The drug injection site in Vancouver called “Insite”, was established by the Liberal government at a cost of $3 million, annually, in 2003, the only government-operated injection site in North America.
Insite is highly controversial in that it does not treat the addicts, but rather just permits them to continue an ever-spiraling downward death sentence by allowing them to deepen their addiction. That is, Insite does not provide addicts with hope by way of a treatment program - only ready access to further their addiction to drugs. According to the Expert Advisory Committee, established by the Federal government to study the injection site, only 5% of the drug addicts in the Vancouver area actually use Insite. These are the poor, whose addiction continues because of the availability to inject drugs in the site. The wealthy and professionals, eg. airline pilots, teachers, physicians, etc. always have access to treatment – but not the poor whose only “care” is the injection site. This is an unfair and discriminatory policy.
Those who support Insite, believe in the “harm reduction” approach to drug addiction - that addicts are going to use drugs anyway, so why not let them do so in a clean medically supervised environment? Also, they believe in the liberalization of drug use and they regard the Vancouver drug injection site as an open door to the eventual liberalization of all Canadian drug laws. That is, Insite is a flagship institution, which they hope will serve as a model for similar establishments in major cities across Canada.
Minister Funds Prevention and Treatment Program for Addicts
The Federal Conservative government, on the other hand, believes in the three-pillar approach to drug addiction by way of prevention (education), treatment, and enforcement of drug laws, which has proven to be the only effective method of dealing with drug addiction. In carrying out this policy, Health Minister Tony Clement has made the following grants:
March 5, 2008, a mass media campaign was launched aimed at parents with children aged 13-15. This included newspaper, radio and online advertisements beginning the first week of March. In April, a second campaign followed, aimed at the youth themselves, aged 13-15 years. These are the first ads of their kind in 20 years to communicate with parents and young people about the dangers of illicit drugs.
April 28, 2008, $111 million grant was made, to be distributed to the provinces and territories to assist in strengthening treatment systems and in filling critical gaps in treatment through early intervention treatment initiatives designed to reduce and eliminate the progression and severity of illicit drug use behaviour among youth.
May 14, 2008, a $10 million grant was given to provide treatment for drug addicts by a multidisciplinary staff, eg. doctors, nurses, therapists, counselors, etc., to serve from 70-75 clients in the Vancouver downtown east side. This grant also provided 20 new treatment beds, dedicated to vulnerable female drug addicts, especially those involved in the sex trade. For many years, these marginalized women have been abused and abandoned by society, but they will at last be given compassionate care. This is long overdue.
The objective of Canada’s drug policy is to reduce the rate of addiction by educating the public, especially youths, on the dangers of the illicit use of drugs and providing desperately needed treatment beds for addicts. This is a far better policy than one which increases drug addiction by way of a drug injection site and promotes the normalization of illicit drug use. The latter helps no one, and leads to the degradation and death of the addict, as well as being destructive to families and society as a whole.
License to Operate Insite to Expire
The license to operate Insite was to expire on June 30, 2008. The supporters of Insite could see the writing on the wall, that Mr. Clement, the Minister of Health, would probably shut down the site and they began to move heaven and earth to prevent this from happening.
To project the injection site in a positive light, and to promote it as unequivocally successful, they published papers in official journals, downplaying or ignoring any negative findings, and reporting meaningless findings. They retained two public relations firms to plant “success” stories of the site in major newspapers (never believe what you read in the newspapers!). They held several major press conferences in Ottawa with a prominent harm reduction researcher, Professor Neil Boyd of Simon Fraser University, expounding on the success of the site, but who did not mention his fellow criminology professor, at the same university, Garth Davies, whose evaluations of the site reached quite a different conclusion. Insite also brought in some retired police officers to support the site.
In addition, the harm reductionists resorted to using their usual weapon of choice, ridicule and intimidation, by organizing demonstrations by addicts outside several cabinet ministers’ constituency offices, and a demonstration against a physician, a specialist in drug addiction, who had the audacity to publicly speak out against the Vancouver site.
Throughout their intense campaign, the supporters repeated the theme that the Conservative government was ignoring “scientific” research for ideological reasons. This was a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. This was especially the case since the government’s Expert Advisory Committee, appointed in October 2006 to review the Vancouver site, had reached conclusions, published in April, that found the site to have been a failure. In particular, it found that, as mentioned above, the site reached only 5% of the addicts in the area; did not decrease HIV, Hepatitis C, or crime, etc. (see REALity May/June 2008, “Vancouver Drug Injection Site - A Failure”, p. 5). Further, 65 extra Vancouver police officers were assigned to a five block area around the site when it opened in 2003, and they were prohibited from arresting anyone for illegal possession within the five block area. Instead, police were ordered to walk the addict to the drug injection site! This “no-charge” policy created a culture of entitlement for addicts who were immune from prosecution. In addition, addicts need to spend $35,000 per year to support their habit and that is about $350,000 worth of crime (needed to obtain that $35,000) – crimes committed against law-abiding citizens. The drug injection site sets up a vicious circle of increased addiction and crime.
Legal Challenge to Support Drug Injection Site
While all this confrontation, organized by the harm reductionists, was going on, they also launched a legal challenge before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, arguing before Mr. Justice Ian Pitfield, that the “harm reduction” approach to drug addiction was the only way to proceed.
Single Judge Squashes Government Policy
On May 27, 2008, Mr. Justice Pitfield, in his decision, apparently believed that he knew best how to deal with drug addiction in Canada, contrary to the policies of the federal government, which has jurisdiction over the issue. He concluded that, in his opinion, he preferred the approach of harm reduction theorists that the site provided “services and assistance” that may lead to their rehabilitation. This is contrary to the findings of the Expert Advisory Committee on the injection site, which found that the site’s main activity was to assist in the continuation of the addiction. In fact, between 2004 – 2005, only 3% of the injection site’s clients were referred to long-term treatment.
Using the Charter of Rights as his reason, Mr. Justice Pitfield concluded that to deny addicts the use of the site contravenes section 7 of the Charter, which provides for “the right to life, liberty and security of persons.” He gave the federal government one year – until June 30, 2009 to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDS) to allow for the establishment of injection sites. In effect, the judge concluded that shooting up drugs was a constitutional right.
Courts Not Set Up to Determine Policy
The problem is that Mr. Justice Pitfield is no authority on drug addiction and had merely accepted the argument of those favouring the policy of harm reduction while ignoring or dismissing the government’s approach to drug addiction. He bizarrely declared addiction was a “disease” like diabetes – apparently forgetting that diabetes is not self-inflicted.
That is, this decision points out the total inadequacy of our appointed, non-accountable judiciary, using the Charter as their hammer to impose their views on all of Canada, ignoring the will of an elected government. This is because judges can rely only on the narrow views put forward to them by the litigants. Judges do not have access to any of the research facilities of Parliament, nor to the differing arguments that are expressed during a parliamentary debate. For this reason, judges should not be making decisions which have far reaching social and economic consequences. They simply do not have the background knowledge or expertise to determine such policies. Not that this little detail ever stops them! All too frequently, judges seem to believe that they have special insight and knowledge, by virtue of their (political) appointment to the bench. This is an “Olympian” approach to judgeship – it enables the judges to impose their personal views on the public, under the pretence they are merely interpreting the Charter of Rights but in effect, are using the latter to promote their own ideology.
The ramifications of this court decision are tremendous. If allowed to stand, it will permit the establishment of drug injection sites all across the country – bringing more misery and suffering to addicts and many others. Already, the City Council in Toronto is setting up a committee to review the establishment of an injection site for Toronto.
Government to Appeal Decision
Mr. Clement, the Minister of Health, has requested that the Department of Justice appeal this case. It is hoped, however, that, pending the appeal, the Attorney General will also apply for a “stay” of the decision. This would result in the misconstrued decision of Mr. Justice Pitfield to cease to be binding until finally dealt with by the higher courts. In the meantime, the site should be shut down to protect the lives of addicts.
Please write to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson and Minister of Health, Tony Clement requesting that the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court be “stayed” and that the license to operate this site be removed so that it can no longer serve as a precedent.
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
email: pm@pm.gc.ca
Minister of Justice
Honourable Rob Nicholson
105 East Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Fax: 613-992-7910
email: Nichor@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Tony Clement
Minister of Health
Minister's Office - Health Canada
Brooke Claxton Building, Tunney's Pasture
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9
Fax: 613-952-1154
email: Minister_Ministre@hc-sc.gc.ca |
