To force the site to close “would have been to prevent injection drug users from accessing the health services offered by Insite, threatening the health and indeed the lives of potential clients,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote in the ruling.
It thereby constitutes a limit on the section 7 charter rights of drug addicts - life, liberty and the security of person.So the Supremes ruled that enabling illicit dopers is good for their health, life, liberty and security.
Then we have another class of (legal) users - smokers, who have been attacked mercilessly and kicked while they're down. In BC the health minister is now threatening smokers with another kick - forcing them to pay higher health fees:
“Some people, in B.C. about 14 per cent of the population, continue to smoke and they’re going to cost more,” de Jong said in an interview. “Maybe they should contribute more.”Civil liberties and ethics experts think it's a crappy idea, primarily on "slippery slope" grounds. As far as I know, no one wondered if it might be unenforceable.
Also, Minister De Jong neglected to point out that the government is already taxing smokers to death:
The province collected $682 million from tobacco taxation in the 2009-10 fiscal year, $708 million in 2008-09 and $692 million in 2007-08.That probably more than covers additional health costs. And I'm sure that De Jong would prefer that no one mentioned any studies like this one in the New England Journal of Medicine which found:
... In our study, lifetime costs for smokers can be calculated as $72,700 among men and $94,700 among women, and lifetime costs among nonsmokers can be calculated as $83,400 and $111,000, respectively. This amounts to lifetime costs for nonsmokers that are higher by 15 percent among men and 18 percent among women.Altogether this spells "CASH GRAB" from (and harassment of) smokers to offset the cost of enabling dopers.