COURAGEOUS RULING ON DRUG-INJECTION

It's no surprise that the federal government will appeal a court
ruling that allows a safe drug-injection site in Vancouver to stay
open even if its operating permit is not renewed by the end of this
month.

Stephen Harper's government has never been fond of Insite, a Liberal
government initiative, and has only let it stay open with temporary
permits.

Letting junkies freely shoot up in a health centre goes against its
hardline law-and-order agenda.

But whether or not it agreed with this week's decision by British
Columbia's highest court, the prime minister's decision to refer that
ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada is the right thing to do.

Unless and until that happens, Insite will remain a lonely, precarious
beacon of hope for drug addicts and compassionate people who want to
help them.

But if the Supreme Court of Canada agrees with the courageous ruling
of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield, venues similar to Insite
will be free to spring up across the country.

Lives will be saved. Broken people will get a better chance to become
whole again.

A favourable Supreme Court ruling will stop the legal debate - if not
the broader societal debate - just as it did in sanctioning gay marriage.

There's no doubt that Insite works to keep people alive and gives them
a chance to put their lives on a healthier footing.

Insite does not give drugs to junkies. It offers them a chance to
shoot up safely with clean needles under the supervision of a nurse.

That's a hard concept for a lot of people to accept.

The traditional view has been that addicts are weak-willed people of
dubious moral character and the best thing to do is put them in jail
and keep them there.

Much of that is untrue.

The war on drugs was lost long ago. It has created a multi-billion
dollar enterprise for criminal organizations who prey on the
vulnerable. Drug crimes chew up massive police and court resources in
every city and town across Canada.

Drug use is a health issue that leads to crime issues. It's time for a
new model - harm reduction - to be given a chance.

Since Insite opened in 2003, it has supervised more than a million
drug injections, and more than 1,000 drug overdoses without a fatality.

Without it, some people assuredly would be dead today.

Without it, other people would be infected with dread
diseases.

People who come to Insite get compassion and offers of help. Some of
them take up those offers. Some of them get clean and healthy and go
on to lead productive lives.

Attempts to kick an addiction are rarely short or direct. Most people
fail repeatedly before they succeed, but referrals to the kind of
counselling and other services that Insite offers unquestionably
improves and saves lives.

Every dollar spend at Insite is estimated to save $4 in other
costs.

While harm reduction is a new concept in most parts of Canada, in
Vancouver it is steadily winning converts.

Many police officers who work the beat on Vancouver's downtown east
side support it.

Many people who live in that area say their streets are safer since
Insite opened.

Mayor Sam Sullivan hailed this week's court ruling as a great day for
Vancouver.

Insite does not just help save the lives of addicts who shoot up
there.

It reduces the spread of diseases like hepatitis and AIDS, whose costs
are becoming an increasing drain on Canada's health system.

Health care was at the heart of Judge Pitfield's court ruling on
Tuesday.

He gave the federal government one year to change the Controlled Drug
and Substance Act becaue it appears to interfere with medical treatment.

It's popular to say that addiction is the result of a choice but "an
understanding of the nature and circumstances which result in
addiction must lead to an opposite conclusion," he wrote.

Society does not treat addiction to alcohol or tobacco in the same
manner as narcotics, he added. It does not condemn them.

More importantly, it does not deprive them of a range of health
services, Judge Pitfield noted.

"Management of the harm in these cases is accepted as a community
responsibility," Judge Pitfield wrote, adding that there's no reason
to view use of narcotics differently.

"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."

Can the Supreme Court of Canada see things differently?

Let's hope not.