Commentary
Deaths have only continued to skyrocket and public safety has rapidly deteriorated. Violent crime is rising, and discarded syringes and other drug paraphernalia have become common sights—including on playgrounds and other family-oriented spaces.
Faced with a widespread public backlash, the provincial government decided to dial its policies back and
passed a law last autumn banning drug use within 15 metres of playgrounds, skate parks, and wading pools.
In response, the Harm Reduction Nurses Association (HRNA), a radical activist group composed of health-care professionals who oppose restrictions on drug use, sued the government and argued that the new law infringed
upon addicts’ constitutional rights.
Specifically, the HRNA claimed that banning open drug use constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the right to life, liberty, and security. The arguments used to support this position were as numerous as they were specious.
For example, it was argued that criminalization pushes addicts into using drugs alone, which increases mortality as there is no one around to reverse potential overdoses. While this is indeed true, Canada’s Constitution has
never granted people the right to engage in self-destructive public behaviour for the sake of minimizing personal risk.
It’s easy to see why this is the case, because by the HRNA’s logic, one could
justify all kinds of absurdities, including permitting autoerotic asphyxiation in parks and nullifying most, if not all, laws against public drinking.
The HRNA also argued that banning open drug use would cause irreparable harm because detention is “traumatizing” for addicts, and, as substance use is typically reduced while in jail, it might lower their opioid tolerances and make them more susceptible to overdose upon re-entering society.
But in what world is the “trauma” of incarceration considered an irreparable harm? If it were one, then it would be unacceptable to detain anyone at all, lest that lead to mental distress—or does an individual’s comfort matter more because they happen to use illicit drugs?
The “decreased tolerance” argument is also absurd, because: i) it could conceivably nullify all incarceration of drug users, irrespective of their crimes; and ii) it is manifestly unfair for some people to receive a “get out of jail free” card just because they happen to have a self-destructive vice that is incompatible with incarceration.
The HRNA also argued, among many other things, that it is unacceptable to confiscate addicts’ drugs, as doing so may push them into withdrawal or cause them to “resort to the use of cheaper lower quality drugs from unknown suppliers.” But it would be a mockery of justice to imagine that individuals have a constitutional right to avoid withdrawals or access higher quality illicit substances.
The provincial government responded to the lawsuit by pointing out that the HRNA was building its case primarily on “anecdotal evidence, unsubstantiated conclusory statements” and “layers of unattributed hearsay” from public interest groups.
Yet the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Christopher Hinkson,
decided to side with the HRNA. He permitted a temporary injunction against the province’s law, which will last until March 31, and concluded that, while members of the public are harmed by open drug use, especially children and seniors, protecting the lives and interests of addicts is more important.
Justice Hinkson made his decision primarily, but not exclusively, due to the
dangers of solitary drug use. Though he acknowledged the weaknesses of the HRNA’s evidence, he fell back upon the authority of a 2022 report produced by the BC Coroners Service.
His choice of evidence raised some eyebrows, though, because under the leadership of current chief coroner Lisa Lapointe, a drug legalization activist who lacks a medical degree, the BC Coroners Service has become a deeply politicized body that has produced
questionable and misleading analysis.
However, it is unclear whether facts were actually relevant to Justice Hinkson on this matter.
For example, he argued that fining drug users may amount to an unconstitutional and irreparable harm. To support that claim, he cited paragraphs 91–96 of another case he recently adjudicated regarding the eviction of a homeless encampment (“
Prince George (City) v. Stewart, 2021”). But the cited paragraphs do not support his point at all, and in fact favour the displacement of vulnerable individuals.
So it remains a mystery how Justice Hinkson came to his conclusion on fines. The citation is bizarre and nonsensical, which suggests that we are seeing judicial activism, not sober judgment, at play.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
