Insite has been the subject of major debate across the country for some time, with some claiming it has saved lives, others that it wastes money that could be used elsewhere.
B.C. Supreme court Justice Ian Pitfield ruled that the laws preventing addicts from injecting themselves “…were inconsistent with sections of the charter guaranteeing the right to ‘life, liberty and security of the person’”. What I would like to know is why people who break the law are guaranteed these rights described in the Charter. As per Robert Frater’s argument regarding this matter, there is no difference between an addicted person having the law bent in order for them to inject illegal drugs or a pyromaniac needing to light fires or a kleptomaniac needing to steal. To push it even farther, why can’t a pedophile go to a building where the laws against pedophelia are exempt and the can do as they wish? An addicted person can break the law legally while everyone else who breaks the law gets punished. Seems fair…
Now, I don’t disagree that addicts need help (granted, they obviously made an irrational decision to try an illegal substance in the first place). Furthermore, these people know that help programs exist and don’t need an injection safe haven to find out what they are. All of the funds put into staffing and running Insite could be transferred to help programs themselves. The only argument I can find worth listening to is that Insite prevents the spread of AIDS and other blood-born pathogens. However, with the small percentage of addicts actually using Insite, I don’t imagine it would make much difference if it were closed, especially if the funds went to legals means of assisting in the spread of disease.
Why is it that Insite is the only apparent solution for a lot of people? It doesn’t send any good messages to anyone. The drug problem is major on the downtown eastside, but having a place where addicted people can be above the law doesn’t solve any problems except perhaps that of advertising the detox and methadone programs available to those that enter the facility. But as I said before, it would be absurd to think that those people don’t know about detox and where they can find it.
Does it save lives? Arguably, yes. Can this be proved? Well, indirectly. Insite has had over 900 overdoses within the facility, and not one fatality. Would these individuals have overdosed if they had been outside the facility? Perhaps.
As I said before: I am all for helping these people, but only because there is no other choice. Does this make me a bad person? I don’t think so. Everyone surely can admit that aside from the true medically ill, many of these people that are drug addicted made a terrible choice at some point in their lives, and the rest of society has to pick them up and carry them back. And quite honestly, they are not light. What’s even worse is how many Canadians have warped back to the sixties and started up with drugs again. Only this time it’s not just an experiment. The manufacturers have designed ways to keep you there. Frankly, I am terrified for humanity.
“It comes down to this: If I violate the law so persistently that I become incapable of complying with it, the law has to adjust itself to me…We say it’s not reasonable accomodation, it’s capitulation of the criminal law.” – Robert Frater
