Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 2008
Source: Victoria Times-Colonist (CN BC)
Copyright: 2008 Times Colonist
Contact: http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/letters.html
Website: http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/481
Author: Paul Willcocks
Referenced: The ruling http://drugsense.org/url/IoeOUnAY
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Insite (Insite)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hr.htm (Harm Reduction)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?142 (Supervised Injection Sites)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment)

INSITE APPEAL IGNORES COMMON SENSE, SCIENCE, MORALITY

The ruling on the future of Vancouver's safe injection site should 
change the way we talk about drugs and addiction.

It will certainly reveal that those who cling to the status quo -- 
like federal Health Minister Tony Clement, who announced plans to 
appeal the decision yesterday -- place prejudice ahead of evidence and the law.

Justice Ian Pitfield was ruling on an injunction application aimed at 
preventing the federal government from closing Insite. The injection 
site needs an exemption from drug possession laws to operate, so 
people can bring their drugs to the centre. Vancouver Coastal Health 
Authority would likely not continue funding if the site was operating 
illegally.

With barely one month to go before the current exemption was to 
expire, the government wouldn't say if it would renew it.

The critical aspect of the judgment rested on one main issue. Would 
shutting down Insite violate the users' charter rights to "life, 
liberty, and security of the person"? And if it did, was the 
violation of their rights justified by the greater good? Governments 
are allowed, under the charter, to strip individual rights with a good reason.

Answering those questions raised issues fundamental to the way we 
think about drugs and addiction.

First, Pitfield had to decide if Insite did protect individuals' 
charter right to safety and security. If not, then closing it would be fine.

Both sides presented evidence. The federal government established 
that a scientific debate continues about whether harm reduction or 
abstinence-based approaches are most effective.

But overall, the evidence and research showed that allowing people to 
inject in a clean, supervised site reduced death and illness (as well 
as public disorder). Dealing with the sickness of addiction is part 
of health care; removing it would violate the clients' right to 
personal security, just as denying care to a lung cancer patient 
would, the court found.

The federal government also raised an important argument. People 
choose to use drugs, its lawyers argued. The charter of rights 
doesn't provide any protection if people make bad choices.

Pitfield reviewed the medical evidence supplied by both sides. And he 
found that Insite users weren't making a choice to inject drugs.

"However unfortunate, damaging, inexplicable and personal the 
original choice may have been, the result is an illness called 
addiction," he found.

"While there is nothing to be said in favour of the injection of 
controlled substances that leads to addiction, there is much to be 
said against denying addicts health-care services that will 
ameliorate the effects of their condition," Pitfield found. "Society 
does that for other substances such as alcohol and tobacco."

The decision was based on the evidence. But anyone who looked at the 
life of a hardcore injection drug user wouldn't see it as a choice. 
How many people want poverty, homelessness, a one-in-six chance of 
contracting HIV, almost certain hepatitis, dangerous sex work, 
abscesses, fear and a constant need to get more drugs?

That left one issue for the court. The government can remove 
individual rights for the greater good -- if it can show a pressing reason.

The federal government argued that the allowing Insite a continued 
exemption would increase drug trafficking and might violate 
international treaties.

But it had little evidence. And drug laws, Pitfield ruled, could 
still prohibit possession while allowing exemptions for programs like Insite.

That's an important point. The government can still do as much as it 
wants to arrest dealers or users. It can ramp up prevention programs 
and add treatment centres. Insite is no barrier to any of those efforts.

Pitfield's ruling doesn't say society should condone drug use. It 
does recognize that addiction is an illness -- a potentially deadly 
one -- and proper health care can help people survive, while reducing 
the damage to the community.

It is a good starting point for rethinking the way we treat those 
suffering from that illness, and the ways we can help stop others 
from stumbling into that terrible sickness.

Footnote: Insite is supported by Premier Gordon Campbell and Health 
Minister George Abbott and is funded by the province. Vancouver's 
mayor and police force also back its continued operation.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom