Do YOU think it's a good idea to make heroin use "SAFE"?

Heroin Use: I'm not so sure making this easier is such a good plan.

While not getting much mainstream media exposure, conservatives may wish to pay attention to a case currently being argued before the Supreme Court of Canada, Attorney General of Canada v. PHS Community Services Society.

As you may recall, in January of 2010, the B.C. Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court ruling that it was unconstitutional to prohibit allowing the government to supply and allow use of narcotics at "safe use" locations established by the B.C. Government with the support of the former federal Liberal government.

So the argument goes, providing junkies with a safe place to tie off and shoot up heroin reduces the likelihood of deaths by overdose and spread of AIDS.

The Federal Government under Prime Minister Harper has appealed that decision, and argument is currently ongoing at the Supreme Court of Canada over the right of the Provincial Government to fully exclude the application of the Criminal Code respecting use and possession of narcotics where deemed necessary to facilitate "treatment" of addicts.

The problem?

Well, they haven't yet got got to the point where they are actually giving heroin and cocaine to drug users for free.  Well, at least not in a wide-spread fashion.  The NAOMI project in Vancouver DID do that, and the INSITE program has actually applied for authorization to do the same.

For now - however, they provide a safe place for them to use their drugs and supply clean needles.

But the actual acquisition of those drugs is still up to the junkie.

Because, according to the B.C. Government's own information, as disclosed in a 2001 Senate Report, "the Chief Coroner of British Columbia stated that law enforcement agencies generally admit that many chronic drug users commit crimes to support their dependence.  At the time, police officers in British Columbia estimated that 60% of crimes committed in the province were motivated by, although not directly linked to, drugs."

So.  While they are making it easier for junkies to use their drugs "safely" (did I seriously just say that?), the liklihood is that they are still committing crimes to support their dependance.

And the only way to remove THAT aspect of the problem is to give the drugs to junkies for free or to subsidize their use.  Which is what has gone on with the NAOMI project.

And all of that would come at the expense of the great middle of Canada, the taxpayers.  The people who don't use heroin.  The people, like you and I, who have jobs and don't commit crimes.

Where is the concern and sympathy for the taxpayers of Canada?

Think about this for a moment.

The INSITE program addresses the needs of an estimate 8,000 addicts in Vancouver.

The cost of that program is reported to be about $3 million per year.  Now - the cost per addict may appear relatively modest, but according to a recent program review, the principal use of the program was by 500 individuals at a cost of approximately $13,100.00 each per year.

Responsible, hard working Canadians get to pay tax.

Junkies get the benefit.  $13,100 each to help them continue their habit "safely".

Here's my thought.

We don't make it SAFER to use heroin, we go the other way.  We make it MORE likely to kill you.

I call that a win/win proposition.

We begin to "cull" addicts AND we provide the strongest sort of disinsentive to ever START using heroin.

Call me a visionary.