcoholics don't have free rides available to prevent them from getting into an accident.

Because it is cheaper to help addicts than to treat them as criminals. Your comparison to drunk driving doesn't make sense. A driver who is high will also "get the book thrown at them" like a drunk driver would. If free rides worked and were feasible and saved taxpayers money, it would be implemented. That's a good idea. Perhaps you could propose it for a pilot project in your jurisdiction.

And again, there's something to the adage that God/whatever helps those who help themselves. Is is unreasonable to put resources where it will do the most good for those making the right choices/with the most likelihood of success?

Putting resources in to harm reduction saves many more resources that are wasted in policing, healthcare, etc. that are spent on the addicts now that don't help.

[Guest American Woman]

The laws are evolving to treat drug addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one. It's not that hard to understand.

It is difficult to understand when there is a correlation between crime and drug use - and the drugs involved are illegal. Makes no sense to give amnesty/protection/medical care at their disposal to some breaking the law while throwing the books at others.

No. The government in BC controls liquor distribution and sells booze. They are not complicit in crimes committed when drunk.

Booze isn't illegal. Illicet drugs are.

Not sure why they would be considered complicit in this case. Especially considering this harm reduction facility is reducing harm from heroin by assisting addicts with getting treatment, reducing the spread of disease, etc.

It's also taking money away from other health areas that need reform. Everyone can't be saved, so stands to reason that those with the best outlook, those making better life choices, should have the priority. I gave the example of a heart/lungs transplant scenario - a non-smoker gets precedence over a two-pack-a-day smoker for obvious reasons.

Because it is cheaper to help addicts than to treat them as criminals. Your comparison to drunk driving doesn't make sense. A driver who is high will also "get the book thrown at them" like a drunk driver would.

Does that make it right? Why should the lives of someone shooting heroin receive "health benefits/harm reduction" while an alcoholic doesn't?

If free rides worked and were feasible and saved taxpayers money, it would be implemented. That's a good idea. Perhaps you could propose it for a pilot project in your jurisdiction.

What's wrong with you implementing it in your jurisdiction? You're the one supporting this, and it's happening in your country.

Putting resources in to harm reduction saves many more resources that are wasted in policing, healthcare, etc. that are spent on the addicts now that don't help.

Yet only some addicts are being helped, as others get the book thrown at them. If harm reduction costs less than policing, then again, offer rides to alcoholics. Many more lives are at threat from drunk driving than drug use/injection/consumption - many of them totally innocent of any wrong/illegal activity. And what about putting the money towards improvements in health care for the masses? Why is this taking precedence over health care reform?

Makes much more sense to offer mandatory rehab than to assist in an illegal drug addiction. The assistance just keeps the cycle going, and it makes no sense to grant some amnesty from the law - with the blessing of the government - at the expense of the tax payer.

[charter.rights]

It is difficult to understand when there is a correlation between crime and drug use - and the drugs involved are illegal. Makes no sense to give amnesty/protection/medical care at their disposal to some breaking the law while throwing the books at others.

Booze isn't illegal. Illicet drugs are.

It's also taking money away from other health areas that need reform. Everyone can't be saved, so stands to reason that those with the best outlook, those making better life choices, should have the priority. I gave the example of a heart/lungs transplant scenario - a non-smoker gets precedence over a two-pack-a-day smoker for obvious reasons.

Does that make it right? Why should the lives of someone shooting heroin receive "health benefits/harm reduction" while an alcoholic doesn't?

What's wrong with you implementing it in your jurisdiction? You're the one supporting this, and it's happening in your country.

Yet only some addicts are being helped, as others get the book thrown at them. If harm reduction costs less than policing, then again, offer rides to alcoholics. Many more lives are at threat from drunk driving than drug use/injection/consumption - many of them totally innocent of any wrong/illegal activity. And what about putting the money towards improvements in health care for the masses? Why is this taking precedence over health care reform?

Makes much more sense to offer mandatory rehab than to assist in an illegal drug addiction. The assistance just keeps the cycle going, and it makes no sense to grant some amnesty from the law - with the blessing of the government - at the expense of the tax payer.

Stick American politics over health care. You had your chance to ruin that for 50% of the Americans without coverage. You don't get a say in ours.

[Guest American Woman]

Stick American politics over health care. You had your chance to ruin that for 50% of the Americans without coverage. You don't get a say in ours.

I have no idea what you're talking about re: "American politics over health care." But this is a discussion board, and I have as much a right to discuss my opinion as y'all have to state your opinions about the U.S. If you don't like it, go quietly cry in the corner - and don't respond to me. I couldn't care less. I'm here for the handful of posters who have something interesting to say. And to learn about Canada. And boy oh boy, am I learning.

Edited October 8, 2011 by American Woman

[olp1fan]

I have no idea what you're talking about re: "American politics over health care." But this is a discussion board, and I have as much a right to discuss my opinion as y'all have to state your opinions about the U.S. If you don't like it, go quietly cry in the corner - and don't respond to me. I couldn't care less. I'm here for the handful of posters who have something interesting to say. And to learn about Canada. And boy oh boy, am I learning.

you've learned drug addiction is a health issue but you obviously disagree and prefer to punish them

me thinks you are not really here to learn

[Guest American Woman]

you've learned drug addiction is a health issue but you obviously disagree and prefer to punish them

me thinks you are not really here to learn

I never said I disagreed that it's a health issue. It's also a criminal issue, as the drugs are illegal. I've also clearly pointed out other "health issue" scenarios where the recipient of health services is prioritized according to the likelihood of success. No one has touched on that. Furthermore, alcoholism is a health issue too - yet servers/hosts are held accountable for serving intoxicated guests/patrons. So why wouldn't the government of Canada be held accountable if an addict were to shoot up and then commit a crime? Or would it be?

Bu here's the thing. I don't have to agree with you/with Canada. Even Canadians aren't all in agreement on this issue. Yet apparently "to learn" is synonymous with agreeing with you. How ridiculous is that? Methinks a lot of you can't handle views/opinions coming from Americans.

[olp1fan]

I never said I disagreed that it's a health issue. It's also a criminal issue, as the drugs are illegal. I've also clearly pointed out other "health issue" scenarios where the recipient of health services is prioritized according to the likelihood of success. No one has touched on that. Furthermore, alcoholism is a health issue too - yet servers/hosts are held accountable for serving intoxicated guests/patrons. So why wouldn't the government of Canada be held accountable if an addict were to shoot up and then commit a crime? Or would it be?

Bu here's the thing. I don't have to agree with you/with Canada. Even Canadians aren't all in agreement on this issue. Yet apparently "to learn" is synonymous with agreeing with you. How ridiculous is that? Methinks a lot of you can't handle views/opinions coming from Americans.

I didnt know the government was handing out or selling drugs... there is your difference

bartenders sell the alcohol

the government isn't selling them the heroin to shoot up just a place to safely do it

[Guest American Woman]

I didnt know the government was handing out or selling drugs... there is your difference

bartenders sell the alcohol

the government isn't selling them the heroin to shoot up just a place to safely do it

Alcohol is a legal drug, but when one becomes intoxicated, the person involved is held accountable. Illicit drugs are illegal, yet the government is giving a pass to possession and aiding the addict in illegal drug use. So why, if the addict goes out and commits a crime, is the government not responsible for its role the way a bartender/host of a party would be? And for the record, the government is doing more than providing a place to do it ......

Edited October 9, 2011 by American Woman

[charter.rights]

I have no idea what you're talking about re: "American politics over health care." But this is a discussion board, and I have as much a right to discuss my opinion as y'all have to state your opinions about the U.S. If you don't like it, go quietly cry in the corner - and don't respond to me. I couldn't care less. I'm here for the handful of posters who have something interesting to say. And to learn about Canada. And boy oh boy, am I learning.

You don't learn but making stupid comments based on no fact. You learn by shutting your trap and listening / reading.

[Guest American Woman]

You don't learn but making stupid comments based on no fact. You learn by shutting your trap and listening / reading.

You're not the boss of me. And I'll "learn" as I see fit. Now I respectfully suggest you respond to what I've said ... or take your own advice and shut your trap. Thank you in advance. And do have a nice evening.

[Smallc]

And I'll "learn" as I see fit.

It's doubtful that you will, since you've failed to up until this point. This facility is not encouraging the use of drugs. The government is not encouraging the use of drugs. The Supreme Court of Canada is not encouraging the use of drugs. Your statements up to this point have been filled with ignorance. You refuse to see something because it doesn't jive with what you believe. You're wrong, it's that simple.

[olp1fan]

Alcohol is a legal drug, but when one becomes intoxicated, the person involved is held accountable. Illicit drugs are illegal, yet the government is giving a pass to possession and aiding the addict in illegal drug use. So why, if the addict goes out and commits a crime, is the government not responsible for its role the way a bartender/host of a party would be? And for the record, the government is doing more than providing a place to do it ......

the federal government does not want insite open, in fact they were pressured by the americans according to wikileaks to close it

supreme court of canada has more power than the federal government

even the conservative judges voted in favour of it

Edited October 9, 2011 by olp1fan

[Guest American Woman]

It's doubtful that you will, since you've failed to up until this point. This facility is not encouraging the use of drugs. The government is not encouraging the use of drugs. The Supreme Court of Canada is not encouraging the use of drugs. Your statements up to this point have been filled with ignorance. You refuse to see something because it doesn't jive with what you believe. You're wrong, it's that simple.

That simple, eh? I don't see things your way, so I'm wrong. And I'm not learning. That's the best you can come back with. This is starting to get downright comical ...... as the learning continues.....

[Guest American Woman]

the federal government does not want insite open, in fact they were pressured by the americans according to wikileaks to close it

supreme court of canada has more power than the federal government

even the conservative judges voted in favour of it

The Supreme Court isn't part of your federal government?

[olp1fan]

The Supreme Court isn't part of your federal government?

I'm not sure, I know the PM chooses judges when they need to be replaced but many times the judges decisions don't represent the direction that the current government agrees with

Edited October 9, 2011 by olp1fan

[olp1fan]

you might find this intetesting American woman

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=5519896

[charter.rights]

The Supreme Court isn't part of your federal government?

It is separate from the executive and legislative branches.

And no. You're obviously not really interested in learning since you have been proven wrong on many issues in this thread alone and continue to assert those same errors, refusing to acknowledge the facts presented to you from many sources. In internet terms that is called trolling.