I disagree with the direction the Federal government is moving on drugs -- rather than treat the issue as one of public health they seem to focus on just adding punishment -- and punishment is pointless in deterring drug addicts. Pointless and costly.
That said, as a legal matter the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision is suspect (at best). The provinces cannot usurp the role of the Federal government when the Federal government acts, as it did here, within its jurisdiction. So an appeal to the Supreme Court may be sensible.
Of course, the Supreme Court might decide to follow the practice from Khadr and make some observations without actually doing anything (like making an order)... .
OTTAWA -- The federal government plans to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn a B.C. ruling that allowed a safe-injection site to remain open, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Tuesday.
On Jan. 15, the B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed the government's appeal, which allowed Insite, North America's only supervised injection site, to remain open.
...
He [the Minister of Justice] said the government's policy aim is to get tough on "drug dealers and producers who threaten the safety of our children and communities.
"Our message is clear: If you sell or produce drugs, you will face jail time," said the minister.
Mr. Nicholson said the case has brought up jurisdictional issues between the provincial and federal governments and therefore needs clarification from the Supreme Court.
Insite originally opened in 2003 under a temporary exemption to national drug laws.
When the exemption was due to expire in 2008, Justice Ian Pitfield of the B.C. Supreme Court struck down sections of Canada's drug laws as unconstitutional and granted the facility a permanent exemption.
The ruling indicated that closing a health care service that can prevent death and the transmission of infectious disease goes against the right to life and security that are outlined in the charter of rights.
The B.C. appeal court ruled health care services provided at Insite are a provincial, not federal, responsibility, so the court found it was unnecessary to rule on the facility's constitutional right to exist.
The ruling upheld Justice Pitfield's trial decision.
...
Since Insite opened in 2003, there have been more than 40 peer-reviewed academic papers, reports and studies published in scientific medical journals verifying Insite's success.
The reports concluded Insite prevents overdose deaths, limits the spread of disease, reduces public disorder and moves more people into detox and addiction treatment, while saving taxpayer dollars.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
10 comments:
Very well said and my sentiments exactly.
The science is pretty clear on Insite: fewer deaths and fewer addictions. It does not make any sense to shut it down, unless you live in an ideological bubble world where reality and life and death matters less than keeping true to some inherited dogma.
Having said that, it is federal jurisdiction clear as the light of day and the court rendered an awful results-based decision.
Canada is already the most decentralized nation on the planet. It costs us billions and who knows how many jobs year after year. A strong nation needs a strong and solid central government (in a jurisdictional sense, not fascist sense); the whole is greater than the parts.
It is a fun and extremely rare opportunity to watch Mr. Firewall take on the provinces to strengthen the federation rather than weaken it.
More peer reviewed studies?
This enables drug users to continue with their habits, does nothing to cure their addiction or stop the organized crime that sells this drug. I'd welcome a federal program but this is unaccountable judges choosing what laws to enforce.
I had the pleasure of talking about Insite with Craig Jones, a constitutional lawyer in BC who was among the first to begin the process for the creation of Insite. He was of the position that Insite can be argued through sections 7 and/or 15 of the Charter. He was quite persuasive and he was quite assured through those types of arguments Insite will go on.
"Canada is already the most decentralized nation on the planet."
Perhaps that is a good thing. If you don't like living under the system of one province, you have the freedom to "vote with your feet" and move somewhere else.
"The science is pretty clear on Insite: fewer deaths and fewer addictions."
Why should I take you or Insite at their word on this? They claim peer-reviewed studies. Who were these peers? Were they already sympathetic with Insite's hypothesis? Keep in mind, I'm just a layman playing Devil's Advocate. I'm asking this from the perspective of someone who does not feel comfortable about government-sanctioned "safe injection sites".
It's expected that a 'conservative' government will pander to a constituency that abhors drug users. As George Will said, elections are a way for people to punish their perceived enemies. At this time, the potheads are being outvoted by the pothead haters.
This is a good opportunity for Michael Ignatieff to show he's worth something and support Insite.
I have serious doubts about the claims of success.
1. Where does the addict get his/her next fix? My arguement is that once they leave the site they will continue to use dirty needles to get it.
2.Who is responsible for the addicts actions while he is tripped out? Once they leave you can bet that they are looking for their next fix and will do anything to get it.
3.Do we have any knowledge of the whereabouts of the addict in say 5 years? Are they alive? are they healthy? Are they better off than those who do not use Safe sites?
4.Are addicts being checked out for crimes such as theft, mugging etc? Again, the money to feed their habit is coming from crime.
The politicians do not have time to discuss the issue beyond the talking points. It usually breaks down to "..the other guys are ignorant..".That is not good enough.
As for the decentralization point,that is the flaw that is Canada.No politician will argue for a stronger federal gov't.It is a non starter in Quebec. Ignatieff said as much after the referendum in the nineties. He argued that their is not much fututre for Canada because of it.
The peer review process was in line with normal scientific practices. That is unlike the critique that the RCMP hired Colin Mangham to write, which was printed in a vanity journal. There is currently a defamation lawsuit working it's way through the courts on this.
You can "not feel comfortable about government-sanctioned safe injection sites" but you can't libel someone when the facts say that it does indeed does work.
I also agree with Craig Jones: there is a live Charter argument to allow the province to run this health care facility as they see fit.
Another factor to keep in mind is that all the treaties that the fedgov has signed (which some claim is the basis for federal jurisdiction) all have contained in them a clause that mention that the signatory country's constitution takes precedent and invalidate any treaty requirement that violates it. A 7 and 15 violation totally eviscerates the fedgov position and jurisdiction.
I hope the SCC slaps Nicholson hard and hands what really is a health care issue to the provinces, which have the proper constitutional role to handle this.
Re: the provincial healthcare.
AS I recall it was PM Paul Martin who threatened to cut funding to Alberta if they did not tow the Federal Liberal line with healthcare.It is dificult to believe that the SCC would force the fed. gov't to allow this program while turning a blind eye to the threat of services effecting an entire province.
The feds can fund or not fund as they wish. In fact there is zero federal dollars currently going into InSite.
This is a clear division of powers case, and InSite falles squarely under "the Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals."
It's a no-brainer. The feds are acting dangerously because this will further erode federal centralization. But perhaps that is Harper's game all along.
Law is not absolute. It was created by people. It is being changed by people.
Sometimes these "people" are elected politicians. When politicians lack the courage to act then other "people" change the law. Such as Mandela, Ghandi, same-sex marriage aspirants and the judges that supported them ... or our very own Saint Henry Morgentaler and the many juries of ordinary "people" who judged him innocent.
The BC court fond the wriggle room between the federal drug laws and the charter of rights and provincial rights.
The honorable thing to do would be for the feds to stand down now - but alas, it is not to be. So lets hope the Supremes have he street sense of the BC Courts.
Post a Comment