SOCIETY PAYS A HIGH PRICE FOR THE BAD CHOICES OF A FEW

I'm not much impressed with all the crowing and cackling in the
national barnyard over the court judgment relating to Insite. I think
it lacks considerable insight.

Now before people start cancelling subscriptions to this newspaper I
want to remind them that my opinion isn't shared by its esteemed
editorial board. So don't shoot, please, that messenger.

The finding of Justice Ian Pitfield that Insite performs a valuable
health service and must be allowed to stay open under changes to the
criminal law of the land has done a mischief that I'm not sure was
intentional.

It has allowed headline writers to come up with things like "Drug laws
found unconstitutional," which must surprise even the judge.

And it has moved people who claim to speak for addicts to say it shows
they have "the right to have a normal life," which is pretty pathetic.

I have a conflict of interest. I am not, and never have been, a drug
addict.

I recognize, though, that the advantages of life are not universally
shared. I recognize that some people have more choices than others. I
recognize, too, that some people have stronger wills than others, and
an instinct not to throw their lives down the drain.

I'm not aware that there are gangs, wielding syringes, roaming our
streets and delivering the first fix that is said to begin addiction.
I don't know what it is that forces thinking and aware people to
become junkies if they don't have to.

I understand there may be some pre-existing medical condition that
requires substances that are proscribed because there's nothing else
available -- drugs that can make a partial life bearable.

But when I think of safe injection sites and needle exchanges I think
of what I call "junkies" -- people who inject junk into various parts
of their wasted bodies because life feels good for a while and then it
feels very, very bad. And they so desperately want to make it feel
good again.

I think it's commendable that our society tries to treat those who are
addicted and get them off drugs, tries to prevent others from being
hooked and tries to enforce laws that it deems appropriate to punish
traffickers and those who commit other crimes to feed their
self-destructive habit.

It's also commendable that society tries to reduce the collateral
damage of addiction -- things like the spread of disease and the risk
of harm, including death from overdose, to users.

This last bit is where Vancouver's Insite fits in. It's been an
experiment with very modest results that are merely collateral to drug
addiction and are measured in negatives. No one has died on the premises.

Based on the opinion of its supporters among medical practitioners and
authorities and the less universal endorsement of police, there should
be Insites in every city and town across Canada.

There aren't for two reasons: There are far greater medical priorities
in the country, and our society is uncomfortable providing places for
people to break the law and supplying professional backup to ensure
they can do so safely.

Sure, it's right for provincial authorities with their jurisdiction to
declare illicit drug use a medical problem for those caught in its
clutches. And it's good to hear a court say so.

But it's putting the federal cart before the horse to invite people to
do something before declaring that it's legal -- whether universally,
or with restrictions that Parliament considers necessary -- and I
think that's where Pitfield's pitfall lies.

Surely more is accomplished in treating addicts, trying to get them
off the stuff and giving them a little hope than by idly standing by
to "supervise" their self-destruction and then allowing them out to
crawl in the filth again.

The idea that people have a constitutional entitlement to be rescued
by the state while continuing to harm themselves, under the guise of
the right to life, liberty and security of the person, surely is
absurd. I hope a higher court declares it so.

The constitutional rights of a few sad addicts surely can't be allowed
to dictate how Parliament shall provide the security, welfare and
health of its citizens in a free and democratic society, as described
by our Constitution.

We can care for, even cosset, those who've chosen badly. Our greater
duty must be to those who've not yet chosen.