EDITORIAL – Ruling against drugs-in-parks ban collides with public opinion
(Image: B.C. Supreme Court)
An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.
A B.C. SUPREME COURT decision against prohibiting the consumption of illicit drugs in parks, beaches and sports fields, and near business entrances and bus stops has surprised and disappointed a lot of people.
The drugs-in-parks act was brought in only recently by the NDP government after pressure from municipal politicians supported by Opposition MLAs.
According to the judgment by Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson, it would have caused “irreparable harm.” He said public consumption is “oftentimes” the safest and healthiest option “given a dire lack of supervised consumption services, indoor locations to consume drugs, and housing.”
That, of course, has always been the main criticism of attempts to limit where drugs can be consumed. If it weren’t for the pilot project decriminalizing possession of small amounts of illicit drugs, there would be no issue regardless of support services.
Hinkson’s granting of an injunction means that the provincial law is on pause at least until March 31 so a determination can be made on whether it violates Charter rights. In the meantime, restrictions on where drugs are consumed that are included in the decriminalization guidelines — including school property, playgrounds, child-care facilities and skate parks — remain.
Nevertheless, Hinkson’s decision goes against popular opinion that public consumption presents serious risks to the public. That’s where the possibility of “irreparable harm” truly comes in.
But Hinkson found that the risk to the public is trumped by the need to deal with the overdose crisis. Public buy-in is essential to dealing with the crisis, so the ruling ironically works against the very supports he acknowledges are needed.
It would be easy to blame the judge instead of the judgment. But his job is to interpret and uphold the rule of law.
The problem isn’t with the judge or the judiciary, but with the current legal and social framework that puts the rights of the few ahead of those of the many.
I’m Mel Rothenburger, the Armchair Mayor.
Mel Rothenburger is a regular contributor to CFJC Today, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired daily newspaper editor. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Four score and seven years ago, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was drafted.
These wise and learned individuals envisioned the unalienable right for individuals to smoke fentanyl in the parks next to your children when drafting the Charter. That no man can be told to move along against their will, that no tent shall be taken down agains the will of the tentee.
These visionaries planted the seeds that now guide us into the promised lands. We stand on guard for fentanyl.
LikeLike
I disagree entirely. The judge is the one who made the interpretation of the issue. The judge has made some huge assumptions in doing so, took the nurse argument as fact, and stretched logic to a breaking point to arrive at this decision.
Existing law, and the foundations of our country are premised on the ability of the state to legislate against criminal and other undesirable behaviour. If this decision stands, it upends that concept.
There is no Charter right to self harm around children, places of business or parks and sidewalks. No one dies by being asked to move along from the park to smoke narcotics. By the judge’s own logic, addicts should never be provided with private accommodation as that increases their chance at overdosing alone.
This decision is an incredible overreach of judicial activism, and is entirely at odds with public opinion. It’s an outrageous middle finger to our communities.
LikeLike
It would be much better for all if instead of just enabling open drug use, our government took meaningful measures to curb drug deaths.
But it seems our provincial government doesn’t want to invest in effective and readily accessible rehab facilities and our federal government doesn’t want to hold addicted thieves and vandals accountable.
Costs associated with drug addiction have been offloaded to the taxpayer instead, through a sharp rise in emergency resuscitation calls, spiking home and business insurance and security costs, and rising taxes to cover increased policing, hospitalization and street outreach for addicted people.
Now the courts have ruled that we must continue to accept unsafe and unsightly behaviour in our public spaces. Meanwhile, drug deaths continue to rise. Something’s not working.
LikeLike
“The problem isn’t with the judge or the judiciary, but with the current legal and social framework that puts the rights of the few ahead of those of the many.”
Yes, of course.
But the moment the legal and social framework switches, if it will ever happen, it will mean that individual freedoms will be somewhat restricted.
The Charter will need to be rewritten with provisions regarding “obligations and responsibilities” which will need to be applied to ALL inhabitants of the land.
LikeLike