JUDGE RULES VANCOUVER SUPERVISED-INJECTION SITE CAN STAY OPEN FOR A YEAR

Canada's trafficking and possession laws are unconstitutional when
they are applied to addicts using a supervised-injection site, a B.C.
Supreme Court judge has ruled.

In a judgment that went far beyond expectations, Justice Ian Pitfield
said Vancouver's supervised-injection site, Insite, should be allowed
to remain open under current drug laws for a year, even without a
federal exemption from current drug laws.

That year should give the federal government time to rewrite its laws
to allow for medical use of illegal drugs if they are part of a
health-care program, he said.

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 Community Services, a non-profit housing group that
operates the site.

PHS had gone to court, along with two drug users, to ask for the site
to remain open even without an exemption.

They were represented by lawyers working for them for
free.

The current exemption from Health Canada expires June 30 and there has
been tremendous uncertainty about what the Conservative government,
whose members have expressed disapproval of the site at various times,
would do.

Dean Wilson, a longtime heroin addict who was one of the users
involved in the case, was also exhilarated.

"Hey, we won. A couple of junkies knocked off the PM."

Wilson said the ruling was a tremendous boost for drug users about
their value to society.

"This says addicts are Canadian citizens, too. The most conservative
judge in B.C. got that we are real people and we have the right to
have a normal life."

NDP MLA Jenny Kwan, in whose riding the site is located, called it a
"significant victory for the people in our community."

From Ottawa, NDP MP Libby Davies called it a "great victory." Now, she
said, she hopes Health Minister Tony Clement will abide by the ruling.
And 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," said Viviana Zanocco. She said Coastal Health
lawyers do not believe the ruling throws the door open to any
additional injection sites, however.

Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan called the ruling "good news for people
who are struggling with addiction and good news for the city of Vancouver."

Pitfield said the possession and trafficking laws are too broad and
arbitrary to deal with people who have 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 the law, when applied to the site, threatens 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."

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

But, he said, that doesn't mean those who are 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 ... 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 health-care workers at the site have to face the
risk of being charged with trafficking.

Lawyers for the federal government had made many arguments against
allowing Insite to operate without an exemption.

Among them:

. Drug users' lives are endangered because they choose to inject a
harmful drug, not because they can't get access to health care.

. Canada has a compelling interest in prohibiting the injection of
controlled substances because of their adverse effects on individual
and community health.

. "Permitting Insite to continue its operations will create a safe
haven from the criminal law and undermine its national objective and
importance."

Both sides had experts present testimony by affidavit. Pitfield said
the federal government's experts, while knowledgeable, had little
experience or background in understanding Vancouver's drug-user
population or the operation of the supervised-injection site.