safe injection

Benjamin Perrin: The Alberta government’s recent review of supervised consumption sites ignores over 100 peer-reviewed studies explaining their benefits

Mere minutes after a panel of experts recommended safe drug injection sites for Ottawa and Toronto, Ontario’s health minister rejected the idea, claiming “experts continue to be divided by the value of the sites.” The minister, Deb Matthews, didn’t specify which experts she was referring to. The overwhelming majority of those who have published evidence in peer-reviewed journals say the sites save lives, don’t increase crime and are cost effective.  The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously prevented the federal government from shutting down a safe injection site in Vancouver last year.

The PM came close to shutting down Insite, only to be reminded there are still some limits to his reach

After the supreme court ruling, Montreal and Victoria are planning safe injection sites. Others aren’t far behind.

Those who favour the reform of Canada’s drug laws should be pleased

Our round-up of coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision in favour of the safe injection site

[polldaddy poll=”5053139″]

Our John Geddes looks inside the battle over British Columbia’s safe injection site and finds a remarkable series of events.

The B.C. Court of Appeal’s ruling on Vancouver’s Insite shooting gallery for heroin addicts makes for interesting reading. We are all so busy arguing over the merits of harm reduction, and the wisdom of the Harper government’s attempt to shut down the clinic, that it is easy to forget the big constitutional issue that was the chief concern of the court here. You would think that Canadian jurisprudence had developed a clear objective rule for settling even the trickiest “double aspect” issues, wherein both federal and provincial governments can claim that some crumb falls within their respective spheres of constitutional power.