Insite Given Exemption By SCoC

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,903
11,183
113
Low Earth Orbit
The safe injjection site in E Vancouver has been given an exemption from new drug laws leaving the issue as a Provincial health issue.

WTG SCoC!!!
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
The safe injjection site in E Vancouver has been given an exemption from new drug laws leaving the issue as a Provincial health issue.

WTG SCoC!!!

It is an addiction - Lives are saved - Medical cost drop - People do not transmit other diseases like HIV Hep C etc. Drug addicts are offered help.

This is just pure politics by Harper.

‘Disappointed’ Tories to review top court’s drug-injection ruling - The Globe and Mail

The federal Conservative government has yet to wave the white flag in its fight against Vancouver’s Insite drug injection site – despite a Supreme Court ruling that says its attempts to close the clinic were “grossly disproportionate” to the benefits for drug users and the community.
 
Last edited:

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
The Supreme Court of Canada is NOT the law-maker in this country.

This is a democracy, not an appointed oligarchy of brain-dead, French-speaking activist judges.

Harper should push this hard.....he has the executive power.

As Andrew Jackson said of the USSC......they made the judgement, now let's see them enforce it.

There is NO right to jam junk in your veins without consequence.

ANYONE that thinks differently is a ****ing idiot.

Might as well repeal the law of gravity for jumpers.

Morons.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
The Supreme Court of Canada is NOT the law-maker in this country.

This is a democracy, not an appointed oligarchy of brain-dead, French-speaking activist judges.

The purpose of the SCoC is to ensure that popular opinion, ie, democracy, does NOT trump personal rights.

An addict can't magically become a non addict. The only way to get them help is to start the process of cleaning them up and restoring trust that they DO have a place in society. And that can't happen when they're shooting up in alleys.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
It is an addiction - Lives are saved - Medical cost drop - People do noot transmit other diseases like HIV Hep C etc. Drug addicts are offered help.

This is just pure politics by Harper.

‘Disappointed’ Tories to review top court’s drug-injection ruling - The Globe and Mail

The federal Conservative government has yet to wave the white flag in its fight against Vancouver’s Insite drug injection site – despite a Supreme Court ruling that says its attempts to close the clinic were “grossly disproportionate” to the benefits for drug users and the community.


Absolutely fine, and a legitimate opinion........

But not the LAW of the land.

WE are ruled by an elected Parliament that enacts law, the SCoC can ONLY legitimately overturn that law in light of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the rights thereby enshrined......

Or they are usurpers of executive power.

I kinda like rule by Parliament, not usurper.

The purpose of the SCoC is to ensure that popular opinion, ie, democracy, does NOT trump personal rights.

An addict can't magically become a non addict. The only way to get them help is to start the process of cleaning them up and restoring trust that they DO have a place in society. And that can't happen when they're shooting up in alleys.

So, where exactly in the Constitution does it say you have the right to bang junk without consequence??????

"security of the Person" doesn't cut it, as they undertake the action of their own free will, and it is illegal.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
the SCoC can ONLY legitimately overturn that law in light of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the rights thereby enshrined......


So, where exactly in the Constitution does it say you have the right to bang junk without consequence??????

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof"

When and where it is possible for society to address a problem without stripping someone of their basic rights, we have an obligation to try that alternative.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof"

When and where it is possible for society to address a problem without stripping someone of their basic rights, we have an obligation to try that alternative.

So I can now proceed to rob the corner bank without fear of consequence?? Certainly no one can interfere, as that might threaten the security of my person.

When the SCoC becomes activist and over-rides law without legitimate reference to basic individual rights, they are robbing me of the right to participate in the decision-making process by which I am being ruled, they are making a farce out of the social contract, and undermining the foundations of democratic society.

They need to be completely ignored on this matter.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,903
11,183
113
Low Earth Orbit
So I can now proceed to rob the corner bank without fear of consequence?? Certainly no one can interfere, as that might threaten the security of my person.

When the SCoC becomes activist and over-rides law without legitimate reference to basic individual rights, they are robbing me of the right to participate in the decision-making process by which I am being ruled, they are making a farce out of the social contract, and undermining the foundations of democratic society.

They need to be completely ignored on this matter.
Saving human lives and not securing people (two different legal entities)is two different ballgames. Humans and persons have different rights.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
So I can now proceed to rob the corner bank without fear of consequence?? Certainly no one can interfere, as that might threaten the security of my person.

When the SCoC becomes activist and over-rides law without legitimate reference to basic individual rights, they are robbing me of the right to participate in the decision-making process by which I am being ruled, they are making a farce out of the social contract, and undermining the foundations of democratic society.

They need to be completely ignored on this matter.

No... in robbing a bank you've threatened other people's security of person, dont' be purposely obtuse.

The problem they're running into with junkies is that once the damage is done, the only alternative is eventual jail, and jailing someone for being sick costs a lot more than trying to deal with it at the ground level. It also runs the potential of creating a career criminal where once you merely had a junkie. It's quite obvious from the state of downtown Vancouver, and many cities in Canada, that 'the law of the land' isn't effective in this struggle.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Absolutely fine, and a legitimate opinion........

But not the LAW of the land.

WE are ruled by an elected Parliament that enacts law, the SCoC can ONLY legitimately overturn that law in light of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the rights thereby enshrined......

Or they are usurpers of executive power.

I kinda like rule by Parliament, not usurper.



So, where exactly in the Constitution does it say you have the right to bang junk without consequence??????

"security of the Person" doesn't cut it, as they undertake the action of their own free will, and it is illegal.

It fell under Health Care - A Provincial responsibility.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
The Supreme Court of Canada is NOT the law-maker in this country.

This is a democracy, not an appointed oligarchy of brain-dead, French-speaking activist judges.

Harper should push this hard.....he has the executive power.

As Andrew Jackson said of the USSC......they made the judgement, now let's see them enforce it.

There is NO right to jam junk in your veins without consequence.

ANYONE that thinks differently is a ****ing idiot.

Might as well repeal the law of gravity for jumpers.

Morons.

Yes, I've changed my mind slightly about this matter over the years, as I've become a little less judgmental about people who do what I perceive to be stupid things, as I do believe the shooting gallery saves lives, sometimes very innocent lives. I just wish they could demonstrate that they've weaned just one person away from drugs. Then I would be totally for it.

Saving human lives and not securing people (two different legal entities)is two different ballgames. Humans and persons have different rights.

Which one are you? :lol:
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Absolutely fine, and a legitimate opinion........

But not the LAW of the land.

WE are ruled by an elected Parliament that enacts law, the SCoC can ONLY legitimately overturn that law in light of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the rights thereby enshrined......

Or they are usurpers of executive power.

I kinda like rule by Parliament, not usurper.

.

So, where exactly in the Constitution does it say you have the right to bang junk without consequence??????

"security of the Person" doesn't cut it, as they undertake the action of their own free will, and it is illegal.

Your opinion I think would change if it was a Liberal Govt - Parliament makes Laws- The Courts interpret them. I not into giving Parliament that type of power. Are you serious when you state "I kinda like rule by Parliament, not usurper".
 

In Between Man

The Biblical Position
Sep 11, 2008
4,597
46
48
44
49° 19' N, 123° 4' W
The Vancouver Coast Health Authority which runs Insite, stated long ago that if they got a favorable decision from the Supreme Court that they would next push for "safe inhalation rooms" for crack addicts. What's next? Supervised meth production labs because its "a dangerous activity that people are going to do anyway, so we might as well supervise it.".

Liberalism destroys nations.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
It is the individual addict that is obstructing their own rights "to life, liberty and security of the person"... Doesn't that factor into the equation?

Addiction care - Provincial area - Just another nail into why the SCOC ruled correctly.