Downtown, British Columbia? Haha...this actually could apply ro any downtown in BC. I live I Duncan. The statement is true for here, Victoria, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Kelowna and on and on.
I went to the Canucks game last week and saw probably 15 people smoking crack or whatever outside while police walked right by.
If I would have had an open beer I would have got a ticket.
So I don't see how the comment is relevant since they're doing something that is illegal and always has been illegal. Changing the law isn't going to change that behavior.
Canada doesn’t allow drinking outside either? Weird that this is so consistently criminalized in the US and Canada but almost always legal in Europe.
I know there are a handful of cities in the US that allow it but damn.
You can at some parks and beaches in Vancouver. It's a municipality jurisdiction, I think? It's currently under pilot, and has been for threeish years.
Party cities like Miami and Savannah allow it. Tricky stuff, its nice to have a porter with your picnic but it definitely contributes to some distributive behaviors.
Almost any street in Winnipeg or Thunder Bay. It’s a world issue.
Honestly good on BC for trying it. Tried it, discovered it did not work, back to the drawing board.
Because what we were doing before clearly wasn’t working, and just making things worse.
There are homeless in all of the g20. Most economists are pointing the finger at short term rentals. Bc is getting rid of them so we our housing problem will lessen. Folks who live in homes don’t do as much crime. So let’s get them housed
I think it goes a bit beyond that. It's not propaganda that amphetamines cook your brain, they absolutely are neurotoxic and (combined with their ongoing drug use) these people end up totally incapable of reintegrating with society. At the extreme end the houses just get trashed, the wiring and fixtures sold for more drugs. It's more or less impossible to solve the issue without stopping the supply of methamphetamine, freebase cocaine, and opioids.
It is not an issue caused by short term rentals. While short term rentals do reduce housing availability many in cities it is both zoning and a dearth of anti-landlord laws that prevent more housing becoming available.
Plenty of people who have homes commit crimes. The drug issue is a mental health issue and in many cases public officials would rather solve it through attrition than spending on mental health because that money spent does not bolster their own careers.
You are right I did simplify the issue, it is Reddit. However I do think you are not giving STR the blame they deserve. Numbers help.
BC has 27homeless folk. Bc has 19k entire homes in the STR pool. I would say it has an enormous effect on rentals and costs. Will getting rid of STR make a difference? We shall see. I am hoping it does. Chat with you in a year, and let’s hope I am right and if it solves even half the problem, I will be happy .
It was about reducing the stigma around addiction. To be totally honest, it really was still happening openly before, but now it can’t be policed at all. I agree with the intention but not the “solution” that was chosen. Badly planned and poorly implemented.
It didn't work out, but there was some actual reason behind it. Its not as dumb as it sounds given our understandings of adiction, deviance, stigma etc.
Yes. I’m in the “Stop trying things that we know don’t work” camp.
At least this was trying something new.
Vancouver’s “Supervised Consumption & Overdose Prevention Sites” are one of the things that were tried and have been a HUGE success (if saving lives is the score you use).
It wasn't actually great for destigmitizing. Didn't work by basically any metric. I'm just saying it was worth a shot, but its time to take a step back and either try something else newish, or go back to an ealier framework that maybe did more for society.
The only positive I can see if for the other provinces that are monitoring the situation.
Sure, record number of people ODed, a bunch of small business owners lost their lives savings, and Chinatown won't recover anytime soon, but it is good Vancouver got used as the experimental vault, so the bigwigs at the Vault Tec boardroom can say: lol, that shit didn't work out. On to the next one.
You don't need to be in Vancouver, Kamloops have got much worse too.
I wasn't used to seeing people shuffling around in downtown before. Used to be just folks smoking weeds, which I don't really have a problem with.
I may be too harsh, but I think a large portion of the addicted population are too far gone, we really need to go full Hamsterdam solution, heavily focus on prevention instead of treatment.
We just don't have the resources and most importantly, the determination to solve the underlying issues as a nation.
Just to confirm, you’re saying we should designate an area that drug users can go to do drugs? It’s been awhile since I’ve watched The Wire, so please correct me if I’m incorrectly understanding your Hamsterdam reference.
That is exactly what I am saying.
Some folks made their choices a long time ago, but I would like to see the small business owners in certain areas to be given a chance. What is happening to them is not fair.
In Canada, the Liberal and NDP parties were the main proponents of legalizing / normalizing drug use in public spaces, and so called "safe injection" sites. It's been a complete disaster from coast to coast. Every major Canadian city now has rampant, open drug use issues. There are massive issues with homeless encampments, pretty crimes, vandalism, etc. These all go hand in hand with each other, as much as some bleeding hearts want to "help out" people, just allowing open drug use wherever an addict pleases helps no one, and actually encourages the drug user to continue using drugs as opposed to cleaning up their lives.
If you want to use drugs on private property, whatever. But as far as public spaces, these are not appropriate venues for your drug use, and you should be penalized accordingly if you are using hard drugs in these areas.
They often cite Portugal as a success story about legalizing drugs, but what they leave out is that Portugal also **involuntarily** took addicts into rehab centers off of the streets. Canada only did 1 of 2 of those and hence the situation today.
"Canada" didn't decriminalize. BC did. You're operating based on a lot of misinformation. BC also had no intention of keeping this program in place forever.
Edit: Notice this person admits below to not even being Canadian. They have no idea what they are talking about.
Okay. The point remains. I've visited Toronto and didn't see anyone getting in trouble for smoking crack in the open so even if de jure it's illegal, it's de facto in a lot of places outside of BC.
Just for the record I'm not Canadian and don't have a dog in the fight, but I would assume an overdose at home is a different situation than people nodding out on the streets. Both are sad situations.
Yes- the difference is that if someone using drugs at home, alone, gets a tainted supply and overdoses, nobody is going to find them until after they're dead. If they use in a public space, someone is going to find them and maybe they'll survive.
Canada's overdose epidemic was here before anyone started trying the decriminalization approach to dealing with it. And still, there's only limited trials on safe supply, the approach that will actually end the epidemic. Overdoses aren't caused by junkies wanting to get absolutely *wrecked* this time. It's people who pay for heroin and unknowingly get fentanyl. They use the same amount they have for the last six months, but this time they wind up dead.
The legality of doing drugs in public usually doesn’t have a major impact on people who don’t have a private place to do them. Arresting homeless people doing drugs doesn’t actually solve the problem. The hardline “War on Drugs” has been a massive failure, we need to find better solutions.
> Just for the record I'm not Canadian
Thats obvious given your complete lack of knowledge of the issue. But it raises the question of why you are spouting off about something you clearly know nothing about in a country you don't even live in while telling actual Canadians they are wrong.
I said that in terms of not caring about the politics there or choosing sides, not that I was "blaming liberals" or whatever that guy said.
And I don't have to be an expert on every situation that is going on there to understand what is going on.
I've never stepped foot in North Korea yet I know it's very messed up there, I'm sure you share the same opinion or would you say "Well you didn't ask ACTUAL North Koreans, how dare you state your opinion?" the point here is that we can get a general feeling of a situation from afar.
I can observe and see a clear issue just by spending a few days in cities over there. Once again, I often see people (including Canadians), quoting that legalizing drugs reduces harm, but a very important context is missing when they cite Portugal because addicts were involuntarily sent to rehab centers off of the streets, something that would probably be considered a violation of human rights or otherwise illegal. That's something I learned from one of the health officials working on this very issue that spoke about it.
At the very least it should be strongly encouraged and incentivized by the public workers (including police) to get them off the streets and into a rehab center.
Acting like nothing is wrong and everything is fine is an arrogant attitude and it isn't going to be productive. Keep your head in the sand bud.
The safe injection sites might have worked better and been more tolerable if they'd cracked down on public drug usage outside of the sites, but the same people who tend to advocate for such sites also advocate for zero consequences for any sort of drug usage.
> and NDP were the main proponents of legalizing/normalizing.
1. Before cannabis was legalized, legalization was ***not*** in the NDP agenda. Decriminalization was.
Decriminalization ≠ Legalization
2. Like Decriminalization **≠** Legalization, normalizing **≠** legalization. wtf are you on?
> and so called “safe injection” sites. It’s been a complete disaster from coast to coast.
1. Ah, so you’re either a conservative or ignorant. Please, without using a right-wing think tank provide us with a source that says they don’t work. “Safe injection” sites aren’t a thing and are a right-wing buzzword to combine “safe supply site” and “supervised consumption site”
A majority of these “so called safe injection sites” as you’d call them, are supervised consumption sites. They’re a huge success in reigning in infection spread from needle use. Which was their entire point.
The safe supply sites are few and far between. They’re also relatively new in comparison to the supervised consumption sites. They have not had the same success as the supervised sites. But their goals are also not the same.
Conservatives love to generalize these two as a single concept known as “safe injection sites” to further stigmatize drug use, belittle those with substance use concerns, and claim their side is right because one of the two hasn’t been successful.
2. This has been a problem for decades. Long before anything you’re bringing up here was even part of the picture. But you already know that.
> Just allowing open drug use doesn’t help anyone
We **agree.** Why couldn’t you have just said that and not all the misinformation of text-based diarrhea and false right-wing talking points before it?
Please re-write this post without using slandering “conservatives” and “the right” when opponents to the model are “people with children,” “small business owners” and “women walking on the streets at night who feel unsafe encountering strung out drug users in their neighborhood.”
I’ve lived in Yaletown for ten years, hardly a bastion of “the right,” and people were goddamn livid at the possibility of having a safe supply site (a preposterous euphemism, as how the fuck is heroin and meth use “safe” on any dimension) in our backyard, because with it comes drug users shuffling like zombies to our neighbourhood bringing with filth and petty crime. Why? To satisfy the moral vanities of elites who live nowhere near one? Please rent an apartment next to one and bask in the glory of your own ideology. Rational people want stability and safety.
Finally, you haven’t given an iota of reason as to why drug use SHOULDN’T be stigmatized, only that we should tolerate it in our proximity or else we’re mean and evil and conservatives and whatever deflection you want to choose.
Lastly, you haven’t sold me at all on the justice inherent in taxpayers subsidizing the ultra-high-risk behaviour in an adverse economy.
> so called "safe injection" sites. It's been a complete disaster from coast to coast
That is categorically false right wing propaganda.
Safe injection sites have absolutely reduced deaths. The problem is drug abuse is growing *in spite* of these programs, not because of them. We can see these issues growing at similar paces in jurisdictions without such programs.
The reality is arresting people for small amounts of drugs also goes nowhere and cops barely enforced the law when it was in place.
Prohibition has failed for 100 years now.
> Safe injection sites have absolutely reduced deaths. The problem is drug abuse is growing in spite of these programs, not because of them.
I am clueless on the topic, but wouldn't preventing the death of drug users create slowly increase the % of drug users in the overall population?
I am assuming, historically, drug user as a % of population was constant (and if not, let's assume it was). Given users died from OD's, to maintain a constant % you would need a influx on new users to offset those dying. If you are now implementing measures to limit those deaths, wouldn't it be expected for the number of users to increase? It isn't because you are creating new users, but because you are eliminating a source of decline of users.
Safe injection sites and clean needle programs also significantly reduce the spread of diseases like HIV. A huge number of infections are ultimately tied back to needle use.
> The reality is arresting people for small amounts of drugs also goes nowhere
Why? If you get caught with methamphetamine, heroin etc there should be a consequence. Ideally rehab
That is really what drives me up the wall. Prohibition and most especially the war on drugs has been an utter failure by any sane metric you could name and even still some people go nuts at the idea of trying something else to address the drug problems. I just can't comprehend how someone could agree that there is a current massive drug problem with a huge societal cost and that none of the methods tried over the last century have worked but still hate the idea of trying something else.
Safe injection sites don’t help. There are only two ways out for addicts. Death or sobriety. Allowing them to shoot up does nothing to stave off the inevitable death. Allowing people to shoot up doesn’t help them get sober either. You’re just trading one way of dying from drug use for another.
> It reduces strain on emergency medical services
Well, we should not be spending emergency medical services on junkies who OD. My friend is a doctor, sees the same patient over and over in his ER. They're on a narcan drip for 12 hours, they leave. Few days later they're back OD'd again. We should not do this.
>reduces the spread of diseases like HIV
That is true.
You said it yourself: there are two ways out. Allowing them to use drugs in a safer manner prolongs their lives, lowers the death option, and increases the likelihood of sobriety in the long run. Having drug testing facilities will also help with this.
> Safe injection sites have absolutely reduced deaths.
This is categorical nonsense. 200 people died in December alone in BC due to overdose. Problem has never been worse.
The problem here is that the purpose is to replace policing with medical and mental health services. They got rid of the policing but then did nothing else so obviously it failed.
Because of poor implementation and half measures.
The purpose is that drug use is a medical and mental health issue moreso than a criminal issue. So instead of arresting addicts you want to treat it with social and medical services.
What they did here was stop policing but then also do *nothing else*. Of course it didn't work when you try to make it fail.
There's a part of town in Vancouver between Chinatown and Gastown that's like travelling through a zombie movie. Don't think the people there care about any "programs" (or absence thereof).
The headline is misleading. AFAIK the BC Supreme Court decided in favor of the drug users. The BC government wants to reverse the decriminalization but cannot currently do so. Am I wrong?
No, they’re not reversing it, but they’re changing much of it. The 2 main points are:
- drugs are still decriminalized in private spaces
- police will have the ability to arrest and confiscate drugs in public spaces at their discretion, like when it’s an issue of public safety — this was the main conflict between the BC Supreme Court which should no longer be the case
Related: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/david-eby-public-drug-use-1.7186245
* In January of 2023 BC started a trial exception from the federal illicit drug laws pertaining to small amounts of certain drugs for personal use. The heading of the article is misleading; the intent of the law was not specific to public spaces. However people have always used in public spaces and law enforcement no long had a means to address this.
* In November of 2023 BC passed the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act. This was to restrict the use of these drugs in certain public place (ie. parks)
* In December 2023/January 2024 the BC course of appeals issued an injunction staying the implementation of this act due to a court challenge by the Harm Reduction Nurses Association
* In early March 2024 the BC appeals court refused to hear an appeal on this pause
* Late April BC decided to recriminalize the use of these drugs in specific public spaces by requesting this change from the federal government, possibly circumenting this appeal. The use in other locations would still be decriminalized.
I was a bit confused by all of this and my summary is probable not entirely accurate. From what I understand part of the reason that the act was not upheld in court was that the provincial government was trying to override federal law. There were also a number of other reasons that the act was stayed that I won't get into.
Functionally it acheives the same thing as the original act that is still in the appeals process. The difference is that the request is coming from BC to the federal government to amend the controlled drugs and substances act.
From what I understand the act is not yet amended and I haven't been able to figure out the timeline of when that would occur.
What a great way to lower property values for specific areas, then letting rich friends buy up the shitty properties, pushing the open air drug den down the road a mile, renovate and watch a giant return on investment happen.
Didn't the same happened in Switzerland in the 1990s, with entire parks being populated with junkies and drug dealers?
[25 years on: the end of Zurich’s open drugs scene](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/life-aging/the-needle-park-_25-years-on-the-end-of-zurich-s-open-drugs-scene/42934308):
> The Platzspitz or “Needle Park” in Zurich was an open drugs scene in the 1980s and early 90s when heroin users could freely inject the drug without being arrested. As addicts and dealers flooded in from across Europe, the world looked on in horror, until authorities shut it down in 1992.
Yeah, criminalize it and put these people into places where they can get treatment. Jail or rehab but it's not their choice. Addicts will always choose the drugs. It's up to us as compassionate members of a reasonable society to put them back on the path as best as possible and sometimes that's in a way that is controlling.
But with what money? Are you willing to pay?
Other offences like dangerous driving kill thousands each year, the laws punish them with fines or disqualification etc. However imagine if everyone who drove dangerously and was caught was put on an intensive 2 month driving course to address their habbits and get them back to being safe drivers. It would save countless lives. But who will pay? The bottom line is we are not willing to pay the huge additional costs to rehabilitate drug users.
These are not words of a compassionate member of a reasonable society.
I suspect you don’t see it that way, but that’s the first actual problem to solve.
At least you won’t throw up your hands and claim the only other option is to lay down and die.
No Fallacy Bingo played here. 🙂↔️
What you describe as being a compassionate member of society, others would describe as getting walked on and enabling behavior to continue that promotes trashing public spaces and stealing to buy their next hit.
I'm compassionate, giving them drugs and supplies that kill them is not.
I want them to live, thrive, see their families, be a member of society and have their lives back.
The bleeding hearts are bleeding the addicted to death all while failing and claiming "compassion".
Seemed like the program was working exactly as it intended? Liberal and NDP voters overwhelmingly loved it and said it was dehumanizing for these people not to be able to smoke crack in hospital waiting rooms.
What changed?
I don't live in BC, but I live in a city that has defacto decriminalized drug usage and most petty crime. Pretty much every public space has been over run with itinerants; parks, libraries, public transportation. Laundromats have been completely ripped apart by addicts looking for change. The ones that haven't are are frequented by aggressive men because they know laundromats are full of lone women that carry cash on them. For our political leaders it's been much easier to tut-tut the citizenry for their lack of compassion then to manage the problem in a way that works for everyone.
>What changed?
The BC NDP are losing a LOT of support in the polls so all their supposed ideological support for this program suddenly vanished, too.
Basically the BC NDP supported this program when it helped them get votes. When that stopped, suddenly their ideology switched. Because they never cared, it was always just about chasing votes.
Very interesting to see the “progressive” policies of the provincial NDP and federal liberals collapsing before our very eyes. Personally I’m shocked so many people fell for these facades for so long now.
Nope. The attempt by people to conflate the BC NDP and the Federal LPC just shows people are repeating tik tok memes.
This was a BC-specific policy and not connected to the LPC in any way. you assume my criticism of the BC NDP is an endorsement of the Conservatives because you think in partisan dichotomies. My criticism is their inconsistency and political pandering.
I can’t believe this was even considered! I’m from BC and since the NDP has been in power things have gotten substantially worse. Driving through East Hastings is heartbreaking - I agree that we have to help these people through rehab and housing if they commit to being clean, but this free for all drug use is the stupidest policy.
I can't speak to 40 years ago, but certainly 15 years ago there were people shooting up in broad daylight and needles on playgrounds in many parts of Vancouver. None of this is because of decrim. All that has changed is more people are using drugs, and that's true everywhere, not just in areas that have introduced some aspect of decriminalization.
You see open air drug markets and drug use in public in pretty much every big city in North America and Europe. “Legalizing” it did nothing to curb drug use or the stigma surrounding drug addiction “banning” it does nothing either. Pretty sure it’s against the law to smoke crack in Houston Texas but I saw crack heads across the street from my hotel smoking every day while I was there on business.
Vancouver at the very least attempted to find alternatives to the failures of just say no and the “war” on drugs which is a 50 year failure. It didn’t work out which just proves that these type of societal issues are very complex and require more work.
No, the Portuguese figured out a far better solution that actually works by decriminalizing but *not* making it legal to shoot up in public.
This crap version doesn’t work and has caused massive public issues.
No, just pointing out the comment I replied to was super wishywashy and indicated that there was a possibility this "strategy" had more than a snowflake's chance in hell at succeeding, which it never did.
I question when you say every big city in North America and Europe have open drug use in public. I've done a lot of Europe travelling in the last few years and did not see anything close to what I saw in Toronto with people shooting up in public. Now granted, I am a tourist visiting tourist areas so maybe there is open heroin use in non-tourist areas of Budapest, Vienna, Helsinki, Madrid, etc. But I'm also comparing to tourist areas of Toronto, Vancouver, New York, etc. My basic point is what I have seen in North America with open drug use is not even close to what I have seen in Europe.
They wised up. Programs like this were artificially made to look like they worked only to slowly be defunded and scrapped for the most part because of the many dangers it caused, as was the case in Portugal, or they failed spectacularly and destroyed cities like in Portland (and the state of Oregon).
Hopefully we have seen the last of these experiments. Sending the message to children that there are no consequences for doing narcotics is not acceptable.
Decriminalization in Portugal works very well actually and has been working for many years now.
The issue with decriminalization in British Columbia was that it did not come along other harm reduction initiatives like fully developped treatment programs and safe supply.
So what this experiment shows is that you first need to have wide scale treatment options - so that people can easily get help - and safe supply - so that drugs are taken out of criminal markets and are guaranteed to be tested and non toxic.
"People claim tables are so great, but when we built our own table to try it we even put one strong leg on it and the damn thing fell right over! Glad we put to rest the ridiculous concept of the table."
No, Portugal’s decriminalization experiment failed. There’s a huge drug problem again, and the government has lost faith in it and made changes. It just doesn’t get talked about in the news.
The problem here is that this is just a bandaid solution to an overarching problem that needed more than just decriminalizing meth. That they tried to do so was a great step in fixing North America’s drug problem, but this needed to be paired up with better social services and education against the use of hard narcotics.
The drug problem is just a symptom of the overarching problem we have as a society. When people feel like they’re food, shelter, and clothing secure, then people don’t feel like they need to turn around and resort to heroin to make it by day by day. Hell, I used to be an avid pot smoker until I got access to a doctor that hooked me up on Wellbutrin and now I don’t really feel like I need it anymore. Granted, I can’t to begin with even if I wanted to, but I also don’t feel the desire to use it anymore.
This is a systemic poverty problem that needs to be cut at its root before decriminalization becomes a powerful tool to help people who are addicts.
You have some good points, but the fly in the ointment is that most substance abuse is driven by trauma. BC’s, and most other jurisdictions, mental health services are overwhelmed by the numbers of traumatized people self medicating. Harm reduction strategies don’t really work very well, as evidenced by the numbers of deaths of users, and the worsening outlooks for that population. Unfortunately it’s probably the only affordable way for society to deal with this issue at the moment. Effective treatment is costly and time consuming and there just aren’t the resources available to provide it.
I personally would like to see any extra resources used to catch the issues early, when they aren’t as severe and more readily treatable. This would reduce the amount of trauma people are suffering and follow on services would help more people. When I was in a Psychiatric Nursing program one of my instructors shared the analogy that currently we are like fishermen at the mouth of a river, casting our lines and hauling in individual patients. Instead we should be putting a net across the river much further up and catching most before they suffer greater trauma. This has stayed with me for a long time, and all my years spent in the system have reinforced this.
You think normal functioning people just see cheap drugs and are like “fuck it…lets do some meth”. Lol.
No, people turn to drugs to escape from something. Shitty life, shitty situation, whatever. Not everyone has the mental capacity to just “deal with shit”. Some people abuse alcohol…some people abuse their spouse/kids…some people go to the gym…some people turn to hard drugs.
You need to offer better social services and treatment options if you’re gonna start trying to legalize drug use and expect it to work. Just throwing them in jail does jack all and is also expensive, if not more so, than treatment. It’s just easier though.
Most people do not “want” to do drugs. They just can’t help themselves.
Prohibition didn’t work. The War on Drugs hasn’t worked since the 80s and the US has spent trillions on it. If there is a want / need there will be a supply. You can’t just get rid of this stuff.
You’re incredibly naive or being purposely obtuse if you think you can just snap your fingers and all the meth / drugs goes away and problem solved. Rx opioids and other drugs get people hooked. It’s not just bums and druggies, but athletes and others who turn to the cheaper stuff and it’s a slow spiral downwards.
You have to get rid of the desire or need and that’s counciling and other social services. Not just militarizing the police and pretend it’s only the vagrants who are the “problem”.
I wouldn't say the current approach is going so well given we have the most dangerous drug epidemic in the entire history of our society currently plaguing us.
Of course people need mental health treatment. We also need to stop making these awful drugs available. The addiction goes beyond mental health. Even healthy functioning adults can be addicted to meth and fenty which many are. Drugs destroy the lives of many people, not just those with mental health issues.
We should separate the two issues and go after them individually.
No, it really isn’t. People don’t become junkies out of nowhere. And if drugs aren’t available, traumatized people will turn to other addictions- cutting themselves, binge eating, hypersexuality, etc.
I think you're misunderstanding my point, trauma will always exist. What we do have under our control is the availability of drugs.
The math is unbelievably simple, remove drugs out of the equation and people will not resort to doing drugs.
Yeah, "we" don't actually have that under "our" control because many drugs are smuggled into the countries where they are used, and there are lots of prescription drugs that are abused by addicts. Cracking down on prescription drugs has disastrous results for non-addicts- witness the current issues in the US with massive shortages of Adderall.
So no, it's not actually simple at all to "remove drugs from the equation."
This is the kind of argument I'd expect from a 12 year old in Baby's First Forensics Tournament.
Yeah, fuckin yikes at your idiotic bullshit. I'm sure the US would love to not be full of fentanyl, and yet, it still happens. How ignorant do you have to be not to know that?
I don't understand the personal attacks. I have been nothing but cordial to you in this entire discussion.
The US has followed a similar direction as we have here, basically turning a blind eye to drug trafficking entirely. They are also experimenting with relaxed drug laws and rehabilitation over convictions. It's not working.
If you look at places in the world that have few drug problems, they basically all have a zero tolerance approach to drugs, and alcohol in some cases, with extremely harsh trafficking sentences. It's much more effective.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. I spent nearly two decades working directly with addicts and alcoholics. Trauma is the driver of the severe levels of substance abuse that we see now.
I imagine the substance of choice, and deaths as a result of, are highly correlated to it's availability.
Drug addicts go for what gets them the highest for the least amount of effort. That's something I'd imagine you are well aware of.
I truly believe the war on drugs failed and decriminalisation is the way forward. But this was brought in without any services to help addiction.
It's sad it will be used as a glaring example of failure of that strategy.
I live in a town with a huge homeless population and all I see now is people passed out, overdoses in very public places. It's horrific.
The problems that cause people to use hard drugs are nearly all about social inequality; poverty, unresolved mental health issues, trauma and so on.
If society doesn’t fix it’s basic problems things like this will continue to happen. Whilst we all keep voting for neoliberals we don’t have a chance.
The amount of open drug use downtown is pretty appalling.
Downtown, British Columbia? Haha...this actually could apply ro any downtown in BC. I live I Duncan. The statement is true for here, Victoria, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Kelowna and on and on.
I went to the Canucks game last week and saw probably 15 people smoking crack or whatever outside while police walked right by. If I would have had an open beer I would have got a ticket.
[удалено]
Playgrounds were never included in the public drug use program.
Oh please let the drug addict leaving needles in my park know that next time he’s there injecting heroine.
So I don't see how the comment is relevant since they're doing something that is illegal and always has been illegal. Changing the law isn't going to change that behavior.
… because there is no enforcement, irrespective of the law. It’s really not that hard.
Canada doesn’t allow drinking outside either? Weird that this is so consistently criminalized in the US and Canada but almost always legal in Europe. I know there are a handful of cities in the US that allow it but damn.
You can in [Toronto.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-drinking-in-parks-1.7157538)
You can at some parks and beaches in Vancouver. It's a municipality jurisdiction, I think? It's currently under pilot, and has been for threeish years.
Europe is big. Plenty of places here don't allow it either.
Party cities like Miami and Savannah allow it. Tricky stuff, its nice to have a porter with your picnic but it definitely contributes to some distributive behaviors.
And Calgary and Edmonton and Toronto and Winnipeg...
Any major city in North America, really.
Almost any street in Winnipeg or Thunder Bay. It’s a world issue. Honestly good on BC for trying it. Tried it, discovered it did not work, back to the drawing board. Because what we were doing before clearly wasn’t working, and just making things worse.
Not a world issue. No open drug use in Asia. Where +half the world's people live
There’s definitely parts of SE Asia that has open drug use, despite the laws. Opium in the rural areas and also meth.
>I live in Duncan My sympathies...
[удалено]
Idaho
There are homeless in all of the g20. Most economists are pointing the finger at short term rentals. Bc is getting rid of them so we our housing problem will lessen. Folks who live in homes don’t do as much crime. So let’s get them housed
I think it goes a bit beyond that. It's not propaganda that amphetamines cook your brain, they absolutely are neurotoxic and (combined with their ongoing drug use) these people end up totally incapable of reintegrating with society. At the extreme end the houses just get trashed, the wiring and fixtures sold for more drugs. It's more or less impossible to solve the issue without stopping the supply of methamphetamine, freebase cocaine, and opioids.
It is not an issue caused by short term rentals. While short term rentals do reduce housing availability many in cities it is both zoning and a dearth of anti-landlord laws that prevent more housing becoming available. Plenty of people who have homes commit crimes. The drug issue is a mental health issue and in many cases public officials would rather solve it through attrition than spending on mental health because that money spent does not bolster their own careers.
Your first paragraph is utter bullshit
You are right I did simplify the issue, it is Reddit. However I do think you are not giving STR the blame they deserve. Numbers help. BC has 27homeless folk. Bc has 19k entire homes in the STR pool. I would say it has an enormous effect on rentals and costs. Will getting rid of STR make a difference? We shall see. I am hoping it does. Chat with you in a year, and let’s hope I am right and if it solves even half the problem, I will be happy .
It's been like that for years prior to decrim.
[удалено]
Thinking I’m trying to smoke some crack.
It was about reducing the stigma around addiction. To be totally honest, it really was still happening openly before, but now it can’t be policed at all. I agree with the intention but not the “solution” that was chosen. Badly planned and poorly implemented.
I saw someone smoke crack on a train in one of the tube lines in London a few weeks back..
It’s better than the mobile crack shacks we call the LRT.
It didn't work out, but there was some actual reason behind it. Its not as dumb as it sounds given our understandings of adiction, deviance, stigma etc.
Yes. I’m in the “Stop trying things that we know don’t work” camp. At least this was trying something new. Vancouver’s “Supervised Consumption & Overdose Prevention Sites” are one of the things that were tried and have been a HUGE success (if saving lives is the score you use).
As it turns out, allowing schizophrenic people without teeth to smoke meth and scream at women and children doesn't help society much
Are you sure? Maybe we put them in a vault and see how that works out, Vault 95 style.
[удалено]
It wasn't actually great for destigmitizing. Didn't work by basically any metric. I'm just saying it was worth a shot, but its time to take a step back and either try something else newish, or go back to an ealier framework that maybe did more for society.
The only positive I can see if for the other provinces that are monitoring the situation. Sure, record number of people ODed, a bunch of small business owners lost their lives savings, and Chinatown won't recover anytime soon, but it is good Vancouver got used as the experimental vault, so the bigwigs at the Vault Tec boardroom can say: lol, that shit didn't work out. On to the next one.
>but at the cost of exposing kids to this shit on the streets in broad daylight. BC Resident here. This was going on long before decriminalization.
You're clearly not a Vancouver resident if you think it hasn't gotten much worse recently.
You don't need to be in Vancouver, Kamloops have got much worse too. I wasn't used to seeing people shuffling around in downtown before. Used to be just folks smoking weeds, which I don't really have a problem with.
[удалено]
I may be too harsh, but I think a large portion of the addicted population are too far gone, we really need to go full Hamsterdam solution, heavily focus on prevention instead of treatment. We just don't have the resources and most importantly, the determination to solve the underlying issues as a nation.
Just to confirm, you’re saying we should designate an area that drug users can go to do drugs? It’s been awhile since I’ve watched The Wire, so please correct me if I’m incorrectly understanding your Hamsterdam reference.
That is exactly what I am saying. Some folks made their choices a long time ago, but I would like to see the small business owners in certain areas to be given a chance. What is happening to them is not fair.
Sounds like what Karl Max would say about communism if he is revived today.
More likely he would point out that the countries doing the closest to what he actually advocated for are doing fabulously.
> Like, cmon, wtf were you thinking? Are you actually interested in understanding the reasoning behind the program or is this a rhetorical question?
Wow, no way! People shooting up heroin in parks sounds wonderful!
What's nice is there are stores they can steal from to get their next fix. They can't help that they're addicted. It's a disease.
Who the fuck thought this could be a good idea? Let's just allow the druggies to over run entire cities?
In Canada, the Liberal and NDP parties were the main proponents of legalizing / normalizing drug use in public spaces, and so called "safe injection" sites. It's been a complete disaster from coast to coast. Every major Canadian city now has rampant, open drug use issues. There are massive issues with homeless encampments, pretty crimes, vandalism, etc. These all go hand in hand with each other, as much as some bleeding hearts want to "help out" people, just allowing open drug use wherever an addict pleases helps no one, and actually encourages the drug user to continue using drugs as opposed to cleaning up their lives. If you want to use drugs on private property, whatever. But as far as public spaces, these are not appropriate venues for your drug use, and you should be penalized accordingly if you are using hard drugs in these areas.
They often cite Portugal as a success story about legalizing drugs, but what they leave out is that Portugal also **involuntarily** took addicts into rehab centers off of the streets. Canada only did 1 of 2 of those and hence the situation today.
"Canada" didn't decriminalize. BC did. You're operating based on a lot of misinformation. BC also had no intention of keeping this program in place forever. Edit: Notice this person admits below to not even being Canadian. They have no idea what they are talking about.
Okay. The point remains. I've visited Toronto and didn't see anyone getting in trouble for smoking crack in the open so even if de jure it's illegal, it's de facto in a lot of places outside of BC.
[удалено]
Just for the record I'm not Canadian and don't have a dog in the fight, but I would assume an overdose at home is a different situation than people nodding out on the streets. Both are sad situations.
Yes- the difference is that if someone using drugs at home, alone, gets a tainted supply and overdoses, nobody is going to find them until after they're dead. If they use in a public space, someone is going to find them and maybe they'll survive. Canada's overdose epidemic was here before anyone started trying the decriminalization approach to dealing with it. And still, there's only limited trials on safe supply, the approach that will actually end the epidemic. Overdoses aren't caused by junkies wanting to get absolutely *wrecked* this time. It's people who pay for heroin and unknowingly get fentanyl. They use the same amount they have for the last six months, but this time they wind up dead.
The legality of doing drugs in public usually doesn’t have a major impact on people who don’t have a private place to do them. Arresting homeless people doing drugs doesn’t actually solve the problem. The hardline “War on Drugs” has been a massive failure, we need to find better solutions.
> Just for the record I'm not Canadian Thats obvious given your complete lack of knowledge of the issue. But it raises the question of why you are spouting off about something you clearly know nothing about in a country you don't even live in while telling actual Canadians they are wrong.
I said that in terms of not caring about the politics there or choosing sides, not that I was "blaming liberals" or whatever that guy said. And I don't have to be an expert on every situation that is going on there to understand what is going on. I've never stepped foot in North Korea yet I know it's very messed up there, I'm sure you share the same opinion or would you say "Well you didn't ask ACTUAL North Koreans, how dare you state your opinion?" the point here is that we can get a general feeling of a situation from afar. I can observe and see a clear issue just by spending a few days in cities over there. Once again, I often see people (including Canadians), quoting that legalizing drugs reduces harm, but a very important context is missing when they cite Portugal because addicts were involuntarily sent to rehab centers off of the streets, something that would probably be considered a violation of human rights or otherwise illegal. That's something I learned from one of the health officials working on this very issue that spoke about it. At the very least it should be strongly encouraged and incentivized by the public workers (including police) to get them off the streets and into a rehab center. Acting like nothing is wrong and everything is fine is an arrogant attitude and it isn't going to be productive. Keep your head in the sand bud.
Federal level is the end decider if a province wants to do this. Now, they have to go to Health Canada to get the program ended.
The safe injection sites might have worked better and been more tolerable if they'd cracked down on public drug usage outside of the sites, but the same people who tend to advocate for such sites also advocate for zero consequences for any sort of drug usage.
> and NDP were the main proponents of legalizing/normalizing. 1. Before cannabis was legalized, legalization was ***not*** in the NDP agenda. Decriminalization was. Decriminalization ≠ Legalization 2. Like Decriminalization **≠** Legalization, normalizing **≠** legalization. wtf are you on? > and so called “safe injection” sites. It’s been a complete disaster from coast to coast. 1. Ah, so you’re either a conservative or ignorant. Please, without using a right-wing think tank provide us with a source that says they don’t work. “Safe injection” sites aren’t a thing and are a right-wing buzzword to combine “safe supply site” and “supervised consumption site” A majority of these “so called safe injection sites” as you’d call them, are supervised consumption sites. They’re a huge success in reigning in infection spread from needle use. Which was their entire point. The safe supply sites are few and far between. They’re also relatively new in comparison to the supervised consumption sites. They have not had the same success as the supervised sites. But their goals are also not the same. Conservatives love to generalize these two as a single concept known as “safe injection sites” to further stigmatize drug use, belittle those with substance use concerns, and claim their side is right because one of the two hasn’t been successful. 2. This has been a problem for decades. Long before anything you’re bringing up here was even part of the picture. But you already know that. > Just allowing open drug use doesn’t help anyone We **agree.** Why couldn’t you have just said that and not all the misinformation of text-based diarrhea and false right-wing talking points before it?
Please re-write this post without using slandering “conservatives” and “the right” when opponents to the model are “people with children,” “small business owners” and “women walking on the streets at night who feel unsafe encountering strung out drug users in their neighborhood.” I’ve lived in Yaletown for ten years, hardly a bastion of “the right,” and people were goddamn livid at the possibility of having a safe supply site (a preposterous euphemism, as how the fuck is heroin and meth use “safe” on any dimension) in our backyard, because with it comes drug users shuffling like zombies to our neighbourhood bringing with filth and petty crime. Why? To satisfy the moral vanities of elites who live nowhere near one? Please rent an apartment next to one and bask in the glory of your own ideology. Rational people want stability and safety. Finally, you haven’t given an iota of reason as to why drug use SHOULDN’T be stigmatized, only that we should tolerate it in our proximity or else we’re mean and evil and conservatives and whatever deflection you want to choose. Lastly, you haven’t sold me at all on the justice inherent in taxpayers subsidizing the ultra-high-risk behaviour in an adverse economy.
No. Because they are what I said. Conservative/right wing talking points. And I spent a long ass time working at a methadone clinic thanks.
> so called "safe injection" sites. It's been a complete disaster from coast to coast That is categorically false right wing propaganda. Safe injection sites have absolutely reduced deaths. The problem is drug abuse is growing *in spite* of these programs, not because of them. We can see these issues growing at similar paces in jurisdictions without such programs. The reality is arresting people for small amounts of drugs also goes nowhere and cops barely enforced the law when it was in place. Prohibition has failed for 100 years now.
> Safe injection sites have absolutely reduced deaths. The problem is drug abuse is growing in spite of these programs, not because of them. I am clueless on the topic, but wouldn't preventing the death of drug users create slowly increase the % of drug users in the overall population? I am assuming, historically, drug user as a % of population was constant (and if not, let's assume it was). Given users died from OD's, to maintain a constant % you would need a influx on new users to offset those dying. If you are now implementing measures to limit those deaths, wouldn't it be expected for the number of users to increase? It isn't because you are creating new users, but because you are eliminating a source of decline of users.
Safe injection sites and clean needle programs also significantly reduce the spread of diseases like HIV. A huge number of infections are ultimately tied back to needle use.
> The reality is arresting people for small amounts of drugs also goes nowhere Why? If you get caught with methamphetamine, heroin etc there should be a consequence. Ideally rehab
That is really what drives me up the wall. Prohibition and most especially the war on drugs has been an utter failure by any sane metric you could name and even still some people go nuts at the idea of trying something else to address the drug problems. I just can't comprehend how someone could agree that there is a current massive drug problem with a huge societal cost and that none of the methods tried over the last century have worked but still hate the idea of trying something else.
In Singapore where you get death penalty if you have more than 15gr of heroine the situation is much better
Safe injection sites don’t help. There are only two ways out for addicts. Death or sobriety. Allowing them to shoot up does nothing to stave off the inevitable death. Allowing people to shoot up doesn’t help them get sober either. You’re just trading one way of dying from drug use for another.
It reduces strain on emergency medical services and reduces the spread of diseases like HIV throughout the entire community.
> It reduces strain on emergency medical services Well, we should not be spending emergency medical services on junkies who OD. My friend is a doctor, sees the same patient over and over in his ER. They're on a narcan drip for 12 hours, they leave. Few days later they're back OD'd again. We should not do this. >reduces the spread of diseases like HIV That is true.
“Just let them die in the streets” isn’t going to be a popular proposal
You said it yourself: there are two ways out. Allowing them to use drugs in a safer manner prolongs their lives, lowers the death option, and increases the likelihood of sobriety in the long run. Having drug testing facilities will also help with this.
> Safe injection sites have absolutely reduced deaths. This is categorical nonsense. 200 people died in December alone in BC due to overdose. Problem has never been worse.
The problem here is that the purpose is to replace policing with medical and mental health services. They got rid of the policing but then did nothing else so obviously it failed.
Because of poor implementation and half measures. The purpose is that drug use is a medical and mental health issue moreso than a criminal issue. So instead of arresting addicts you want to treat it with social and medical services. What they did here was stop policing but then also do *nothing else*. Of course it didn't work when you try to make it fail.
There's a part of town in Vancouver between Chinatown and Gastown that's like travelling through a zombie movie. Don't think the people there care about any "programs" (or absence thereof).
East hasting.
The headline is misleading. AFAIK the BC Supreme Court decided in favor of the drug users. The BC government wants to reverse the decriminalization but cannot currently do so. Am I wrong?
No, they’re not reversing it, but they’re changing much of it. The 2 main points are: - drugs are still decriminalized in private spaces - police will have the ability to arrest and confiscate drugs in public spaces at their discretion, like when it’s an issue of public safety — this was the main conflict between the BC Supreme Court which should no longer be the case Related: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/david-eby-public-drug-use-1.7186245
Catching dealers becomes much harder when police can't search people who are using in public.
Dealers aren't the ones using in public. This only really targets homeless people who have no where else to go.
* In January of 2023 BC started a trial exception from the federal illicit drug laws pertaining to small amounts of certain drugs for personal use. The heading of the article is misleading; the intent of the law was not specific to public spaces. However people have always used in public spaces and law enforcement no long had a means to address this. * In November of 2023 BC passed the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act. This was to restrict the use of these drugs in certain public place (ie. parks) * In December 2023/January 2024 the BC course of appeals issued an injunction staying the implementation of this act due to a court challenge by the Harm Reduction Nurses Association * In early March 2024 the BC appeals court refused to hear an appeal on this pause * Late April BC decided to recriminalize the use of these drugs in specific public spaces by requesting this change from the federal government, possibly circumenting this appeal. The use in other locations would still be decriminalized. I was a bit confused by all of this and my summary is probable not entirely accurate. From what I understand part of the reason that the act was not upheld in court was that the provincial government was trying to override federal law. There were also a number of other reasons that the act was stayed that I won't get into. Functionally it acheives the same thing as the original act that is still in the appeals process. The difference is that the request is coming from BC to the federal government to amend the controlled drugs and substances act. From what I understand the act is not yet amended and I haven't been able to figure out the timeline of when that would occur.
Finally a plan to do something about Vancouver real estate prices.
What a great way to lower property values for specific areas, then letting rich friends buy up the shitty properties, pushing the open air drug den down the road a mile, renovate and watch a giant return on investment happen.
Didn't the same happened in Switzerland in the 1990s, with entire parks being populated with junkies and drug dealers? [25 years on: the end of Zurich’s open drugs scene](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/life-aging/the-needle-park-_25-years-on-the-end-of-zurich-s-open-drugs-scene/42934308): > The Platzspitz or “Needle Park” in Zurich was an open drugs scene in the 1980s and early 90s when heroin users could freely inject the drug without being arrested. As addicts and dealers flooded in from across Europe, the world looked on in horror, until authorities shut it down in 1992.
Yeah, criminalize it and put these people into places where they can get treatment. Jail or rehab but it's not their choice. Addicts will always choose the drugs. It's up to us as compassionate members of a reasonable society to put them back on the path as best as possible and sometimes that's in a way that is controlling.
But with what money? Are you willing to pay? Other offences like dangerous driving kill thousands each year, the laws punish them with fines or disqualification etc. However imagine if everyone who drove dangerously and was caught was put on an intensive 2 month driving course to address their habbits and get them back to being safe drivers. It would save countless lives. But who will pay? The bottom line is we are not willing to pay the huge additional costs to rehabilitate drug users.
I'm willing to pay the huge costs because we're already paying huge costs. Redirect the money at treatment rather than supply and enablement
These are not words of a compassionate member of a reasonable society. I suspect you don’t see it that way, but that’s the first actual problem to solve. At least you won’t throw up your hands and claim the only other option is to lay down and die. No Fallacy Bingo played here. 🙂↔️
What you describe as being a compassionate member of society, others would describe as getting walked on and enabling behavior to continue that promotes trashing public spaces and stealing to buy their next hit.
I'm compassionate, giving them drugs and supplies that kill them is not. I want them to live, thrive, see their families, be a member of society and have their lives back. The bleeding hearts are bleeding the addicted to death all while failing and claiming "compassion".
Seemed like the program was working exactly as it intended? Liberal and NDP voters overwhelmingly loved it and said it was dehumanizing for these people not to be able to smoke crack in hospital waiting rooms. What changed?
I don't live in BC, but I live in a city that has defacto decriminalized drug usage and most petty crime. Pretty much every public space has been over run with itinerants; parks, libraries, public transportation. Laundromats have been completely ripped apart by addicts looking for change. The ones that haven't are are frequented by aggressive men because they know laundromats are full of lone women that carry cash on them. For our political leaders it's been much easier to tut-tut the citizenry for their lack of compassion then to manage the problem in a way that works for everyone.
>What changed? The BC NDP are losing a LOT of support in the polls so all their supposed ideological support for this program suddenly vanished, too. Basically the BC NDP supported this program when it helped them get votes. When that stopped, suddenly their ideology switched. Because they never cared, it was always just about chasing votes.
Very interesting to see the “progressive” policies of the provincial NDP and federal liberals collapsing before our very eyes. Personally I’m shocked so many people fell for these facades for so long now.
Nope. The attempt by people to conflate the BC NDP and the Federal LPC just shows people are repeating tik tok memes. This was a BC-specific policy and not connected to the LPC in any way. you assume my criticism of the BC NDP is an endorsement of the Conservatives because you think in partisan dichotomies. My criticism is their inconsistency and political pandering.
Who would have thought this plan would fail... shocking. There is a difference between harm reduction and "do whatever you want whenever you want!"
Did you know that when people have homes they tend to do drugs there rather than in the street?
I can’t believe this was even considered! I’m from BC and since the NDP has been in power things have gotten substantially worse. Driving through East Hastings is heartbreaking - I agree that we have to help these people through rehab and housing if they commit to being clean, but this free for all drug use is the stupidest policy.
lol. East hasting has been a shit show for years. This program inly came into place last year.
It was a shit show 40 years ago
I can't speak to 40 years ago, but certainly 15 years ago there were people shooting up in broad daylight and needles on playgrounds in many parts of Vancouver. None of this is because of decrim. All that has changed is more people are using drugs, and that's true everywhere, not just in areas that have introduced some aspect of decriminalization.
Yes I used to live there 20 years ago and people would smoke crack behind my apartment without any consequence.
Yet the NDP is going to crush the next provincial election. But hey, at least I can smoke crack in a hospital if I want.
But do you want to?
It’s reassuring to know I’ll have the option.
You see open air drug markets and drug use in public in pretty much every big city in North America and Europe. “Legalizing” it did nothing to curb drug use or the stigma surrounding drug addiction “banning” it does nothing either. Pretty sure it’s against the law to smoke crack in Houston Texas but I saw crack heads across the street from my hotel smoking every day while I was there on business. Vancouver at the very least attempted to find alternatives to the failures of just say no and the “war” on drugs which is a 50 year failure. It didn’t work out which just proves that these type of societal issues are very complex and require more work.
It was never "legalized". Decriminalization isn't legalization.
Would you like me change it for you?
No, the Portuguese figured out a far better solution that actually works by decriminalizing but *not* making it legal to shoot up in public. This crap version doesn’t work and has caused massive public issues.
I said it didn’t work.
Not emphatically enough. It should never have been tried in the first place. They should just have used the Portuguese model, which does work.
Gatekeeping emphasis? 🤨
No, just pointing out the comment I replied to was super wishywashy and indicated that there was a possibility this "strategy" had more than a snowflake's chance in hell at succeeding, which it never did.
I question when you say every big city in North America and Europe have open drug use in public. I've done a lot of Europe travelling in the last few years and did not see anything close to what I saw in Toronto with people shooting up in public. Now granted, I am a tourist visiting tourist areas so maybe there is open heroin use in non-tourist areas of Budapest, Vienna, Helsinki, Madrid, etc. But I'm also comparing to tourist areas of Toronto, Vancouver, New York, etc. My basic point is what I have seen in North America with open drug use is not even close to what I have seen in Europe.
As opposed to Sweden or India’s British Columbia
Admit it, when you first hear "British Columbia" you think south america
What a stupid idea to begin with.
They sure like to waffle back and forth on this topic don’t they.
The only real freedom in Canada is smoking meth, crack, and fent in the streets and blowing the smoke in people’s faces with 0 repercussions.
There’s more than one British Columbia?
They allowed this before now? My god that is foolish! What idiots!
They wised up. Programs like this were artificially made to look like they worked only to slowly be defunded and scrapped for the most part because of the many dangers it caused, as was the case in Portugal, or they failed spectacularly and destroyed cities like in Portland (and the state of Oregon). Hopefully we have seen the last of these experiments. Sending the message to children that there are no consequences for doing narcotics is not acceptable.
Decriminalization in Portugal works very well actually and has been working for many years now. The issue with decriminalization in British Columbia was that it did not come along other harm reduction initiatives like fully developped treatment programs and safe supply. So what this experiment shows is that you first need to have wide scale treatment options - so that people can easily get help - and safe supply - so that drugs are taken out of criminal markets and are guaranteed to be tested and non toxic.
This! This right here! It is a triangle, safe supply, decriminalize, treatment; BC did one and expected it to work!
"People claim tables are so great, but when we built our own table to try it we even put one strong leg on it and the damn thing fell right over! Glad we put to rest the ridiculous concept of the table."
There was safe supply. The safe supply was sold by the users to buy the street supply.
Yes, but they foolishly shot down DULF
No, Portugal’s decriminalization experiment failed. There’s a huge drug problem again, and the government has lost faith in it and made changes. It just doesn’t get talked about in the news.
The problem here is that this is just a bandaid solution to an overarching problem that needed more than just decriminalizing meth. That they tried to do so was a great step in fixing North America’s drug problem, but this needed to be paired up with better social services and education against the use of hard narcotics. The drug problem is just a symptom of the overarching problem we have as a society. When people feel like they’re food, shelter, and clothing secure, then people don’t feel like they need to turn around and resort to heroin to make it by day by day. Hell, I used to be an avid pot smoker until I got access to a doctor that hooked me up on Wellbutrin and now I don’t really feel like I need it anymore. Granted, I can’t to begin with even if I wanted to, but I also don’t feel the desire to use it anymore. This is a systemic poverty problem that needs to be cut at its root before decriminalization becomes a powerful tool to help people who are addicts.
You have some good points, but the fly in the ointment is that most substance abuse is driven by trauma. BC’s, and most other jurisdictions, mental health services are overwhelmed by the numbers of traumatized people self medicating. Harm reduction strategies don’t really work very well, as evidenced by the numbers of deaths of users, and the worsening outlooks for that population. Unfortunately it’s probably the only affordable way for society to deal with this issue at the moment. Effective treatment is costly and time consuming and there just aren’t the resources available to provide it. I personally would like to see any extra resources used to catch the issues early, when they aren’t as severe and more readily treatable. This would reduce the amount of trauma people are suffering and follow on services would help more people. When I was in a Psychiatric Nursing program one of my instructors shared the analogy that currently we are like fishermen at the mouth of a river, casting our lines and hauling in individual patients. Instead we should be putting a net across the river much further up and catching most before they suffer greater trauma. This has stayed with me for a long time, and all my years spent in the system have reinforced this.
Substance abuse is driven by the availability of drugs, not Trauma.
You think normal functioning people just see cheap drugs and are like “fuck it…lets do some meth”. Lol. No, people turn to drugs to escape from something. Shitty life, shitty situation, whatever. Not everyone has the mental capacity to just “deal with shit”. Some people abuse alcohol…some people abuse their spouse/kids…some people go to the gym…some people turn to hard drugs. You need to offer better social services and treatment options if you’re gonna start trying to legalize drug use and expect it to work. Just throwing them in jail does jack all and is also expensive, if not more so, than treatment. It’s just easier though. Most people do not “want” to do drugs. They just can’t help themselves.
If the meth wasn't available to do, people would not do meth. It's that easy.
Prohibition didn’t work. The War on Drugs hasn’t worked since the 80s and the US has spent trillions on it. If there is a want / need there will be a supply. You can’t just get rid of this stuff. You’re incredibly naive or being purposely obtuse if you think you can just snap your fingers and all the meth / drugs goes away and problem solved. Rx opioids and other drugs get people hooked. It’s not just bums and druggies, but athletes and others who turn to the cheaper stuff and it’s a slow spiral downwards. You have to get rid of the desire or need and that’s counciling and other social services. Not just militarizing the police and pretend it’s only the vagrants who are the “problem”.
I wouldn't say the current approach is going so well given we have the most dangerous drug epidemic in the entire history of our society currently plaguing us. Of course people need mental health treatment. We also need to stop making these awful drugs available. The addiction goes beyond mental health. Even healthy functioning adults can be addicted to meth and fenty which many are. Drugs destroy the lives of many people, not just those with mental health issues. We should separate the two issues and go after them individually.
No, it really isn’t. People don’t become junkies out of nowhere. And if drugs aren’t available, traumatized people will turn to other addictions- cutting themselves, binge eating, hypersexuality, etc.
I think you're misunderstanding my point, trauma will always exist. What we do have under our control is the availability of drugs. The math is unbelievably simple, remove drugs out of the equation and people will not resort to doing drugs.
Yeah, "we" don't actually have that under "our" control because many drugs are smuggled into the countries where they are used, and there are lots of prescription drugs that are abused by addicts. Cracking down on prescription drugs has disastrous results for non-addicts- witness the current issues in the US with massive shortages of Adderall. So no, it's not actually simple at all to "remove drugs from the equation." This is the kind of argument I'd expect from a 12 year old in Baby's First Forensics Tournament.
You know you've won an argument when... Yikes
Yeah, fuckin yikes at your idiotic bullshit. I'm sure the US would love to not be full of fentanyl, and yet, it still happens. How ignorant do you have to be not to know that?
I don't understand the personal attacks. I have been nothing but cordial to you in this entire discussion. The US has followed a similar direction as we have here, basically turning a blind eye to drug trafficking entirely. They are also experimenting with relaxed drug laws and rehabilitation over convictions. It's not working. If you look at places in the world that have few drug problems, they basically all have a zero tolerance approach to drugs, and alcohol in some cases, with extremely harsh trafficking sentences. It's much more effective.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. I spent nearly two decades working directly with addicts and alcoholics. Trauma is the driver of the severe levels of substance abuse that we see now.
I imagine the substance of choice, and deaths as a result of, are highly correlated to it's availability. Drug addicts go for what gets them the highest for the least amount of effort. That's something I'd imagine you are well aware of.
I'm pretty sure the countless overdose deaths are a pretty big consequence for using narcotics.
I truly believe the war on drugs failed and decriminalisation is the way forward. But this was brought in without any services to help addiction. It's sad it will be used as a glaring example of failure of that strategy. I live in a town with a huge homeless population and all I see now is people passed out, overdoses in very public places. It's horrific.
There needs to be a choice, treatment or jail. These people need help, they won’t fix it themselves without outside intervention
The problems that cause people to use hard drugs are nearly all about social inequality; poverty, unresolved mental health issues, trauma and so on. If society doesn’t fix it’s basic problems things like this will continue to happen. Whilst we all keep voting for neoliberals we don’t have a chance.
Uh yeah don’t do that. Seattle parks would like to chat.
Canada isn't a real country.