Pubdate: Sat, 01 Oct 2011
Source: StarPhoenix, The (CN SN)
Copyright: 2011 The StarPhoenix
Contact: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/letters.html
Website: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/400
Bookmark: mapinc.org/topic/Insite

INSITE RULING WISE COURSE

It is refreshing to hear from Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq 
that her government not only will comply with the Supreme Court 
ruling regarding Vancouver's safe injection site, but she will read it.

Now, if only she can just get her colleagues also to tap into the 
words of wisdom that came unanimously from all nine top justices of Canada.

In essence, the decision confirms Ottawa's right to establish 
criminal prohibitions on the possession and trafficking of drugs as 
something that can't be simply overruled by a province's 
responsibility to establish health policy. However, the court 
suggests that doesn't allow the federal government to institute 
ideologically-driven policies that deprive individuals of their 
charter protection of life and security of person, and denies them 
fundamental justice.

The federal government couldn't but have been aware of the benefits 
Insite provides to the drug addicts of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside 
and to society as a whole. Although Insite is the first legal, 
government-sanctioned and funded supervised injection site in North 
America, it is one of about 70 around the world, including in Europe 
and Australia.

It came into existence only after extensive research indicated it 
would provide the kinds of benefits it has done for society. And 
since opening its doors it has been the subject of numerous, rigorous 
scientific studies -- many of which were published in prestigious 
peer-reviewed journals -- that found it saved lives, reduced crime, 
decreased the level of drug abuse and protected public health.

All of these benefits fit within the stated goals of the Conservative 
government's "tough on crime" agenda.

But for ideological reasons, the Stephen Harper government persisted 
in opposing Insite's operation, going so far as to deny it the 
exemption from the Criminal Code it required to have health 
professions overseeing the administration of illegal drugs. As the 
Supreme Court noted, had it not been for an interim order by a 
lower-court judge, the health and lives of injection drug users would 
have been threatened. "Based on the information available to the 
minister, this limit (on their charter rights) is not in accordance 
with the principles of fundamental justice," Chief Justice Beverley 
McLachlin wrote on behalf of her colleagues.

She also advised the federal government that in the future it must 
strike an appropriate balance between achieving public health and 
public safety. That is to say, rather than rely on gut feelings or 
blind ideology to set public policy, the government must consider 
measures that reduce risks to the health and lives of individuals as 
well as measures that protect public safety.

This ruling could have far reaching implications for other 
jurisdictions considering similar harm-reduction strategies.

"Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk 
of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will 
have a negative impact on public safety, the minister should 
generally grant an exemption," Justice McLachlin wrote.

It shouldn't have taken an edict from the Supreme Court to force the 
federal government to adopt this strategy. Canadians should be able 
to trust that governments of any political stripe would set aside 
narrow ideology for policies that are proven to be in the best 
interest of the country.

While this ruling was specific to British Columbia's drug harm 
reduction policy, one suspects those who argue that Canada's war on 
drugs or tough-on-crime strategy do more harm than good will also be 
reading Friday's ruling with care.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom