LA CRISE DES SURDOSES D’OPIOÏDES AU CANADA: QUAND LA DÉCRIMINALISATION DES DROGUES DEVIENT UNE QUESTION DE DROIT À LA VIE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the constitutionality of the criminalization of the simple possession of drugs in Canada given the right to life, liberty and security guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The author considers a broad spectrum of scientific literature to identify how criminalization affects human behaviours in ways that sometimes infringeon fundamental rights. For example, criminalization leads to: hesitation to contact emergency services in the event of an overdose, hesitation to use sterile injection material, rapid injection by drug users in public places, an increase in blood borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C in prisons, an increased risk of overdose deaths in the days following the release of an incarcerated person with a substance use disorder, stigmatization that is likely to hinder awareness efforts and make drug users less likely to seek help, and more. The second part looks at the potential justification of the infringements identified. The case law seems to suggest that infringements of the right to life, liberty and security that have been identified are necessarily disproportionate to the legislative objective, such that criminalization violates the principles of fundamental justice. Lastly, although the legislative objective is real and urgent, and criminalization is a rational means of achieving it, the infringements do not appear minimal and the adverse effects seem to outweigh the benefits of limiting fundamental rights, such that it could be argued that the criminalization of the simple possession of drugs is unconstitutional.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".