Well, What Do You Know

The Supreme Court has actually told the Conservatives to take a hike. They have saved Insite and as a result, the lives of countless drug addicts. Hooray for the triumph of reason over ideology. It is unfortunate that it is such a rare occurrence. I expect the next Conservative fund raising letter will denounce the communists on the bench and stress the need for God-fearing Conservatives to flood the benches. It is all bullshit of course, since this is the most conservative Supreme Court in years, but you know the Conservatives, every political loss is a profit opportunity.

Recommend this Post

Shorter Barbara Kay

I am against Insite and will pretend drug treatment is a mutually exclusive alternative. Btw., don't ask me to fund drug treatment either, or locate a facility anywhere near my house.

Recommend this Post

Clement And The Doctors

I am sure there will be many who will be puzzled by the Health Minister's turn at the CMA, yesterday, wherein he attacked the ethic of doctors. I am not one of them. Although it seems counterintuitive to be attacking doctors and Insite, there is some logic to the government's strategy.

This government is led by a group that believes in narrowcasting. A proponent of Insite, writing in today's Star, inadvertently gives us a clue into the government's strategy:

Harm reduction programs enjoy broad public acceptance; in Ontario, for example, 60 per cent of adults support safe, supervised drug injection. That level of acceptance rises if these facilities increase drug users' contact with health and social workers.

60% of adults accept harm reduction. That means 40% do not. This is the group the Tories are after. They know that in our "democratic" system, 40% of the vote represents a "majority". Let the other parties go after the majority of the public. The Tories don't care about the majority of the public. They only care about a majority in the House of Commons.

Recommend this Post

Of Drugs And Trust And Money

Margaret Wente has a heart wrenching piece on the failure of harm reduction sites like Insite in Vancouver. Her main thesis is that harm reduction alone is useless, that governments should instead be treating addicts. My question is, what is stopping them? I always thought that places like Insite were just one pillar in a drug strategy, involving enforcement and treatment too. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely nothing stopping governments from properly funding treatment programs, now.

Her side of the aisle would have a lot more credibility for their argument if we on this side didn't have the sneaking suspicion that they want to close Insite for ideological reasons and have absolutely no intention of spending the money on treatment. Rather, as she herself alludes to in her article, I believe that she and her ideological cousins in the Conservative Party would close Insite and then declare a "drug war" on Vancouver. This war would be declared on street addicts since they are the easiest arrests and most visible symbols of the problem. The war would involve throwing them in jail without treatment. Given this government's lock'em up attitude, it is hard for anyone on the outside to envision another scenario.

I have a modest proposal for Ms. Wente and friends. Show us the money for treatment first. Work out deals with the provinces to set up expanded and comprehensive treatment programs first and let's see how it goes. Gather research that proves your way is working. Then we can talk about closing Insite. Don't ask us to trust you, you haven't earned it, yet.

Recommend this Post