6 ms·

B.C. to decriminalize small amounts of ‘hard’ drugs – a North American first

34 points by sidedishes 4y ago

empressplay 4y ago
Paywall, please use https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/opioid-crisis-bc-canada-1.6471878 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/opioid-crisis-bc-canada-1.6...
amanaplanacanal 4y ago
The best thing they could do would be to license and regulate distributors so that consumers could buy products of known purity, but they explicitly aren’t doing that.
- humbleMouse 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wbsss4412 4y ago
Measure 110 already did this in Oregon, the headline is factually incorrect. Mexico is also generally considered to be a part of North America, it decriminalized hard drugs years ago.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Koshkin 4y ago
  Curiously, Mexicans do not talk about themselves as "norteamericanos" if I am not mistaken.
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    Yet they are part of NAFTA. Culturally Mexico is in Latin America (though people drastically underestimate how similar Mexican culture is to American culture), physically and economically it is in North America.
oh_sigh 4y ago
2mg is considered a potentially lethal dose[0] of fentanyl. The new law decriminalizes up to 2.5g of it, or enough fentanyl to potentially kill 1200 people. I wouldn't consider that "small amounts". [0] https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/fentanyl_en https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/fent...
- interlock 4y ago
  The intent of specifically including fentanyl is to not criminalize having drugs that have it mixed in. Ideal world, we remove fentanyl from the supply all together, sadly in Vancouver many of the deaths are from contaminated supply. There are general fears of getting drugs tested (its free) so people don't. This will help, but it's not a total solution.
  - acrooks 4y ago
    Based on my understanding, the more recent surge in overdose-related deaths (since March 2020) is less related to contaminated supply and more related to a combination of 1. fentanyl becoming a popular drug-of-choice; 2. fentanyl being incredibly dangerous; 3. availability of COVID-related government support funds. My brother has been an addict for his entire adult life - for the last 20 years. His drug-of-choice started at cocaine, then crack, then heroin, and for the past few years has been exclusively fentanyl. So I have a lot of first-hand information perhaps biasing this point-of-view. There was a big spike in deaths related to contaminated supply between 2015 and 2018 [1] which led to a lot of media coverage [2], which is completely understandable: many ordinary citizens ("normies" as my brother calls us) partaking in recreational drug use lost their lives during this period and so it created a lot of buzz. You see though that there's another big spike starting 2020 [1], particularly starting April 2020 [3], which is not backed up by any growth in media coverage [2], suggesting that it did not have as much of an impact of "normies". And during this same period, there was a additional government assistance money available to addicts, beyond the normal welfare payments, which allowed addicts were able to purchase and use more drugs. Overdose deaths are 50% more likely in the days following receiving government assistance [4]. And this makes sense, when you're flush with cash, you can do more drugs. When you're an addict, you'll do as many drugs as you can. When those drugs are fentanyl, you're constantly teetering with death. My brother claims to use a naloxone kit nearly every day on somebody - all people who are part of the community. And they're used on him very regularly too - even as an experienced addict, he overdoses regularly. In fact, he sometimes does this on purpose, because the high of an overdose is apparently second-to-none. But he says that he only does that when there's somebody else with him who can hit him with naloxone before he dies. This is not uncommon. I know a firefighter at the fire hall: regularly addicts will bash on their door and then immediately shoot up a huge dose, because they know the firefighters will rescue them. That's not at all to say that a contaminated supply isn't the problem now: I'm just not convinced that it's the primary factor in deaths today. [1] Page 3 of https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug.pdf https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marri... [2] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CA&q=fentanyl https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CA&q=f... [3] Page 4 of https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug.pdf https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marri... [4] Page 7 of https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug.pdf https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marri...
retrac 4y ago
I'm not opposed to this. But I also suspect it will do almost nothing to help with the drug overdoses. Bluntly, how is making it legal to possess a fatally contaminated dose of heroin or cocaine supposed to help? > Fear of arrest can keep people who use drugs from seeking help, incarceration is associated with increased overdose risk, and Indigenous and racialized communities are disproportionately impacted. All true, technically. But it's also time to put to rest our stereotype of the overdose victim: a homeless young person, on heroin, living on the street. It's the public face, but not the bulk of the numbers. The median overdose victim is housed, employed, without a criminal record, and in his late 30s. Most people who use drugs, and most people who fatally overdose, never interact with the police over their drug use, at least in Canada. Speaking anecdotally about my larger social circle, fear of legal consequence isn't even on the radar for the guys who like cocaine on the weekend at the bar. Their blasé attitude to the cops is entirely justified. Prosecutions in Vancouver for cocaine possession are at an all-time-low -- only several hundred per year, mostly of people who interacted with the cops for other reasons. Many tens of thousands of people regularly use cocaine in Vancouver and essentially all of them get away with it. And most of them understand this. So, how does decriminalization help there? Of course, there are compelling reasons to decriminalize anyway. For people at the intersection of homelessness, drug addiction, etc., such a change might well save their lives. The law gives the police a tool to, in effect, harass the homeless, and publicly visible addicts, and it is racially skewed in practice. Ending that, is a just cause in itself. But don't confuse that with having a meaningful impact on the OD statistics. Even if every single prosecution of possession could be transmuted into an addiction ended and a life saved (a fantastical proposition) it still wouldn't even halve the current overdose rate.
- stereoabuse 4y ago
  This could be an expanded version of the Good Samaritan Laws[0] with similar intent. The theory is that bystander of an overdose, likely fellow users, will be less wary to call emergency services if they know there is no possibility of catching their own possession charge. This isn't explicit in the article but has been discussed related to American harm reduction policy recommendations. [0] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-248 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-248
- 4y ago
faeriechangling 4y ago
The 2.5 gram limit is pretty stingy. You can't buy an 8 ball without breaking the law.

34 points by sidedishes 4y ago

Paywall, please use https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/opioid-crisis-bc-canada-1.6471878 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/opioid-crisis-bc-canada-1.6...

amanaplanacanal 4y ago

The best thing they could do would be to license and regulate distributors so that consumers could buy products of known purity, but they explicitly aren’t doing that.

humbleMouse 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

wbsss4412 4y ago

Measure 110 already did this in Oregon, the headline is factually incorrect. Mexico is also generally considered to be a part of North America, it decriminalized hard drugs years ago.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Koshkin 4y ago
Curiously, Mexicans do not talk about themselves as "norteamericanos" if I am not mistaken.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  Yet they are part of NAFTA. Culturally Mexico is in Latin America (though people drastically underestimate how similar Mexican culture is to American culture), physically and economically it is in North America.

oh_sigh 4y ago

2mg is considered a potentially lethal dose[0] of fentanyl. The new law decriminalizes up to 2.5g of it, or enough fentanyl to potentially kill 1200 people. I wouldn't consider that "small amounts". [0] https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/fentanyl_en https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/fent...

interlock 4y ago
The intent of specifically including fentanyl is to not criminalize having drugs that have it mixed in. Ideal world, we remove fentanyl from the supply all together, sadly in Vancouver many of the deaths are from contaminated supply. There are general fears of getting drugs tested (its free) so people don't. This will help, but it's not a total solution.
- acrooks 4y ago
  Based on my understanding, the more recent surge in overdose-related deaths (since March 2020) is less related to contaminated supply and more related to a combination of 1. fentanyl becoming a popular drug-of-choice; 2. fentanyl being incredibly dangerous; 3. availability of COVID-related government support funds. My brother has been an addict for his entire adult life - for the last 20 years. His drug-of-choice started at cocaine, then crack, then heroin, and for the past few years has been exclusively fentanyl. So I have a lot of first-hand information perhaps biasing this point-of-view. There was a big spike in deaths related to contaminated supply between 2015 and 2018 [1] which led to a lot of media coverage [2], which is completely understandable: many ordinary citizens ("normies" as my brother calls us) partaking in recreational drug use lost their lives during this period and so it created a lot of buzz. You see though that there's another big spike starting 2020 [1], particularly starting April 2020 [3], which is not backed up by any growth in media coverage [2], suggesting that it did not have as much of an impact of "normies". And during this same period, there was a additional government assistance money available to addicts, beyond the normal welfare payments, which allowed addicts were able to purchase and use more drugs. Overdose deaths are 50% more likely in the days following receiving government assistance [4]. And this makes sense, when you're flush with cash, you can do more drugs. When you're an addict, you'll do as many drugs as you can. When those drugs are fentanyl, you're constantly teetering with death. My brother claims to use a naloxone kit nearly every day on somebody - all people who are part of the community. And they're used on him very regularly too - even as an experienced addict, he overdoses regularly. In fact, he sometimes does this on purpose, because the high of an overdose is apparently second-to-none. But he says that he only does that when there's somebody else with him who can hit him with naloxone before he dies. This is not uncommon. I know a firefighter at the fire hall: regularly addicts will bash on their door and then immediately shoot up a huge dose, because they know the firefighters will rescue them. That's not at all to say that a contaminated supply isn't the problem now: I'm just not convinced that it's the primary factor in deaths today. [1] Page 3 of https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug.pdf https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marri... [2] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CA&q=fentanyl https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CA&q=f... [3] Page 4 of https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug.pdf https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marri... [4] Page 7 of https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug.pdf https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marri...

retrac 4y ago

I'm not opposed to this. But I also suspect it will do almost nothing to help with the drug overdoses. Bluntly, how is making it legal to possess a fatally contaminated dose of heroin or cocaine supposed to help? > Fear of arrest can keep people who use drugs from seeking help, incarceration is associated with increased overdose risk, and Indigenous and racialized communities are disproportionately impacted. All true, technically. But it's also time to put to rest our stereotype of the overdose victim: a homeless young person, on heroin, living on the street. It's the public face, but not the bulk of the numbers. The median overdose victim is housed, employed, without a criminal record, and in his late 30s. Most people who use drugs, and most people who fatally overdose, never interact with the police over their drug use, at least in Canada. Speaking anecdotally about my larger social circle, fear of legal consequence isn't even on the radar for the guys who like cocaine on the weekend at the bar. Their blasé attitude to the cops is entirely justified. Prosecutions in Vancouver for cocaine possession are at an all-time-low -- only several hundred per year, mostly of people who interacted with the cops for other reasons. Many tens of thousands of people regularly use cocaine in Vancouver and essentially all of them get away with it. And most of them understand this. So, how does decriminalization help there? Of course, there are compelling reasons to decriminalize anyway. For people at the intersection of homelessness, drug addiction, etc., such a change might well save their lives. The law gives the police a tool to, in effect, harass the homeless, and publicly visible addicts, and it is racially skewed in practice. Ending that, is a just cause in itself. But don't confuse that with having a meaningful impact on the OD statistics. Even if every single prosecution of possession could be transmuted into an addiction ended and a life saved (a fantastical proposition) it still wouldn't even halve the current overdose rate.

stereoabuse 4y ago
This could be an expanded version of the Good Samaritan Laws[0] with similar intent. The theory is that bystander of an overdose, likely fellow users, will be less wary to call emergency services if they know there is no possibility of catching their own possession charge. This isn't explicit in the article but has been discussed related to American harm reduction policy recommendations. [0] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-248 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-248
4y ago

faeriechangling 4y ago

The 2.5 gram limit is pretty stingy. You can't buy an 8 ball without breaking the law.