s5260205 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/987998--canada-s-high-court-to-rule-on-safe-injection-site The Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments this week about the fate of Vancouver’s safe-injection site. What's your opinions on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking1 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/987998--canada-s-high-court-to-rule-on-safe-injection-site What's your opinions on this? Do you mean legally, or scientifically? Scientifically, its performed rather well and far surpassed its purpose. Its reduced the number of overdose deaths sharply. It has substantially reduced the number of new HIV infections in the area. Legally though, we need to respect the law of the land, regardless. It bothers me regarding this topic, but we don't have much of a choice if the Supreme Court says no. Unless we forward a better legal argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted May 10, 2011 Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 Uh, the law is being respected. The question is whether the federal government can impose its morally and scientifically bankrupt position on the City of Vancouver and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold lower court rulings. InSite is much more than a supervised injection site and I find it appalling that anyone considers the alternative - not providing wound care or direct engagement to avoid risk behaviours and offer rehab - better than what is currently offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larva Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 Uh, the law is being respected. The question is whether the federal government can impose its morally and scientifically bankrupt position on the City of Vancouver and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold lower court rulings. InSite is much more than a supervised injection site and I find it appalling that anyone considers the alternative - not providing wound care or direct engagement to avoid risk behaviours and offer rehab - better than what is currently offered. +1,000,000 I have yet to hear an argument against InSite that makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking1 Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 I have yet to hear an argument against InSite that makes any sense. Basically, this is where I stand. The problem comes when people don't fund the site. It may be legal, but swathes of the population refusing to pay money to it will kill it just as effectively as making it illegal. Republicans in the USA are trying to do that with a variety of programs and causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 Fortunately the federal government has nothing to do with funding InSite, and it has the full support of the municipal and provincial governments, not to mention the Vancouver Police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking1 Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 Fortunately the federal government has nothing to do with funding InSite, and it has the full support of the municipal and provincial governments, not to mention the Vancouver Police. Huh...well, I'm glad I was mistaken. Yay InSite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soggybread Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 It's a no brainer to me. Drug addiction needs to stop being treated as a criminal issue and needs to start being treated as a public health issue. And the independent research over the past 8 years proves that the mere $3 million dollars a year we put into Insite is saving many lives and reducing disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLengr Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 I like how one of the main reasons the Cons give for wanting to shut it down is that it runs counter to their "tough on crime agenda". I'm glad we are now basing healthcare decisions on political ideology. That will help us all in the long run. Note: Sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star3124 Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 Hear Hear to everyone above! The May 2nd result has made me concern for the future of healthcare and social programs in Canada.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asta Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 I have done some research on safe injection programs and I am now a big supporter of InSite. As far as I have been able to see, the vast majority of academic research shows positive public health results and no increase in crime or drug use related to these sites. All of the arguments that I have heard against the safe injection sites seem to be based in ignorance and scaremongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\/@L£ri£ Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 I am afraid it is only the first of several attemps which will have the Cons to regress in the services which we have in Canada. They begin with the least popular with the public and then what... the abortion prohibition? I really hope that the Supreme Court won't give the Cons what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asta Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 I am afraid it is only the first of several attemps which will have the Cons to regress in the services which we have in Canada. They begin with the least popular with the public and then what... the abortion prohibition? I really hope that the Supreme Course won't give the Cons what they want. I really (really) don't like the conservative government. But IIRC, they said specifically in their campaign that they won't open the abortion issue. But maybe that doesn't count for much. This whole situation feels extremely regressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2015 Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 Although anything is possible. I doubt the Supreme Court will go along with the feds on this one. I think it is provincial jurisdiction and expect that charter rights are involved. Politicians often tend to be idiots who get into power and don't regular serve our population. But what do I know, just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 Well, I think from any reading apart from a very, very narrow legal interpretation in favour of federal legislative authority, there is no meaningful objection to what InSite does. Regardless of one's opinion on harm reduction, withdrawal of the services InSite provides would absolutely harm the health and well being of the vulnerable and resource-poor population it serves. In the summer I had the great opportunity to visit InSite and see first hand what is done there. The Fifth Estate did a thought-provoking episode on InSite and the DTES available here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2015 Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 I don't know the legal arguments but I thought Section 92 of The Constitution Act (aka The BNA Act) provides for health being a provincial matter, as are civil rights, as are chartitable institutions. I agree with A-Stark and a win for the feds would constitute deliberate harm to life and health for our most vulnerable population. This would be a no-brainer to the Supreme Court and I would expect them to do the right thing with plenty of legal support. What a horrible precedent if they ruled otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minuteman420 Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 If you want to look at it from a completely law based standpoint. Insite should be closed, those drugs are illegal and people doing them are against the law. If you want to look at whats best for the society and the people of Canada (yes, drug addicts do count as Canadians) undoubtedly the supreme court needs to decide that Insite should remain operating, all evidence suggests that is a successful program. It also paves the way for healing and recovery of these drug addicts. The other option is to leave them in the streets, to get HIV, to get other diseases, to die of overdoses or lock them up and treat them like criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2015 Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 Well, is what they are doing against the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted May 12, 2011 Report Share Posted May 12, 2011 Unauthorized possession of narcotics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2015 Posted May 13, 2011 Report Share Posted May 13, 2011 Does criminal law, selectively applied when the feds choose to do so, trumph provincial jurisdiction? And does the continuing saving of lives on East Hastings have any value? The Judgment will make for life impacting and fascinating reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted May 13, 2011 Report Share Posted May 13, 2011 Well, originally InSite operated under a special federal exemption from narcotics legislation. So far, however, lower courts have ruled that the federal government does not have the authority to put that particular genie back in its bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2015 Posted May 13, 2011 Report Share Posted May 13, 2011 Well, originally InSite operated under a special federal exemption from narcotics legislation. So far, however, lower courts have ruled that the federal government does not have the authority to put that particular genie back in its bottle. It makes sense that the government cannot, according to the then views or changing views of the government of the day that happens to be in power, to arbitrarily spin the law to suit their purposes of the day, including playing with exemptins from narcotics legislation. This smacks of abuse of power under the guise of criminal law enforcement. One way or the other, although I have not read the decisions of the lower courts, the courts seem to agree. Obviouisly, there are immense ethical considerations that go beyond the law, as there are life and death considerations. The Supreme Court justices will need to live with the consequences of their decison which decision will be remembered beyond their lifetimes. I have confidence in their decency to do what is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted May 13, 2011 Report Share Posted May 13, 2011 So far the Supreme Court justices don't seem too impressed with federal government's argument: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/990107--no-evidence-to-contradict-studies-that-supervised-drug-injections-save-addicts-lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2015 Posted May 13, 2011 Report Share Posted May 13, 2011 Thanks. It appears there will be egg on the faces of the feds - as should be the case, The essential decency of the Supreme Court judges is coming through loud and clear and the fed lawyer did not know how to counter what they asked! Seems slam dunk for life and the good guys, could not imagine it otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.