[homeles_ot-l] Injection site can stay open, B.C. judge rules

[Lynne Browne]

FYI – from today’s Ottawa Citizen –

 

Injection site can stay open, B.C. judge rules

Exemption extended for one year

 

BY FRANCES BULACANWEST NEWS SERVICES 

VANCOUVER

• Canada’s trafficking and possession laws are unconstitutional when they
are applied to addicts using a supervised-injection site, a British Columbia
Supreme Court judge has ruled.

In a judgment that went far beyond what anyone expected, Judge Ian Pitfield
said that Insite, Vancouver’s supervised injection site, should be allowed
to remain open under current drug laws for a year even without a federal
exemption from current drug laws.

The current exemption was due to run out June 30.

That period should give the federal government enough time to rewrite its
laws to allow for medical use of illegal drugs if they are part of a
health-care program, Judge Pitfield said in the case that had been brought
by PHS Community Services, which runs the site, and two drug users.

The ruling was greeted with near disbelief and euphoria by advocates, who
have lobbied for years: first to open the site, and then to keep it open.

“I just want to cry, I’m so ecstatic,” said Liz Evans, one of the directors
of PHS.

A spokeswoman for Vancouver Coastal Health said the organization was pleased
with the ruling. “Obviously, it reinforces a lot of the arguments we have
made about the value of the site,” Viviana Zanocco said.

Ms. Zanocco said Coastal Health’s interpretation of the ruling was that it
only applied to Insite, so it didn’t mean supervised-injection sites could
be started anywhere.

When reached late yesterday, the office of Health Minister Tony Clement
released a brief statement about the ruling: “We are studying the decision.”

Judge Pitfield said possession and trafficking laws were too broad and
arbitrary to deal with people who had an illness called drug addiction.

The law on possession “prohibits the management of addiction and its
associated risks at Insite,” he wrote. “Instead of being rationally
connected to a reasonable apprehension of harm, the blanket prohibition
contributes to the very harm it seeks to prevent. It is inconsistent with
the state’s interest in fostering individual and community health, and
preventing death and disease.”

He said those laws, when applied to Insite, threatened a person’s
constitutional right to life and security because “it denies the addict
access to a health-care facility where the risk of morbidity associated with
infectious disease is diminished, if not eliminated.”

Judge Pitfield made it clear that science and medical opinion was divided on
how to treat addiction and he didn’t pretend to be able to resolve that.

However, he said that doesn’t mean those who were addicted should be denied
a form of health-care treatment. He pointed out that people who drink
alcohol or smoke tobacco to excess aren’t denied treatment.

“I do not see any rational or logical reason why the approach should be
different when dealing with the addiction to narcotics,” he said. “Simply
stated, I cannot agree with … Canada’s submission that an addict must feed
his addiction in an unsafe environment when a safe environment that may lead
to rehabilitation is the alternative.”

Nor, he said, should healthcare workers at the site have to face the risk of
being charged with trafficking.

 

 

Lynne Browne 
Coordinator, Alliance to End Homelessness 
147 Besserer Street, Ottawa ON  K1N 6A7 
613-241-7913 x 205, lbrowne at ysb.on.ca 
www.endhomelessnessottawa.ca 

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1470 - Release Date: 28/05/2008
7:20 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.web.net/lists/private/homeles_ot-l/attachments/20080528/c6bae45f/attachment.htm