DRUG LAWS AND ADDICTS

A British Columbia judge this week shut down the thinly veiled plans
of the Harper government to close a Vancouver safe injection clinic.
The federal government may appeal the decision of B.C. Supreme Court
Justice Ian Pitfield, who ruled sections of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act unconstitutional. That might be useful for a
clarification of federal authority over drug laws in Canada. It
should not, however, delay the spread of a demonstrated health care
service to addicts that could save lives and reduce transmission of
diseases, including HIV.

Federal Health Minister Tony Clement has repeatedly insisted he needs
more evidence that Insite, operating in the city's notorious Downtown
Eastside, is doing more good than harm. Until Justice Pitfield's
decision Tuesday, it appeared likely that Insite would close; a
special permit that allows it to skirt the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act was about to expire and Mr. Clement had given no
signal he would renew it. Since 2003, Insite has handed out sterile
needles to more than 8,000 addicts to inject their fixes, mostly of
heroin or cocaine, under the skillful watch of staff.

The benefits of this have been documented, but Mr. Clement remains
unconvinced. His own experts committee concluded, albeit not
unanimously, that Insite had favourable cost-benefits. The Harper
government, philosophically opposed to the liberalization of drug
laws, regards the existence of the site as tacit approval of addictions.

Justice Pitfield, in effect, ruled that providing addicts medical
assistance is not the equivalent of condoning drug use and addiction.
The judge said using the federal drug regulatory laws to withhold
such assistance, or to disperse it arbitrarily through a health
minister's permit, offends the Charter of Rights and Freedoms'
protection of personal security. The laws, as written, force many
addicts to shoot up on the streets, which contributes to the spread
of disease and epidemics. Insite staff rescue those overdosing. They
also refer pregnant women to pre-natal clinics, sick addicts to
health centres and the homeless to community resources.

The judge granted Insite a renewed lease on life. He also said that
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act's prohibitions on possession
are overly broad for what is needed to suppress drug use in Canada.
He struck down those sections of the act, but gave the federal
government just more than a year to reframe the law to permit health
centres such as Insite to operate. That will be a daunting task, as
it will require some arbiter to determine which, among centres
proposing to offer a safe injection service, should be exempt and
which should not. The Harper government may need a fuller review of
its authority over drug laws in Canada. But it should also finally
recognize the good sense behind reducing the public and personal
health risks posed by addicts shooting up in dark alleys. It should
find an efficient way to permit safe injection clinics to open.