SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[Black Dog]

So why isn't the government providing free services for these drug addicted alcoholics? To save lives?

Probably because its fiercely impractical to do so.

But drinking and driving IS illegal. So I'm sure you support free accommodations or free transportation for those who do drink and drive, right? Rather than arrest?

Tell me: do you know sweet bugger all about the DTES?

[capricorn]

Cap, by the same "toke-in" does it make sense to incarcerate cigarette smokers, if one day tobacco becomes illegal?

I don't see that drug addicts are being incarcerated because of their addiction.

[TimG]

The SCoC has stated that the "rights" of drug addicts under Section 7 of the CCRF would be violated if the exemption from federal drug laws (possession and trafficking) was not extended, indefinitely, to Insite.

WTF? This decision has nothing to do with the "rights" of drug addicts. It simply held that provincial jurisdiction over health trumps federal jurisdiction over crime. It is a decision I can agree with when it is reduced to level of competing jurisdictions even though I am not convinced of the merits of insight.

All it means is if I have concerns about Insight I have to take them up with my MPP - which is fine by me.

Edited September 30, 2011 by TimG

[Bob]

WTF? This decision has nothing to do with the "rights" of drug addicts. It simply held that provincial jurisdiction over health trumps federal jurisdiction over crime. It is a decision I can agree with when it is reduced to level of competing jurisdictions even though I am not convinced of the merits of insight.

All it means is if I have concerns about Insight I have to take them up with my MPP - which is fine by me.

This was the reasoning given by the SCoC. Stop acting all dumbfounded when you haven't even glanced over the decision, or even read the second-hand journalism from Canadian news outlets.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html

It's right there, the SCoC heard what was a challenge to the expiration of the exemption given to Insite from Federal drug laws (possession and trafficking) on the grounds of it violating rights guaranteed via the CCRF. This is all about "rights".

[Black Dog]

Of course, there are major externalities and opportunity costs involved with the maintenance of Insite. The two million dollars going to Insite every year is the most obvious cost, where there are many other much more worthy recipients of that money than pathetic white trash addicts. Speed up the waiting lines for important procedures like hip replacements, but another MRI machine and hire some staff to operate it 24/7, do something more worthwhile than give a pathetic loser a nicer place to get high.

If you want to talk opportunity costs, between cops, courts and corrections, Canada spends more than $2 billion on enforcing drug prohibition. I'm thinking a little bit of that could probably be redirected to health care no problem.

What about the crime is brings about in the neighbourhood? Can you imagine if your moronic city council decided to bring this magnet for human trash into your neighbourhood? It's literally a beacon for the dregs of society.

InSite is where it is for a reason, dumbass. The dregs of society are already there.

Send them to a Native reserve, don't put them in [/i]my[/i] neighbourhood, where they'll bring with them their crime, diseases, and overall disgusting presence.

And why there Bob? Hmm?

The new ruling also directly prevents the police from being able to enforce the law.

Good. It's bad law and poor policy.

Perhaps law enforcement can get around it, but following these people from Insite (and future "safe injection sites" that are now certainly to spread across the country) to their rat nests and doing their investigations.

Sentence fragment. Revise.

Anyways, it's just another example of the slow self-destruction of Canada. As "rights" keep on being manufactured which force others, who never consented to such an arrangement, to provision and protect these new "rights".

Like I said before, feel free to check out anytime, one way or another.

[Oleg Bach]

Those that want to allow drug addicts more freedom to continue to destroy their mental and phyisical health - are those that are potential nannies in the nannie state - they NEED the population to be weak and sickly in order to create a position of authority for themselves - These types are well meaning weasils....the type of liberal freak that will approach you with this phoney concern and ask "are you okay"? - I hate that - because in their hearts they do not want you to be okay - they want you to fall to your knees and weep - so THEY can take the superiour ground and dominate who they consider their lessors - even if that lessness was created artifically by the toxic effect of drugs - I truely dispise such ideas as safe injection sites or "harm reduction" -it reminds me of incrimental murder as compared to out right smighting them dead - the end results will be the same - the liberal way is slower and creates jobs for parasistes.

[TimG]

This was the reasoning given by the SCoC. Stop acting all dumbfounded when you haven't even glanced over the decision, or even read the second-hand journalism from Canadian news outlets.

I looked at the decision. I confused the appeal court decision that was over turned with the SCC decision.

The criminal prohibitions on possession and trafficking in the CDSA are constitutionally valid and applicable to Insite under the division of powers. First, the impugned provisions of the CDSA are, in pith and substance, valid exercises of the federal criminal law power. The fact that they have the incidental effect of regulating provincial health institutions does not mean that they are constitutionally invalid. Second, provincial programmes designed to advance the public interest are not, by virtue of their public interest status, exempt from the operation of criminal laws unless the law is expressly or impliedly so limited. The CDSA does not contain such a limit. Third, the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity does not apply. Decisions about what treatment may be offered in provincial health facilities do not constitute a protected core of the provincial power over health care and are not, therefore, immune from federal interference.

[jacee]

Pardon my French but that's fucking bullshit.

We already do by not putting them in jail for smoking.

We're talking about a chemical addiction here, not jaywalking.

Sounds like another argument against drug prohibition.

Yes and the government should set up rape camps so rapists can go and rape to their heart's content.

If you don't understand the fundamental differences between drinking and driving and drug addiction, if all you can say is "they're both illleeeeegal!" You shouldn't be talking about this issue.

Harm reduction is a medical model and the law now recognizes the evidence.

So harm reduction medical facilities and clients are now exempt from the law. Makes sense to me.

The police have to enforce the law, within their discretion. They need this clarification or they are subject to protest for not busting junkies for possession at the clinic.

The clinic does not give out drugs: They bring their, and trafficking is prohibited onsite. They just get clean needles and medical care.

And it hasn't increased drug use or relapse, and it has cut HIV 70% in those users.

Because of the evidence, the medical community is obligated by oath to deliver the service, but the police are compromised as they have to police it.

Now the medical community and the police can both do their jobs assigned jobs leeeeeeeeeegally.

[Smallc]

It's issues like this that make it hard for me to identify myself as a CPC supporter. So many other supporters will do anything from attacking the SCoCs legitimacy to ignoring medical evidence. There never even should have been a question about this. It's works, and it's that simple.

[WWWTT]

of course, capricorn fails to recognize the, as you say, "unelected educated,experienced and informed... as appointed by the elected... overruling the uneducated knee jerk reactionary elected"

I stand corrected,thanx for the correction

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

There are countries who deal with drugs much more harshly than the U.S, and they have much better results.

You do make one good comment.

Case point is China.

China has a lower crime rate than the U.S.

However China has double digit economic growth for over 30 yrs.

Aswell they have per capita 10-20% investment into their judicial system compared to the U.S.(please do not ask me for site,do the research yourself if you question the authentacy,just a ballpark figure I'm quoting)

In summary China has a much lower crime rate than the U.S. with a lower investment into their judicial system(expecialy the number of police) combined with very severe penalties.

WWWTT

[TimG]

Aswell they have per capita 10-20% investment into their judicial system compared to the U.S.

Justice is a lot cheaper when you torture the accused until they confess and execute them.

[WWWTT]

I would love to round up addicts and force them to get help.... jail every drug dealer... but the FACT that this policy doesn't work really messes with my ideological stance. Hopefully most people are willing to try different strategies to help addicts, even if it makes them uncomfortable, because studies may show that it is a better strategy for dealing with the societal problems. And studies of places like insite have shown that this strategy of "harm reduction" works.

I don't believe you understand addiction.

There are elements in society that leads to addiction,aswell as problems originating from ones childhood,schools or home that can leed to addiction.

Lack of self control is only part of the problem.

This can be a complicated issue.

Also addiction can be many things,weed,cocaine,herion,alcohol,cofee,food,sex,certain types of behaviour,etc etc.Each of which can be harmfull to ones health if it becomes abusive.And harmful to inocent people close to the addict!

Case point is the comedian John Candy.He died young because he couldn't eat healthy or put the fork down for a while.

WWWTT

[Moonlight Graham]

The so-called “Supreme Court of Canada” judges are aiding and abetting unlawful activity.

The point is that addicts would being doing the drugs anyways without Insite, only with shared dirty needles and no medical supervision & professionals willing to help them quit.

It also makes YOU and Canadians more healthy because no shared needles etc. mean less diseases like HIV and hepatitis floating around. These people also have decreased chance of passing these diseases to their kids.

Science & research is your friend.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[WWWTT]

Justice is a lot cheaper when you torture the accused until they confess and execute them.

Oh OK.

And having double digit economic growth and near zilch unemployment has absolutely nothing to do with having a very low crime rate?

WWWTT

[TimG]

And having double digit economic growth and near zilch unemployment has absolutely nothing to do with having a very low crime rate?

Japan has a lower rate and their economy has been stagnent for 20 years. Crime is driven primarily by culture - not economics. Edited September 30, 2011 by TimG

[capricorn]

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

Insite has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area. It is supported by the Vancouver police, the city and provincial governments.

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

[dpwozney]

The point is that addicts would being doing the drugs anyways without Insite, only with shared dirty needles and no medical supervision & professionals willing to help them quit.

No one has yet proven that addicts would being doing the drugs anyways with shared dirty needles without Insite.

The so-called “Supreme Court of Canada” judges are aiding and abetting unlawful activity by allowing Insite to remain open knowing that Insite knowingly provides needles for use in unlawful drug injections.

Edited September 30, 2011 by dpwozney

[Scotty]

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

Not these ones.

[Scotty]

The only thing criminal about heroin addicts is that they are harming themselves. Prison is not the kind of rehab they need.

And where do you think most of them get the money to pay for their habits?

[Scotty]

And yes it's the right thing to do to help save the life of the unfortunate and addicted. Apparently you would like to just round them up and put them out of their misery?

It wouldn't unduly bother me if they overdosed and put themselves out of their - and our misery.

[olp1fan]

I can't wait until Darth Harper ignores the Supreme Court of Canada and sends in people to arrest the people at InSite.

The Governor General would have to intervene and possibly an election would be in the very near future.

Maybe we can get it right this time?

[Scotty]

Yes because forcing people to change always works right? They don't need to want it right?

If they don't want it then let them die.

[WWWTT]

Japan has a lower rate and their economy has been stagnent for 20 years. Crime is driven primarily by culture - not economics.

I believe the unemployment rate in Japan is still much lower than the U.S.

WWWTT

[olp1fan]

No one has yet proven that addicts would being doing the drugs anyways with shared dirty needles without Insite.

The so-called “Supreme Court of Canada” judges are aiding and abetting unlawful activity by allowing Insite to remain open knowing that Insite knowingly provides needles for use in unlawful drug injections.

The Harper government is directly aiding and abetting criminal politicians Tiny Clement and John Goldbaird.