SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[cybercoma]

They're doing more than providing clean needles. They could have done that without a court order.

What else are they doing?

[cybercoma]

Let me save you the trouble of posting more lies:

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/services/services

That's exactly what they do.

[Guest American Woman]

If someone absuses medicine, the doctor that writes the prescription and the pharmacist that fills it is not helping them?

It's not illegal to take prescription drugs. It is illegal to take illicit drugs. To help one with the injection is to directly help one commit an illegal act. Writing a prescription does not help one directly commit an illegal act.

[Guest American Woman]

Let me save you the trouble of posting more lies:

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/services/services

That's exactly what they do.

Ummmm. They do more than provide needles. If that's all they were doing, they would hand out needles and away the users would go. As you yourself pointed out, it's not illegal to provide clean needles. So why was the Supreme Court ruling necessary? Because they do more than provide clean needles.

And fyi, your constant reference to my "posting lies" when I'm providing sources makes you come across like a 12 year old. Seriously. I suppose the Canadian Armed Forces was "lying" too.

Edited October 1, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Ummmm. They do more than provide needles.

See, repeating what you said in your last post doesn't actually answer the question, "what more do they provide?"

[cybercoma]

It's not illegal to take prescription drugs.

It's not? Maybe you should be the lawyer for people hooked on oxycontin. Prescription drugs are a controlled substance, so their use is as illegal as it is for people hooked on heroin. Edited October 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Speaking of which, did you find the section in the Controlled Substance Act that makes the consumption of drugs illegal?

[cybercoma]

Did you even read the decision by the Supreme Court anyway? Here's the pertinent part:

The Minister made a decision not to extend the exemption from the application of the federal drug laws to Insite. The effect of that decision, but for the trial judge’s interim order, would have been to prevent injection drug users from accessing the health services offered by Insite, threatening the health and indeed the lives of the potential clients. The Minister’s decision thus engages the claimants’ s. 7 [Right to Life, Liberty and Security of the Person] interests and constitutes a limit on their s. 7 rights. Based on the information available to the Minister, this limit is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. It is arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety. It is also grossly disproportionate: the potential denial of health services and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users outweigh any benefit that might be derived from maintaining an absolute prohibition on possession of illegal drugs on Insite’s premises.

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

On a side note, notice the issue was with possession on the premises, not the actual use of drugs.

[Shwa]

It comes down to the meaning of the word "use", because in the act of use you are in possession. Note that in order to be charged with possession it does not require that you are using.

After "use", if there is no drug found, or remnants of drug residue on paraphernalia in your possession, you cannot be charged. There is no law on the books.

Of course that doesn't mean employers or the military won't hire you, if for example you fail a drug test.

Correct. Note that the quote above, "...non-medical drug use is illegal in Canada..." is taken from an explanatory section of DND policy and is certainly not the authority on the legal interpretation as taken by the courts.

[jacee]

It's not illegal to sell alcohol.

Under our laws, it is illegal to serve people who are intoxicated and the server/host has liability.

However, insite is not providing drugs/intoxicants.

This is perhaps a grey area, but the input of the police will be relevant if clients injected at the site are engaging in criminal behaviour afterwards.

[waldo]

Speaking of which, did you find the section in the Controlled Substance Act that makes the consumption of drugs illegal?

American Woman won't find it... because it doesn't exist. Perhaps the following European link reference may provide American Woman a framework distinction between possession versus consumption and legalities therein. The linked reference provides a summary accounting of European countries that have chosen to 'penalize' consumption use by law, (whether that law is criminal, non-criminal or regulatory in nature), and whether additional qualifications apply. A respective countries decision to pursue laws against consumption is, as described, an action that is significant for at least the two stated reasons; specifically:

- Firstly it is a legislative step not required by the UN drug control conventions, which only require countries to penalize possession;

- Secondly it may provide new powers to investigating police, such as the ability to take biological samples in the search for “evidence of commission of a criminal offence”, or the power to arrest someone in possession of a clean syringe as “preparing to commit a criminal offence”.

[cybercoma]

Insite will be no more liable than a doctor or pharmacist is liable for the actions of a patient on medication. Insite is a medical site, providing care for drug users. They are not responsible for the drug users actions when they leave the site.

[cybercoma]

American Woman won't find it... because it doesn't exist.

You know that and I know that. I'm waiting for her to admit that there is no law against use and consumption.

[ToadBrother]

Ummmm. They do more than provide needles. If that's all they were doing, they would hand out needles and away the users would go. As you yourself pointed out, it's not illegal to provide clean needles. So why was the Supreme Court ruling necessary? Because they do more than provide clean needles.

And fyi, your constant reference to my "posting lies" when I'm providing sources makes you come across like a 12 year old. Seriously. I suppose the Canadian Armed Forces was "lying" too.

Heh... you actually have no idea what the clinic does, do you?

[jacee]

http://www.communityinsite.ca/science.html

For those still arguing various possible outcomes of a supervised injection site, the above link provides summaries of all of the research and links to the full research reports.

I note that the clients appear not to be engaging in increased crime as no increase is found in the DTES, and there is a decrease in some crimes - vehicle breakins for example.

Edited October 1, 2011 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

Heh... you actually have no idea what the clinic does, do you?

Yeah, I do. Which is why I know it does more than provide clean needles.

[Guest American Woman]

I note that the clients appear not to be engaging in increased crime as no increase is found in the DTES, and there is a decrease in some crimes - vehicle breakins for example.

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.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, I do. Which is why I know it does more than provide clean needles.

So spell it out for us. What is this clinic doing? Why do you seem so unwilling to provide the list?

[Guest American Woman]

You know that and I know that. I'm waiting for her to admit that there is no law against use and consumption.

I'll get right at that as soon as you explain to me how it's possible to use and consume drugs without first possessing them.

The fact that it's illegal to possess them makes the legality of using them/consuming them impossible.

Again. I've quoted the armed forces as backing me up. Surely you don't think the Canadian armed forces don't know what they're talking about??

[cybercoma]

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.

You would think that, which is why there are academic peer-reviewed studies to see if that's the case with the Insite project. It's not.

[waldo]

I'll get right at that as soon as you explain to me how it's possible to use and consume drugs without first possessing them.

The fact that it's illegal to possess them makes the legality of using them/consuming them impossible.

Again. I've quoted the armed forces as backing me up. Surely you don't think the Canadian armed forces don't know what they're talking about??

it's possible through specific application of the law (whether criminal, non-criminal or regulatory in nature)... as distinguished for you per the following example. Your difficulty, your inability, is to provide a like specific application of the law within Canada, one that clearly makes the same possession versus consumption distinction. You can't... so you bluster away!

American Woman won't find it... because it doesn't exist. Perhaps the following

European link reference

may provide American Woman a framework distinction between possession versus consumption and legalities therein. The linked reference provides a summary accounting of European countries that have chosen to 'penalize' consumption use by law, (whether that law is criminal, non-criminal or regulatory in nature), and whether additional qualifications apply. A respective countries decision to pursue laws against consumption is, as described, an action that is significant for at least the two stated reasons; specifically:

- Firstly it is a legislative step not required by the UN drug control conventions, which only require countries to penalize possession;

- Secondly it may provide new powers to investigating police, such as the ability to take biological samples in the search for “evidence of commission of a criminal offence”, or the power to arrest someone in possession of a clean syringe as “preparing to commit a criminal offence”.

[cybercoma]

I'll get right at that as soon as you explain to me how it's possible to use and consume drugs without first possessing them.

The fact that it's illegal to possess them makes the legality of using them/consuming them impossible.

Again. I've quoted the armed forces as backing me up. Surely you don't think the Canadian armed forces don't know what they're talking about??

Nice side-step. I've been saying all along that it is possession that is the criminal part of drug use and that consumption is not illegal.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nice side-step. I've been saying all along that it is possession that is the criminal part of drug use and that consumption is not illegal.

So you are saying it is legal for Canadian Forces to use but not possess illegal drugs?

[Guest American Woman]

So spell it out for us. What is this clinic doing? Why do you seem so unwilling to provide the list?

You're serious. You really don't know? You really need an American to inform you as to what they're doing besides providing clean needles? Okaay. Glad to help you out: Insite also provides syringes, cookers, filters, tourniquets, and clean water to mix drugs. It provides stainless steel alcoves where nurses observe them; it provides them with a place to use and it provides supervision of drug consumption/injection.

Hope that helps y'all understand the situation better.

[cybercoma]

So you are saying it is legal for Canadian Forces to use but not possess illegal drugs?

I'm not familiar with the specific legal codes that regulate the conduct of military personnel. What I'm saying is that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act does not restrict the consumption of drugs. The CDSA restricts the possession, traffic, importation, exportation and production of controlled drugs and substances.