This story is getting old. Another court decision breeds another appeal by the federal government against the legality of Insite, citing a dissenting opinion.
I beg you to pardon my ignorance, but to the best of my knowledge Insite does not supply the drugs. Needles are not controlled equipment and there is some evidence suggesting Insite attendees are more likely to ask for help and rehab. Where does the Federal government enter the picture?
This legal wrangle only serves to fan the flames of idiocy, as the comments section on the CBC site shows all too well. I wish Canada didn't need places such as Insite. The imperfection of human nature and the characteristics of Vancouver make Insite necessary to take at least some of the disgrace of addiction off the street.
The Government should admit that the final decision regarding Insite lies with BC's voters. I shall qualify this statement before constitutional scholars jump on me with technicalities. I trust the Supreme Court to make the right decision, which may indeed favour the federals. Harper would then face the double whammy of either hindering Insite (angering many uselessly) or maintaining the status quo, resulting in internal party rumblings. Passing the scalding buck is an art onto itself.
In the end the money wasted on legal wrangles would be better wasted settling the issue in a provincial referendum. This way a vote against Insite can be attributed to savvy BC-ers while an endorsement can be shrugged off as a provincial matter. Nicholson and company are best advised to leave Insite alone, this game is really not worth the candle.
6 comments:
Who's jurisdiction covers the use of illegal drugs??
Rob C
By giving them needles you are helping to facilitate an illegal activity. Period.
So give the junkies free needles, how come people who have diabetes have to pay for their needles, that they actually need to keep them alive? Junkies are shooting death into their body and we are helping them? This makes sense?
How much time have you spent in downtown Vancouver after dark in the last 5 years? I worked the graveyard shift at GM Place for two years. Trust me; we are not helping these people.
They don't have to provide the heroin. The sites existence gives the drug dealers locations to congregate.
I support the decriminalization of marijuana, but I am firmly against heroin, crack, cocaine, meth, etc.
Aren't needles for diabetics covered at 100% by the provincial health systems? If so, it's surely a great argument to use.
@Iceman: I have spent a total of zilch hours downtown Van after dark. If Insite makes a great congregation place for dealers, doesn't that make catching them easier?
AFAIK possession is illegal, use per se is not. So you should arrest and imprison everyone ever found in possession of the drug. Which should be done anyway, with or without Insite.
Paradoxically this would inevitably drive drug addicts into the hands of the counsellors and other helpers at Insite.
Insite is a legal quagmire and a very hot potato for Harper to handle. Do we want this? I am not arguing for Insite to stay open or to shut down, just whether it is worth taking up this fight.
Iceman: If you support decriminalization fo marijuana, but against all the other "hard" drugs, how can you call yourself a Libertarian?
Personally, I would make it legal for any adult over 21 to have and use any drug he wanted to provided it was not done in a dangerous manner - ie: while driving or working etc. And anyone caught supplying minors would get hard time in jail.
I would even go so far as to supply free drugs for adicts in controlled situations. That would save us a fortune in criminal and insurance costs. People would not be stealing from us to support expensive drug habits if they could get it for free.
As far as insite goes, just leave them alone. Ignore them.
Post a Comment