[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

That would still be silly, but not as silly as finding that drug addicts have a Charter right to a safe injection sight.

It is silly, I agree with you now just as I did in the past.  But if a province decides it wants to use its own health budget for that, why not?  Apparently, it saves them around 1.8 million$/year in health care costs.
I still think it's a bad idea, but it's a provincal issue.

I dunno why it is "silly". According to the case at least, the Court found it did more good than harm.

[131]                     The trial judge's key findings in this regard are consistent with the information available to the Minister, and are those on which successive federal Ministers have relied in granting exemption orders over almost five years, including the facts that: (1) traditional criminal law prohibitions have done little to reduce drug use in the DTES; (2) the risk to injection drug users of death and disease is reduced when they inject under the supervision of a health professional; and (3) the presence of Insite did not contribute to increased crime rates, increased incidents of public injection, or relapse rates in injection drug users. On the contrary, Insite was perceived favourably or neutrally by the public; a local business association reported a reduction in crime during the period Insite was operating; the facility encouraged clients to seek counselling, detoxification and treatment. Most importantly, the staff of Insite had intervened in 336 overdoses since 2006, and no overdose deaths had occurred at the facility. (See trial judgment, at paras. 85 and 87-88.) These findings suggest not only that exempting Insite from the application of the possession prohibition does not undermine the objectives of public health and safety, but furthers them.

The Court, correctly IMO, found that the very existance of Insite does not undermine the purpose of deterring use so as to prevent harm. The purpose of the legislation is at base to protect public health and safety, not to punish addicts, though sometimes this seems to be forgotten by some ...

[crazy canuck]

OK, I have now had a chance to read it a couple of times.  The most interesting part to me is the decision not to send the matter back to the Minister of Health to reconsider but to find that in the circumstances of this case there was only one constitutionally consistent decision and so there was no point in sending the matter back to the Minister.

Strong language that if the evidence shows that the proposed treatment saves lives and has no corresponding risk to public safety that decision must be made to approve the proposed treatment.


For those of you concerned about Parliamentary supremacy you might want to reflect on the fact that it was Parliament which passed the legislation giving the Minister of Health this kind of discretion and if Parliament wishes to remove that discretion then it can do so.

[viper37]

I dunno why it is "silly". According to the case at least, the Court found it did more good than harm.

I find it silly that a province will give free drugs and free needles to drug addicts while other, non illegal drug users will have to pay for their legal drugs and their needles, like a diabetic, say.

I have chronic ashtma.  Do I have free medications?  Nope.  90$ a month + 600$/year for the insurance.  I needed a C-PAP, 1400$ out of my pocket.  But if I was an heroin addict, I'd get free drugs for life.

From a moral point of view, it is imho, unaceptable.  And I doubt the financial conclusions of the studies.

[ulmont]

I find it silly that a province will give free drugs and free needles to drug addicts while other, non illegal drug users will have to pay for their legal drugs and their needles, like a diabetic, say.

I take it you didn't read the parts of the decision where it was made clear that the addicts at Insite were bringing their own drugs in.

[Barrister]

I dunno why it is "silly". According to the case at least, the Court found it did more good than harm.

I find it silly that a province will give free drugs and free needles to drug addicts while other, non illegal drug users will have to pay for their legal drugs and their needles, like a diabetic, say.

I have chronic ashtma.  Do I have free medications?  Nope.  90$ a month + 600$/year for the insurance.  I needed a C-PAP, 1400$ out of my pocket.  But if I was an heroin addict, I'd get free drugs for life.

From a moral point of view, it is imho, unaceptable.  And I doubt the financial conclusions of the studies.

Governments often offer things for free to poor people, but expect other people to pay for themselves...

[crazy canuck]

From a moral point of view, it is imho, unaceptable.  And I doubt the financial conclusions of the studies.

Go back and re-read the facts of the case.

[Malthus]

I dunno why it is "silly". According to the case at least, the Court found it did more good than harm.

I find it silly that a province will give free drugs and free needles to drug addicts while other, non illegal drug users will have to pay for their legal drugs and their needles, like a diabetic, say.

I have chronic ashtma.  Do I have free medications?  Nope.  90$ a month + 600$/year for the insurance.  I needed a C-PAP, 1400$ out of my pocket.  But if I was an heroin addict, I'd get free drugs for life.

From a moral point of view, it is imho, unaceptable.  And I doubt the financial conclusions of the studies.

Well, they aren't doing that. Insite does not provide addicts with free drugs.

[Jacob]

I have chronic ashtma.  Do I have free medications?  Nope.  90$ a month + 600$/year for the insurance.  I needed a C-PAP, 1400$ out of my pocket.  But if I was an heroin addict, I'd get free drugs for life.

No you wouldn't.

[viper37]

Governments often offer things for free to poor people, but expect other people to pay for themselves...

if one his poor due to his drug consumption, let's treat him for his addiction, let's not provide him with free needles, shelter, and possibly drugs (I don't believe for a minute that an addict in need of his fix will be left of to fend for himself).

[ulmont]

if one his poor due to his drug consumption, let's treat him for his addiction, let's not provide him with free needles, shelter, and possibly drugs (I don't believe for a minute that an addict in need of his fix will be left of to fend for himself).

Then you have fun with your fantasyland, since facts are lost on you.

[Barrister]

I've been reading Health Canada's assessment of the site, found here:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_sites-lieux/insite/index-eng.php

On the one hand it really doesn't identify any particular negatives - no increase in crime, for example, and does point out the benefits - they intervened in 300 some overdoses, and they estimated the site saved one life per year in ODs alone.

But on the other hand, it cost $3 mil per year, and was very equivocal about whether the benefit equalled the cost.

[viper37]

if one his poor due to his drug consumption, let's treat him for his addiction, let's not provide him with free needles, shelter, and possibly drugs (I don't believe for a minute that an addict in need of his fix will be left of to fend for himself).

Then you have fun with your fantasyland, since facts are lost on you.

Ok, let's assume that there will be zero drug trade there or outside the premises.
You still need funding for the building.  For the regular staff, for the nurses.  For the needles.  The any kind of medical supplies you may need.

And what is the goal of that?  Treating the addicts? No.  Helping drug addicts get their fix.
It is still immoral.  And disgusting.

I have zero tolerance for drug users.  From marijuana to heroin, it's all the same.  They want to use, fine, let them use.  But let them fend for themselves until they're ready to stop using.  For fuck sake, they're not even helping them to stop.

[viper37]

I've been reading Health Canada's assessment of the site, found here:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_sites-lieux/insite/index-eng.php

On the one hand it really doesn't identify any particular negatives - no increase in crime, for example, and does point out the benefits - they intervened in 300 some overdoses, and they estimated the site saved one life per year in ODs alone.

But on the other hand, it cost $3 mil per year, and was very equivocal about whether the benefit equalled the cost.

3 million$ to save the life of one drug addict who's probably gonna OD some time later anyway...  What a waste of money.
And they'll have this in Montreal as well.  I'm guessing it's gonna cost 5-6 mil a year at least over here :roll:

[crazy canuck]

I've been reading Health Canada's assessment of the site, found here:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_sites-lieux/insite/index-eng.php

On the one hand it really doesn't identify any particular negatives - no increase in crime, for example, and does point out the benefits - they intervened in 300 some overdoses, and they estimated the site saved one life per year in ODs alone.

But on the other hand, it cost $3 mil per year, and was very equivocal about whether the benefit equalled the cost.

You have summed up exactly why the Feds lost the argument.  Cost was not a consideration for the Federal Minister of Health.  The cost of the program is a Provincial matter and the Province is happy to pay because in the judgment of the Province there are cost benefits.

The only thing the Federal Minister needs to decide is if the health benefits outweigh the risk to public safety.  There was no evidence public safety was in any way threatened and there was lots of evidence of a health benefit.

[crazy canuck]

I've been reading Health Canada's assessment of the site, found here:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_sites-lieux/insite/index-eng.php

On the one hand it really doesn't identify any particular negatives - no increase in crime, for example, and does point out the benefits - they intervened in 300 some overdoses, and they estimated the site saved one life per year in ODs alone.

But on the other hand, it cost $3 mil per year, and was very equivocal about whether the benefit equalled the cost.

3 million$ to save the life of one drug addict who's probably gonna OD some time later anyway...  What a waste of money.
And they'll have this in Montreal as well.  I'm guessing it's gonna cost 5-6 mil a year at least over here :roll:

Now you are just being an idiot.