CONSERVATIVES PLAY POLITICS WITH SAFE-INJECTION SITE

Last-Minute Reprieve to Much-Lauded Program Seen As Stalling Tactic;
Tories Likely Aim to Axe Insite If They Land Majority in Next Election

Hours after Vancouver drug users sought help from the B.C. Supreme
Court to keep open the city's safe-injection site, the Conservatives
gave the facility a last-minute reprieve.

On the eve of the long weekend, federal Health Minister Tony Clement
said the site can operate until Dec. 31, 2007 so further research can
establish its efficacy.

He said he wants proof the East Hastings Street clinic known as
Insite reduces drug use and truly helps fight addiction.

It was, in my view, a stalling tactic.

What the Tories really want is to emerge from the coming election
with a majority so they can axe the controversial pilot program
without fear of political fallout.

I think Clement and his boss Prime Minister Stephen Harper have
little empathy for the European-style social program this experiment
heralds. The Tories don't view addiction to illicit drugs as a health
issue; they see it as a crime.

They don't like the message the supervised injection site sends.

Harper has promised many changes -- more prisons, more cops,
mandatory minimum sentences -- to implement his tough-on-crime
agenda. But at the moment, the Conservatives remain in a minority
position, and there was a significant, united phalanx of opposition
rising against them on this particular point.

The city's current and former mayors, regardless of their politics,
all rallied for the project -- Senator Larry Campbell and Mayor Sam
Sullivan on the same side, for heaven's sake!

There was also international lobbying from Australian and European
health activists to continue funding the program. Even the
commentariat for the most part bestowed its blessing.

You would have thought renewing Insite's operating licence was a slam dunk.

The benefits of the facility were certainly lauded in studies
published in medical journals such as the The Lancet and The New
England Journal of Medicine. Reports stated that drug addicts were
being referred to treatment and there was evidence fewer addicts were
sharing needles. Fewer people were dying on the street of overdoses, too.

Yet Clement couldn't bring himself to give Insite the requested
three-year extension.

In responding to the announcement, Sullivan suggested that with the
extra time, a Conservative administration could be brought around to
understanding why the facility is a good thing.

Perhaps.

But I don't think so, given the bar Clement has set.

Does Insite reduce addiction or drug abuse? I would be surprised if
any study could establish that. Especially over the following 16
months. For one thing, how would we measure that?

Insite has reduced the visibility of needle-drug use on the Downtown
Eastside and some of the resulting disorder, but those are different questions.

And I would ask Clement and the Tories if the current approach has
reduced addiction or drug use.

In my opinion, the use of the criminal law and the existing drug
prohibition has had the opposite effect -- our communities are awash
in illicit substances, public disorder is perceived as a growing
problem and drug abuse a major concern.

This government, however, with police across the country cheering it
on, wants to keep rolling down that road by continuing to treat
addicts as criminals.

Diane Tobin, president of the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users,
can compare closing Insite to shutting a cancer treatment centre. The
law-and-order set is scoffing.

That's why I was disappointed the legal wrestling match won't proceed
this time around.

The action asked the court to conclude the constant threat of
prosecution faced by drug addicts is an infringement of their
constitutional rights -- if you buy that addiction is a health issue
and not a criminal one.

Lawyer John Conroy wanted an interim injunction to enable the site to
continue operating if Ottawa had refused to extend its exemption from
the anti-drug laws, which was to expire Sept. 12.

He wanted the court to rule on the constitutionality of the current
exemption process and to grant a permanent constitutional exemption,
if required, until the government enacts a process that enables such
sites to operate without ministerial interference.

The action alleged that the current criminal laws regarding
possession of heroin undermine the liberty and security of the
person. That is inconsistent, Conroy said, with the principles of
fundamental justice and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As with the unsuccessful constitutional challenge of the country's
pot laws, I think his argument was doomed -- but it would have been a
lively and important debate.

And I don't share Sullivan's sunny optimism either. Insite is on life
support at the moment, and I have little doubt a Tory majority will
pull the plug on it.