Supreme Court opens hearings into Insite -

Supreme Court opens hearings into Insite

Future of safe injection facility to be determined by top court


The Supreme Court will open hearings on Thursday to determine the future of Insite, the safe injection facility in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. At issue is whether authority over the site rests with the provincial or federal government, and whether closing it would constitute a breach of its drug-addicted users’ rights. B.C.’s provincial government has argued Insite is a provincial health care facility that has helped curb overdoses and the spread of diseases like HIV, while the federal government wants it shuttered as part of its tough-on-crime agenda. A 2008 provincial court ruling in B.C. upheld the province’s right to operate the facility, which is entirely funded by the B.C. government.

CTV News

Filed under:

Supreme Court opens hearings into Insite

  1. I hope your case prevails, British Columbia.

  2. Congratulations, Canada. You just gave a majority government to a man who rails against science with all his might. Mountains and mountains of scientific evidence prove that this facility saves lives. The litigants in this case include a man who cleaned up after 40 years of heroine and cocaine use because of Insite. And anybody who lives in Vancouver can tell you the crime-rate went DOWN after Insite opened. My car sure got broken into a lot less. It outrages me that Harper is trying to shut down such a vital part of Vancouver’s healthcare system for ideological reasons ….and wasting our tax dollars doing it. This isn’t the true north strong and free, he keeps going on about. This is a deliberate decision to act ignorant, petty, and vengeful.

    • Encouraging people to do drugs doesn’t save lives. No amount of leftist garbage “evidence” can change what is obvious to most normal people.

      • On what basis do you consider the evidence before the courts to be junk? And how did the two lower courts full of learned justices manage to miss all the “problems” with the evidence in order to rule in favour of Insite? Please note that “it doesn’t agree with Conservative ideology” is not actually a scientific argument.

      • Either way it is absurd that Ottawa should be able to tell the entire country exactly what to do on this. Saskatoon can do it one way and Vancouver another, and we can decide which works better. Suprisingly to me, Portugal saw success with decriminalizing posession, apparently because addicts became more likely to get into programs when they no longer felt like the ‘authorities’ were out to get them.

      • Such as the earth being the centre of the universe and heavier things falling faster than light things, eh?

        Incidentally, insite in no way encourages people to do drugs. I challenge you to find even one person hooked on drugs who will tell you, “Yeah, I wasn’t going to try these, but then I heard of this insite place.”

        Go on.

        Just one.

      • No amount of leftist garbage “evidence” can change what is obvious to most normal people.

        Evidence can never overcome the power of common sense. Fact-based decision making is for sissies.

      • Where is this “encouragement” you speak of? You think junkies will stop cold turkey if Insite wasn’t available? And why is the evidence “garbage”? Because you don’t agree with it? This is worse than the censu!

  3. If it can be shown logically through well run studies that such programs reduce crime, the spread of disease and otherwise increase the success of interventions while being efficient dollar for dollar, then what’s the debate?

    • I guess the debate is about the ‘if’. There should be no debate about whether BC should be able to run or try a program like this. Even if it does fall under federal jurisdiction Harper is betraying his decentralist principles.

    • I think the debate is knowledge that ultimately the goal is to get people off drugs so insite’s primary goal should be as a place that offers drug rehabilitation (which I understand it does) and then when that fails, it offers a safe place to inbibe.

      • If  I understand you correctly then, even just removing this practise from the streets is a positive goal to justify such sites?

        I agree.

  4. The future of the Supreme Court belongs to the glorious democratic Government of Harper.

    Or else.

  5. .
    Remember, Canada, this regime’s bungled F-35 decision.

    Now with the majority, you’ve handed a kilo of crack to a coke-sniffer.