New study shows Insite saves lives; court case by Feds going ahead anyway

[HankQuinlan]

Just to remind everyone -- once again -- that the Harper government ignores science and research and the harm reduction model in favour of ideology.

Of course, if you don't think saving lives is important, or that some people's lives are worth less than others, this is irrelevant.

Vancouver Sun April 18, 2011:

Will dramatic drop in overdose deaths be enough to save Insite?

Despite indisputable proof that supervised injection site has saved countless lives, federal government forges ahead with bid to shut it down

When Insite, Vancouver's supervised injection site, opened in the fall of 2003, critics set for it what seemed an impossible task: The facility could not be considered a success, they argued, unless it represented a cost-effective way of increasing drug users' use of detox and treatment services, reducing needle sharing and public disorder and, perhaps most important of all, reducing overdose deaths.

In the first few years of its existence, Insite surprised nearly everyone by satisfying virtually all of these criteria. And better yet, it did this while attracting the drug users who are at the highest risk of overdose and HIV-infection, as well as many of the hardest to reach addicts.

But there was one thing that had yet to be confirmed -the reduction in overdose deaths, the very thing many critics believed to be the single most important criterion. One can, of course, debate whether it really is the most important criterion, since by increasing users' uptake of treatment services, Insite is undoubtedly saving lives, and increasing the quality of the lives it saves.

But treatment takes time, and we don't usually see what becomes of people who enter a treatment facility. Overdoses, on the other hand, provide an immediate and dramatic example of a life-or-death situation, and it's therefore difficult to deny the worth of a facility that prevents overdose deaths.

It's surprising, then, that despite the existence of some 65 supervised injection facilities throughout the world, there has been little solid research assessing the sites' ability to prevent overdose deaths. Fortunately, though, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet has today published a paper by researchers at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, and the paper provides precisely the evidence we need.

See full story:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Will+dramatic+drop+overdose+deaths+enough+save+Insite/4632871/story.html

 

[treveller]

You got the problem right.

If you don't think saving lives is important, or that some people's lives are worth less than others, this is irrelevant.

Conservative supporters and much of the public at large don't care about saving the lives of drug addicts (alcohol and tobacco don't count). Reporting on lives saved is not likely to be an effective strategy for protecting Insite.

Reporting about money saved in the health care and legal systems has a better chance of protecting Insite but even that is an uphill battle against the ignorant ideology of the Conservatives.

Thanks for posting the article. It's good news.

 

[HankQuinlan]

The Supreme Court has just ruled - unanimously - against the Harper government. Insite is a provincial responsibility, and the feds should mind their own business and stop trying to shut it down.

A victory for sensible harm reduction strategies, and a blow against the ridiculous "War on Drugs."

 

[laurel love]

It is interesting that the 'righteous' folk are against a safe place for injection...a place where people can come into and feel part of a community and be exposed to opportunities to withdraw, when they provide such places for women who are pregnant...

It would seem that safe injection sites, aside from preventing death, would be a logical place for religious ones to volunteer and provide support in some form.

Of course they can never do this without trying to shove a hard book down ones throat, and of course, trying to be non judgemental would be a trial eh?

 

[treveller]

Alinburnaby, could you provide some paragraph numbers for some of the specifics you refer to? I missed some of the things you saw in the decision.

I saw it as a very limited decision. The respondents lost all their arguments except the last and most important. The decision applies only to Insite, as it functions at present. The Health Minister is ordered to issue an exemption (I wish I could watch her choke on that) but the exemption can be withdrawn by the Health Minister if anything changes, and everything is always changing. Then they go back to court.

The criminal code provisions of the CDSA apply to Insite and health care. The criminal code has paramontsey over the health care actions of the province.

It's a good thing that costs were awarded because any other community that wants a safe injection site will have to apply for an exemption. That application will be denied and there will be another court application for an order that the Health Minister grant another exemption. This will probably involve the provincial supreme and appeal court with the SCC refusing to hear the Federal Government's appeal, assuming the lower courts order the Minister to grant an exemption. Communities will only do this if they are confident that court costs will be paid by the Feds.

I agree that the decision is extremely supportive of harm reduction and critical of the government refusal to grant an exemption.

Sorry, no time for my own paragraph numbers at present.

Cheers.

 

[HankQuinlan]

The most important thing to me is that the court's decision slapped the government down for discarding legitimate evidence that didn't support their point of view -- as they are wont to do frequently.

This may well apply when they are forced to rule on the Prostitution laws.

Part of what pisses me off is that they used my money to fund the court battle, when they could have just given in to common sense. I am sure their lawyers told them that they had a weak case, but they pursued it for political reasons.

I also enjoyed Harper's and Oda's discomfort and ungraciousness at the result. "We disagree with this decision" -- well, duh.

 

[HankQuinlan]

jeeze Hank, learn to accept winning.

This is the purpose of courts. If Canada had not appealed the law on the subject would be up in the air for years the way law on prostitution is currently. Having a ruling from the SCOC eliminates uncertainty. We now know what the law on the provincial health ministry right to harm reduction is. The SCOC spelled it out chapter and verse.

Uh, no....it is entirely possible for a reasonable government to change laws and make policy on information readily available, rather than fighting to the bitter end, wasting time and money and creating unnecessary stress. Of course, I wouldn't expect this bunch to to so.

And, of course, if they are in power long enough, they can stack the Supreme Court with judges of their choice who will support their agenda. Looks like that would take a while.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Canada's system of appointment is completely different than the appointment system used in the USA. We don't ask questions to be certain that the Justice will vote in the "correct" manner. Instead, we ask the Law Schools and Sitting Justices of the Provincial Supreme and Superior Courts to submit a short list of potential appointees. It is the Governor General of Canada who selects the person that will be appointed.

I stand corrected on how the SC is constituted; this does seem to be a much better system than our neighbour's.

This must be a source of frustration for Mr. Harper.

 

[treveller]

Alinburnaby, thanks for the info o SCC appointments and thanks for the quotes from the decision.

I was dreading what the Harper Government might do with the appointments. I recall hearing a year or two ago that they had changed the appointment process to give the Harper Government more direct control and eliminate some good processes. Any idea what that might have been about? Could it have been lower courts?

I am using the same link you posted but I understood it to be the full decision, summary at the top, then details and award of costs. It was posted on the SCC web site by 7AM Friday when I went looking for it.

 

[Bartdude]

What the Supreme Court of Canada is being asked to do is to rule on which side is going to establish the law of the land. (precedent) When the Supreme Court of Canada awards full costs to the winning side, they are saying that the losing side should not have forced them to hear the issue. I can't think of a bigger legal slapdown.

The unanimity, even with recent Harper appointees, is a stunning slap in the face for the CPC crusaders.

The most important thing to me is that the court's decision slapped the government down for discarding legitimate evidence that didn't support their point of view -- as they are wont to do frequently.

This is the most significant implication of the ruling, for sure. A sharp rebuke for the zealots in the government still riding high on the arrogance of a majority government victory.

Hébert: Ruling reminds Tories no one above the law
Published On Fri Sep 30 2011
MONTREAL

The Insite ruling is the most brutal collision to date between the Supreme Court of Canada and Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

Despite the imminent appointment of two more Harper nominees to the top court’s bench, it will likely not be the last.

On Friday, the Court ordered the federal government to grant a special exemption to allow Vancouver’s supervised drug injection clinic to operate without fear of prosecution for possessing and trafficking in hard drugs.

The ruling is the latest volley in an ongoing battle of wills between the top court and the ruling Conservatives.

That conflict pits Conservative ideology against the primacy of the rule of law and it has been escalating.

Tensions between Canada’s judicial establishment and Harper’s Conservative party have been simmering for years, predating its election to office.

It has been one of the Prime Minister’s longstanding mantras that the exercise of political discretion by an elected government is not a matter for the courts to meddle with.

In a ruling dealing with Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr, the Supreme Court had already taken aim at that contention in 2010.

In that matter, it found that Canada and the United States were violating Khadr constitutional rights.

But in spite of that finding, the Court ultimately held its fire, declining to explicitly order the government to seek Khadr’s repatriation to Canada.

At the time, legal experts argued that Harper was implicitly bound to come up with a remedy on par with the gravity of the violation identified by the top court.

In the end, there was little change to the Conservative approach to the Khadr case.

In 2010, the court had hinted strongly that it could yet force the hand of the government.

“Courts are empowered to make orders ensuring that the government’s foreign affairs prerogative is exercised in accordance with the Constitution” the Khadr ruling stated.

In Friday’s Insite decision, the nine justices took no chances.

They did not leave it to the government to decide whether to give teeth to its findings.

The court ruled that the federal government overstepped its bounds when it refused to renew a special exemption to allow Insite to continue to operate. It concluded that it had no substantial reason to do so.

It ruled that the decision went against the principles of fundamental justice.

It described the government approach as “grossly disproportionate.”

It also found that the crux of the Insite issue was not in the reach of the federal statute on illicit drugs in areas of provincial jurisdictions, or in the division of powers between the two levels of government but rather in the uneven-handed approach of the Conservatives to Charter rights versus their policy objectives.

Then the court went further than in the Khadr case — two steps further, in fact.

Writing for her colleagues, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin ordered the federal government to grant a special exemption to the Vancouver clinic; she also opened the door to more exemptions if and when other provinces and cities take up the Insite example.

Harper is due to fill two vacancies this fall and the nine member court could be dominated by a majority of Conservative appointees in short order. But based on recent history, a Conservative-appointed bench will not automatically translate into a compliant one.

The Khadr and the Insite rulings were both unanimous, with justices Marshall Rothstein and Thomas Cromwell — Harper’s two appointees to date — siding with their seven colleagues.

The Insite ruling is a strong reminder to the Harper government that its law-and-order agenda is not above the law itself.

But it is also a reprimand for Tony Clement, a minister who has very much been on the ground zero of government-driven controversies over the past few years, first over the elimination of the long-form census and more recently over G8 summit spending.

It was Clement who launched the 2008 federal vendetta against Insite in his days as minister of health.

 

[Bartdude]

The win by Alison Redford in Alberta means that the Conservative base is moving mainstream, moving to the middle before the Liberals can re-occupy that territory. In Alberta, the far right has already moved to the Wild Rose Alliance. I think that we will see more of this.

Not sure we can say this is true just yet. There may be some major changes to the PC caucus in the days to come.