THERE IS NO REASON FOR CONSERVATIVES TO OPPOSE INSITE

In less than 24 hours, the Supreme Court of Canada will begin hearing
arguments concerning the fate of Insite, Canada's supervised
injection site. The provincial government, drug users and various
health and social agencies will argue the site should remain open,
while the federal government will argue that it has the authority to
shut the site down.

The feds therefore seem outnumbered, but that's not the worst of it.
Rather, the weight of the evidence, both legal and scientific, also
favours the province. And this alone is reason enough for the federal
government to reconsider its position.

First, the legal arguments: In May 2008, B.C. Supreme Court Justice
Ian Pitfield held that certain sections of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act violated Insite users' Charter rights and hence were of
no force and effect.

This meant that Insite could stay open without fear that users or
staff could face charges for possession or trafficking in controlled
substances. The federal government decided to appeal Pitfield's
decision, but early last year the B.C. Court of Appeal held that the
feds don't have the authority to shut down a health care facility such
as Insite.

The feds are therefore facing an uphill legal battle since they've
already lost two arguments at two levels of court. And when one
considers the scientific evidence, virtually all reasons for opposing
Insite vanish.

Indeed, since Insite opened in 2003, more than 30 peer reviewed
studies, published in the world's top medical journals, have attested
to the benefits of the site. Among other things, the site has been
associated with a reduction in needle sharing and public disorder, and
with increased uptake of detoxification and treatment services. And
most recently, a study published in the Lancet found Insite is
associated with a reduction in overdose deaths.

Insite's association with increased use of detox should come as no
surprise, since it is now part of a broader health care facility which
includes detox and transitional housing services (Onsite). This, and
the research findings, have led to broad support for Insite and
widespread concern about the federal government's increasingly
puzzling opposition to the facility. After all, Insite clearly saves
lives, and clearly helps get (the hardest to reach) addicts into
treatment - two things which the feds have repeatedly supported.

If that weren't enough, several studies have attested to Insite's cost
effectiveness, with one Canadian Medical Association Journal study
concluding that it could produce a cost savings of $20 million over
the next decade. This, too, is something that one would expect the
federal government to support.

And, of course, the government can support it. While the Supreme Court
case will proceed, it's not too late for the feds to reverse their
position and support a therapeutically and financially effective
health care facility. Indeed, now that the Conservatives have attained
a majority, there's no better time for them to offer Insite their support.

In so doing, they could regain the respect of those who have written
off the Conservatives as anti-science, as more interested in adhering
to ideology than in doing what works. And, most importantly, they
could join the province of British Columbia, many social service
agencies and many health care professionals in supporting a site that
literally offers vulnerable people a new lease on life.