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