Q: I read about a court ruling per-mitting drug users to use their stuff, provided they stay in a particular place. How can the police and courts allow it if the drugs are illegal?
A: InSite was a pilot project in Vancouver to try to minimize the health threats arising from intravenous drug use where needle users were allowed to use their drugs at this site. The idea was to prevent reusing needles and reduce the incidence of health risks such as Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS.
Read Also
Food can play a flavourful role in fun summer activities
Recipes – popsicles are made with lactose-free milk and yogurt so are perfect for those who can’t tolerate milk, while everyoneelse will also enjoy them
In 2008, a B.C. superior court judge extended this temporary project indefinitely. That court ruled that InSite provided a “necessary medical service,” and like a clinic, should remain open to provide health-care alternatives for the people it served.
The federal government appealed that decision and the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued its ruling toward the end of January, 2010. The judges were not unanimous – it was a two to one split. The majority held that the federal authorities could not shut down the safe injection site and that it should remain open without any time limit or end date.
It poses a legal and political dilemma. How can it be that the purchase, sale and possession of these drugs are illegal, yet a public place where people do nothing but take drugs by using needles is OK? How is it some leaders want to be tough on crime, but various mayors and premiers have endorsed this site?
Part of the issue here is that more than 70 percent of the people on the east side of downtown Vancouver have Hepatitis C and at least 30 percent have HIV/AIDS. These diseases are spreading like wildfire. All health officials agree something needs to be done to reduce, or even stop, this spread of disease. Drug addicts often overdose and some die. It has happened about 700 times at the InSite centre, but no one has died of an overdose.
The health benefits are overwhelming. Is this enough to overwhelm the law that makes this drug use illegal in the first place? Apparently the B.C. Court of Appeal believes it is.
In spite of drug use being illegal, the court found the site was a benefit to the general health and welfare of B.C. and was allowed to remain open.
Critics say the ruling and site promote drug use without legal consequences. They also state this decision blurs a line that is already unclear.
These are tough questions, but the differences seem minute when viewed on a large scale. There are no easy answers and it may be that the ultimate authority is Parliament.
The federal government is going to attempt to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Not all the judges in B.C. agreed (one voiced dissent in a written opinion) and it is clear legal opinions are not unanimous. We have to wait and see what interest trumps what – health care or criminal law.
Rick Danyliuk is a lawyer with McDougall Gauley LLP in Saskatoon.
