Admittedly, I have not been paying close enough attention to the news as of late. Sure that this must be some sort of error, I did some looking around and sure enough, it wasn't an error.
You wonder what this judge was thinking... or if he even was thinking. How does providing a legal crackhouse reduce harm? How does forcing it to close violate the "rights" of addicts to life, liberty and security of person?
Drugs kill, Mr. Justice. Or didn't you know that? You would think that the fact a doctor with strong views against the site was harassed by druggie protesters would have had some impact on the judges decision.
The government rightly disagrees with the ruling and is seeking an appeal. Media coverage , on the other hand, is typically nauseating. (Careful, Gloria, your bias is is showing.)
In what might seem like a non sequitor, I feel the need to point out that I have been reading Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will. I read a portion last night which seems ironically appropriate.
Wherefore, it is no wonder in divine things, that through so many ages, men renowned for talent remained blind. It might have been a wonder in human things, but in divine things, it would rather have been a wonder if there had been one here and there that did not remain blind: that they all remained utterly blind alike, is no wonder at all. For what is the whole human race together, without the Spirit, but the kingdom of the devil (as I have said) and a confused chaos of darkness? And therefore it is, that Paul, (Ephes. vi. 12,) calls the devils, "the rulers of this darkness." And, (1 Cor. ii. 8,) he saith, that none of the princes of this world knew the wisdom of God. What then must he think of the rest, who asserts that the princes of this world are the slaves of darkness? For by princes, he means those greatest and highest ones, whom you call 'men renowned for talent.' And why were all the Arians blind? Were there not among them men renowned for talent? Why was Christ foolishness to the nations? Are there not among the nations men renowned for talent? "God (saith Paul) knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain," (1 Cor. iii. 20.) He chose not to say "of men," as the text to which he refers has it, but would point to the first and greatest among men, that from them we might form a judgment of the rest.
And does not Justice Pitfield, and his lamentable decision, so accurately represent what is wrong with Canadian society? Judges are often considered among the first and best of our country, and yet how utterly blind is this man to the potential effects of his decision? As any former drug addict, or family member of a former addict can tell you, giving people a place to "safely" do their drugs does not help them move away from their addiction. Detoxification, abstinence and counseling is the only solution. One wonders how many addicts this judge has actually known. Furthermore, one wonders how exactly a judge can come up with a ruling that permits illegal behaviour.
It's a sad day for Canada.
Not only does this ruling show our society doesn't care to help our addicts, we prefer they remain addicts.
It's their "right" to be addicted and our "right" not to give a rat.