CLEMENT STANCE ON INSITE RULING IDEOLOGY-DRIVEN

Provided a political escape hatch that at once would allow the
Conservative government to do the scientifically and economically
right thing while pinning responsibility on the courts, Health
Minister Tony Clement put ideology first and slammed shut the lid.

In a move that seems to have more to do with pandering to hardline
conservative elements within party ranks than meeting a serious
public health challenge, Mr. Clement announced Thursday that he'll
ask Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to appeal this week's sensible
ruling by the British Columbia Supreme Court regarding a supervised
drug injection site.

Justice Ian Pitfield said the criminal law provisions on possession
and trafficking, when applied to Vancouver's pilot project injection
site, Insite, poses a threat to a person's constitutional right to
life and security.

He equated Insite, a pilot project established in 2003 to meet health
needs of addicts, reduce their disease rate and the overdose deaths
associated with about 4,600 long-term heroin addicts in Vancouver's
Downtown Eastside, to a health facility.

Justice Pitfield found the crucial section of the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act unconstitutional because it arbitrarily applies
possession of drugs for any and every purpose.

"In particular, it prohibits the management of addiction and its
associated risks at Insite," said his lengthy ruling that caught both
opponents and proponents by surprise.

"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."

Justice Pitfield found no justification to deny health care to
injection drug addicts and to "force the user who is ill from
addiction to resort to unhealthy and unsafe injection in an
environment where there is a significant and measurable risk of
morbidity or death."

The judge wasn't saying anything new in his ruling. Even the federal
government's lawyers have acknowledged that addiction is a disease
and that Insite staff have managed to save lives, an estimated 1,000
addicts who overdosed at the facility and had their care managed,
with no fatalities.

In essence, the convoluted argument that's coming from Mr. Clement's
government seems to be that: Yes, we accept that addiction is a
sickness, but these people chose to become addicts; so we have the
right to shut down a facility that's been saving their lives and
providing them with counselling, because we're doing it to protect
their health.

It's pretzel legal logic in a perfect union with ideological blindness.

While the clinic has operated under exemptions granted from the
federal law, its latest exemption is set to expire on June 30. With
Mr. Clement expressing great reluctance to grant a further extension,
Insite staff would have been exposed to criminal charges.

In essence, the government's opposition to the site is based upon the
ideological stance that drugs are illegal and those who use them are
breaking the law. Bur rather than treat the problem as a social
health issue, a stance that even that conservative think tank, The
Fraser Institute, long has advocated, the government sides with those
who want to tackle it as a law and order issue even though the "war
on drugs" approach has been a demonstrable failure in the U.S. and Canada.

Justice Pitfield gave the government one year to fix a law that
contravenes the Constitution by interfering with medical care for
drug addicts, but it appears Mr. Clement would rather fight than switch.

"We on this side of the House care about treating drug addicts who
need our help. We care about preventing people, especially our young
people, from becoming drug addicts in the first place. That is our
way to reduce harm in our society and we're proud of taking that
message to the people of Canada," he said Wednesday.

It's not as if the addicts who die on the streets of Vancouver's
Downtown Eastside or live a miserable and diseased existence in
alleyways across major Canadian cities are a testament to the success
of the current drug policy.

Yet, strident talk of getting tough on crime and criminals is an easy
political sell if you gloss over the actual results, even when
judges, civic politicians, community activists and others who live
with the reality say otherwise in the strongest of terms.