Comments on: Deeper Insite Into Harm Reduction Strategies http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/17/deeper-insite-into-harm-reduction-strategies/?nucrss=1 The law school blog and podcast from Canada Mon, 07 May 2012 13:10:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: InSite wins second court case « JUNKe Life http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/17/deeper-insite-into-harm-reduction-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-8029 InSite wins second court case « JUNKe Life Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:03:21 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1593#comment-8029 [...] isn’t much reported, or even realized, is that there were several legal arguments, and sub-arguments, within this so-called InSite case. What is reported is the main one about InSite staying open [...] [...] isn’t much reported, or even realized, is that there were several legal arguments, and sub-arguments, within this so-called InSite case. What is reported is the main one about InSite staying open [...]

]]> By: Omar Ha-Redeye http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/17/deeper-insite-into-harm-reduction-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-5560 Omar Ha-Redeye Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:28:04 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1593#comment-5560 The interveners were proposing an extension of the principles of fundamental justice, not stating that this was currently the law. The interveners were proposing an extension of the principles of fundamental justice, not stating that this was currently the law.

]]> By: KC http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/17/deeper-insite-into-harm-reduction-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-5475 KC Wed, 20 May 2009 15:33:28 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1593#comment-5475 I don't see how a "duty to protect" (if such a thing exists) comes in either. My understanding was that the constitutional arguments in favour of Insite had nothing to do with making the government fund it (it is conceded that there is no obligation to do so), but rather that the government can't enforce the criminal law in the specific context. Once again it comes back to the positive-negative rights dichotomy. I don’t see how a “duty to protect” (if such a thing exists) comes in either. My understanding was that the constitutional arguments in favour of Insite had nothing to do with making the government fund it (it is conceded that there is no obligation to do so), but rather that the government can’t enforce the criminal law in the specific context.

Once again it comes back to the positive-negative rights dichotomy.

]]> By: Omar Ha-Redeye http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/17/deeper-insite-into-harm-reduction-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-5472 Omar Ha-Redeye Wed, 20 May 2009 02:20:16 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1593#comment-5472 I didn't get into the entire depth of the legal argument, but essentially the government also has a duty to protect and assist IV drug users by providing them health services. Overdose literally is a life or death issue, and it's also an issue of dignity. They cited Khadr as an extension of the principles of fundamental justice, and revisited <a href="http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2003/2003scc74/2003scc74.html" rel="nofollow">Malmo-Levine</a>. I didn’t get into the entire depth of the legal argument, but essentially the government also has a duty to protect and assist IV drug users by providing them health services. Overdose literally is a life or death issue, and it’s also an issue of dignity.

They cited Khadr as an extension of the principles of fundamental justice, and revisited Malmo-Levine.

]]> By: Lawrence Gridin http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/17/deeper-insite-into-harm-reduction-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-5471 Lawrence Gridin Wed, 20 May 2009 02:04:55 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1593#comment-5471 What does <i>Khadr</i> have to do with Insite? The case says that there is "a duty to protect <b>persons in Mr. Khadr's circumstances.</b>" I have no clue how those circumstances (being a Canadian child soldier subjected to torture by a foreign government) are in any way related to the circumstances of intravenous drug users... What does Khadr have to do with Insite?

The case says that there is “a duty to protect persons in Mr. Khadr’s circumstances.”

I have no clue how those circumstances (being a Canadian child soldier subjected to torture by a foreign government) are in any way related to the circumstances of intravenous drug users…

]]> By: Liberal Minute Special Report #1 - Insite, with Omar Ha-Redeye « HIV blogaids http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/17/deeper-insite-into-harm-reduction-strategies/comment-page-1/#comment-5467 Liberal Minute Special Report #1 - Insite, with Omar Ha-Redeye « HIV blogaids Mon, 18 May 2009 17:55:23 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1593#comment-5467 [...] notes from the trial can be found on Law is Cool and [...] [...] notes from the trial can be found on Law is Cool and [...]

]]>