I think science is one of the issues that must be taken into account when it comes to a public policy decision. Certainly, as we've discussed, there are many different ways to look at the science; there are many different ways to look at the advocacy surrounding the science. Sometimes the advocates advocate the science and sometimes the scientists advocate their conclusions. We've had a state of that in this particular case.
That's all part of the process. Indeed, I want to state for the record, if I might, that should another exemption application come forward, I have a duty to once again look at all the evidence and once again turn my mind to it in a way that gives due process. So I'm not resigning from that obligation that I have as health minister. But science is part of it.
Then when we get to the public policy, there are other issues. When you start to peel away at crime, for instance--and I've heard some of the advocates say that of course they know crime didn't go up. Okay, well, let's look at what happened when Insite was created and did open stores: 65 more police officers in a five-block area were added to the mix. It is no surprise to me that crime did not go up.
But as you heard through some of my remarks, when you look at what has to be accomplished in order to get the $35,000-a-year cost of the fix, it's $350,000 worth of crime. That's a cost to society. That's more innocent victims being affected by the scourge of this terrible disease. So, to me, the public policy is clear: get people off drugs and ensure that as many people as possible don't get on the drugs in the first place.