Insite Given Exemption By SCoC

[coldstream]

That ruling is bizarre.. demanding that the government aid and abet an illegal act. Another sign of the arrogance and sheer ignorance the rules the Supreme Court. The prime directive of the SCOC has been to licence radical individualism, free from any social responsibility and rationalized under the vague and transient sophistry of moral relativism.

If the government is smart they will invoke the Not Withstanding Clause to prevent these intellectual mediocrities, led by the most conventional and vapid of all the justices, Chief Justice Bev MacLachlan, from governing the nation by way of judicial fiat. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has enfranchised a judicial tyranny of petty ideologues.. unanswerable to the Canadian electorate.. by way of the cowardice of Parliament in challenging them.

This ruling will provide no benefit to addicts who get carefree injection sites. It won't protect them from the toxic effects of opiates and amphetamines on their major organs. It will only ensure a more prolonged death and the pretense of social legitimization to their self destruction.

 

[Goober]

That ruling is bizarre.. demanding that the government aid and abet an illegal act. Another sign of the arrogance and sheer ignorance the rules the Supreme Court. The prime directive of the SCOC has been to licence radical individualism, free from any social responsibility and rationalized under the vague and transient sophistry of moral relativism.

If the government is smart they will invoke the Not Withstanding Clause to prevent these intellectual mediocrities, led by the most conventional and vapid of all the justices, Chief Justice Bev MacLachlan, from governing the nation by way of judicial fiat. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has enfranchised a judicial tyranny of petty ideologues.. unanswerable to the Canadian electorate.. by way of the cowardice of Parliament in challenging them.

This ruling will provide no benefit to addicts who get carefree injection sites. It won't protect them from the toxic effects of opiates and ampetamines on their major organs. It will only ensure a more prolonged death and the pretense of social legitimization to their self destruction.

The Govt will not and rightly so not invoke the NWC – They would be doing their jobs to come up with a solution and utilize these facilities.
1 person – infected with Aids – est cost per 10 K per year – without hospitalization
Homeless costs – 50- 130 k per year.
Hep c – Not sure

Do you prefer that these addicts, and we have a large number be flushed out to the suburbs where the middle class can see the reality – I think not.
You are overreacting to the SCOC decision. People may argue about it – one for – the other against – but as one reported put it – It does not address all the issues but is addresses a few.
What we did before was nothing. Is that what you want – do nothing?

 

[TenPenny]

That ruling is bizarre.. demanding that the government aid and abet an illegal act. Another sign of the arrogance and sheer ignorance the rules the Supreme Court. The prime directive of the SCOC has been to licence radical individualism, free from any social responsibility and rationalized under the vague and transient sophistry of moral relativism.

Actually, the prime directive of the SCoC is to enforce the laws as written and passed by Parliament.

If you don't like it, then you should encourage Parliament to change the laws.

 

[coldstream]

Actually, the prime directive of the SCoC is to enforce the laws as written and passed by Parliament.

If you don't like it, then you should encourage Parliament to change the laws.

You've got to be kidding. The Charter has enfranchised the SCOC and lower courts as an unelected law MAKER, as we've seen repetitively on issues with respect to abortion, homosexual legitimazation and a raft of other New Age social causes.. unrecognizant of all moral conventions and notions of good and evil that have anchored our civilization since its inception. The Not Withstanding Clause, which was put in reluctantly by Trudeau as a nod to Parliamentary Sovereignty, has gone virtually unused..

A Parliament cannot rescind the Constitution by a vote, it would require a complex opening of a Constitutional Convention involving the Provinces (and the Monarchy)

 

[WLDB]

The Supreme Court of Canada is NOT the law-maker in this country.


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

Right before going off to commit genocide with the trail of tears.

 

[Goober]

You've got to be kidding. The Charter has enfranchised the SCOC and lower courts as an unelected law MAKER, as we've seen repetitively on issues with respect to abortion, homosexuality legitimazation and a raft of other New Age social causes. The Not Withstanding Clause which was put in by Trudeau as a nod to Parliamentary Sovereignty has gone virtually unused..

A Parliament cannot rescind the Constitution by a vote, it would require a complex opening of a Constitutional Convention involving the Provinces (and the Monarchy)

What are your issues with Homosexuals and abortion – My those are always 2 hot topics?

 

[damngrumpy]

Colpy you are right the Supreme Court does not make the laws they do however
sit in judgement of the laws drafted by politicians to determine how they are to be
applied. An unfair law or one that does not serve the interest of society is therefore
seen as an unjust law, is stricken down. This is good policy as it provides a clear
judgement on the concept of law itself. I have always agreed with the law as it was
drafted. I also believe the war on drugs should be abandoned for it does nothing
for society and it makes criminals out of people, who don't deserve it.
Pot and some of the soft stuff while somewhat harmful is impossible to police on an
equitable basis. By that I mean the addicts are easy to catch and repeatedly
prosecute. The real bad guys the organized criminals rarely if ever get caught and
some to those are people with very deep pockets in order to be financially able to
place the order for the street drugs in the first place.
Besides who knows who is using some of these drugs. Police, Lawyers, Doctors,
perhaps even Judges, and other professionals and average working people. This is
really a prohibition war, on substance abuse, like the roaring twenties war on booze.
We could better spend the money on fighting real crime. Some people are now
demanding something be done about the real criminals on Wall Street and Bay Street
for causing the breakdown of the financial system for their own profit and greed.
Safe Injection Sights are a valuable service. By having them in our midst demonstrates
we might be facing our failures as a society and perhaps we can look for some serious
ways to solve the problems in this area instead of the revolving door of the courts.
Ever noticed, we have no problem paying Judges, Lawyers and court people, and not a
dime to put toward treatment, emergency housing, and educational opportunities so we
can bring some of these people back into mainstream society?
A safe injection sight is in the interest of society

 

[JLM]

That ruling is bizarre.. demanding that the government aid and abet an illegal act. Another sign of the arrogance and sheer ignorance the rules the Supreme Court. The prime directive of the SCOC has been to licence radical individualism, free from any social responsibility and rationalized under the vague and transient sophistry of moral relativism.

If the government is smart they will invoke the Not Withstanding Clause to prevent these intellectual mediocrities, led by the most conventional and vapid of all the justices, Chief Justice Bev MacLachlan, from governing the nation by way of judicial fiat. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has enfranchised a judicial tyranny of petty ideologues.. unanswerable to the Canadian electorate.. by way of the cowardice of Parliament in challenging them.

This ruling will provide no benefit to addicts who get carefree injection sites. It won't protect them from the toxic effects of opiates and amphetamines on their major organs. It will only ensure a more prolonged death and the pretense of social legitimization to their self destruction.

Yep, there's definitely a good side and a bad side, but I think they wisely chose the side that does the least harm. I just wish they would augment it with more counselling and incentives to get off the drugs & maybe some better living conditions.

The real bad guys the organized criminals rarely if ever get caught and[/B]
some to those are people with very deep pockets in order to be financially able to
place the order for the street drugs in the first place.
Besides who knows who is using some of these drugs. Police, Lawyers, Doctors,
perhaps even Judges, and other professionals and average working people. This is
really a prohibition war, on substance abuse, like the roaring twenties war on booze.
We could better spend the money on fighting real crime. Some people are now
demanding something be done about the real criminals on Wall Street and Bay Street
for causing the breakdown of the financial system for their own profit and greed.
Safe Injection Sights are a valuable service. By having them in our midst demonstrates
we might be facing our failures as a society and perhaps we can look for some serious
ways to solve the problems in this area instead of the revolving door of the courts.
Ever noticed, we have no problem paying Judges, Lawyers and court people, and not a
dime to put toward treatment, emergency housing, and educational opportunities so we
can bring some of these people back into mainstream society?
A safe injection sight is in the interest of society

That's why there should be a death penalty for drug traffickers aka murderers. Dry up the supply and the problem of the addict is more or less solved. I say "more or less" because a few of them will turn to something else addictive.

 

[Kreskin]

Health care and related programs are under Provincial jurisdiction, not Federal. Why are the feds involved?

 

[JLM]

Health care and related programs are under Provincial jurisdiction, not Federal. Why are the feds involved?

Harper wants it in his "bailiwick"?

 

[Goober]

Yep, there's definitely a good side and a bad side, but I think they wisely chose the side that does the least harm. I just wish they would augment it with more counselling and incentives to get off the drugs & maybe some better living conditions.



That's why there should be a death penalty for drug traffickers aka murderers. Dry up the supply and the problem of the addict is more or less solved. I say "more or less" because a few of them will turn to something else addictive.

Iran has the death penalty for drugs - they have a big drug problem - does not work.

Health care and related programs are under Provincial jurisdiction, not Federal. Why are the feds involved?

The Charter was also included in their ruling - I did not know this until later -

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html

 

[Colpy]

Right before going off to commit genocide with the trail of tears.

Ahhh....someone that actually knows some history!

Absolutely correct......

But this is not the Trail of Tears.......

This is an activist Supreme Court treating the Constitution as a living document, ie one subject to change at their whim and at the slightest excuse. They are blatantly ignoring the will of the people as expressed by Parliament.....not to defend an individual right, but to further a statist agenda in making that state responsible for protecting people from the natural consequences of their actions.

THAT is the end of liberty.

Guess what?

If you jam needles full of junk in your arms, you might overdose and die.

SO WHAT?

So don't jam needles full of junk in your arm.

If you share needles with a bunch of junkies, despite free needle exchanges, you are likely to get AIDS and be very sick or die.

SO WHAT???

Don't share needles with junkies.

If you jump off a bridge, the rapid stop at the bottom is apt to hurt you.

SO WHAT???

Don't jump off bridges.

If you stick a loaded .357 in your mouth and pull the trigger, your brains are apt to splatter all over the ceiling.

SO WHAT?

Don't stick loaded guns in your mouth.....

And most importantly, don't expect the rest of us to surrender our firearms, catch you as you fall, or pay the costs to protect you from yourself.

Legalize drugs???

Go ahead. That ain't my beef.

Rule by the elitist nine over Parliament, as they invent law instead of interpret it as it was intended???

NO THANKS!

 

[CDNBear]

SO WHAT???

It costs more to deal with the aftermath, then help divert the issue in the first place.

 

[JLM]

Iran has the death penalty for drugs - they have a big drug problem - does not work.



l

It will eventually, they just have to get them all.

 

[Tonington]

That ruling is bizarre.. demanding that the government aid and abet an illegal act. Another sign of the arrogance and sheer ignorance the rules the Supreme Court. The prime directive of the SCOC has been to licence radical individualism, free from any social responsibility and rationalized under the vague and transient sophistry of moral relativism.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Minister was not following the law...the clause is written in the Controlled Drug and Substance Act.

The Supreme Court is interpreting the laws that Parliament has enacted. There are both scientific, and medical reasons for this exemption, and that's why the clause exists in that act...and if the Minister ignores that there are health benefits to the treatment provided at Insite and revokes the exemption, that is unconstitutional...something a great number here don't seem to understand.

 

[CDNBear]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Minister was not following the law...the clause is written in the Controlled Drug and Substance Act.

The Supreme Court is interpreting the laws that Parliament has enacted. There are both scientific, and medical reasons for this exemption, and that's why the clause exists in that act...and if the Minister ignores that there are health benefits to the treatment provided at Insite and revokes the exemption, that is unconstitutional...something a great number here don't seem to understand.

I don't think they want to understand it Ton.

I know I had a hard time letting it in, but you managed to convert me nonetheless.

 

[Goober]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Minister was not following the law...the clause is written in the Controlled Drug and Substance Act.

The Supreme Court is interpreting the laws that Parliament has enacted. There are both scientific, and medical reasons for this exemption, and that's why the clause exists in that act...and if the Minister ignores that there are health benefits to the treatment provided at Insite and revokes the exemption, that is unconstitutional...something a great number here don't seem to understand.

Not a great number - The SCOC also provided a long list of reasons. No way they can appeal the decision.

 

[damngrumpy]

You will never dry up the supply, there is too much money involved while the drugs are
illegal, the only way to lower the price is to decriminalize it or legalize it and tax it.
Drugs have been with us since civilization decided to tax them or impose a moral code
on people without really consulting them If we as a society decided to consult the
people, Pot would be legal tomorrow for example. No doubt the real hard drugs would
still be illegal.
Personally I would agree to Pot finding its own acceptable level, as for the real hard stuff,
that is a personal struggle. On one hand we know these drugs serve no useful purpose
and harm the individual addicted. On the other hand we know some people will use them
regardless. For adults fine they can make their own decisions. with some conditions.

1 If you are using drugs you should not be entitled to welfare or other social assistance
2 Part of your medical coverage should be paid for by the individual and a reduced
benefit package would be offered until you quit.

At the same time for supervised situations addicts would be assisted to get off drugs and
after proving their worthiness, they would be entitled to education programs etc to get them
back into society.
I believe you should have the personal right an d freedom to engage in hard drug use, but
at the same time you should be subject to the personal responsibility for your actions,

My greatest concern is not for the adults it is for the kids of today.
I don't think the death penalty should apply to dealers unless they are caught selling to
children, those being under the Provincial age. For example, in BC those under 19.
It would also only apply to crack and other really destructive hard drugs.

The real answer is to decide which drugs are to be kept illegal and which ones are to be
decriminalized. No a hard and fast rule is not practical here as people are going to
experiment and some are going to use.
The old hard line conservative rules are out of date as societies attitudes have changed
on a lot of issues and some things are more acceptable than others. Some issues are
social moral issues and other issues do belong in the criminal realm. WE are making
too many people into criminals instead of trying to help them back into society as
productive citizens.

 

[TenPenny]

You've got to be kidding. The Charter has enfranchised the SCOC and lower courts as an unelected law MAKER, as we've seen repetitively on issues with respect to abortion, homosexual legitimazation and a raft of other New Age social causes.. unrecognizant of all moral conventions and notions of good and evil that have anchored our civilization since its inception. The Not Withstanding Clause, which was put in reluctantly by Trudeau as a nod to Parliamentary Sovereignty, has gone virtually unused..

A Parliament cannot rescind the Constitution by a vote, it would require a complex opening of a Constitutional Convention involving the Provinces (and the Monarchy)

You've got to be kidding. The SCOC is enforcing the laws written by parliament, ie, our Charter, with respect to abortion, homosexulaity, and a raft of other things.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Next we'll be cooking Meth for them.