13 ms·

Canada trials decriminalising cocaine, MDMA and other drugs

100 points by pmoriarty 4y ago

pmoriarty 4y ago
The problem with decriminalization is that there's no way to legally buy the substances, so organized crime is still involved, and consumers still can't tell whether the substances they buy and use are safe. Legalization would solve both those problems.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Décriminalisation means users can legally get their drugs tested and know they are safe because the infrastructure to do that is now generally legal. It's not clear to me we want, for example, heroin to be freely available. So it seems like a good least worst option.
- version_five 4y ago
  Those problems exist under the current system too. Decriminalization is still a step forward because it undoes much of what makes prohibition bad, such as it moves use out into the open where it becomes less harmful. And it stops police from having a tool they can use to harass the people who they want to harass, and hopefully some day focus on real crimes
- atemerev 4y ago
  In Switzerland, you can visit the specialized centers for drug users, buy pharmaceutical-quality substances, and consume there directly (no outside consumption is allowed). This works, because the interior of the center is very uncool, boring, and it is filled with leaflets on getting help on quitting drugs. This system is amazing, and I can only wonder why it is not implemented everywhere (Switzerland and Portugal are working examples).
- Tiktaalik 4y ago
  Creating a safe supply of drugs that can be prescribed by doctors is def a topic of conversation in BC politics as the ultimate solution to this problem. I would like to think that this decriminalization change is a necessary precursor to this and that we will be moving swiftly to get Doctors on board around prescribing people the drugs they need to get them off the toxic street drugs. I mean presumably Doctors would decline to write a prescription for a drug that is illegal to hold.
- Vladimof 4y ago
  At least they won't fill the jails with users...
epmatsw 4y ago
Kinda wild that MDMA is on the list with those other three (opioids, meth, and coke). Seems firmly in a less harmful tier to me.
- qwerty456127 4y ago
  Arguably single-dose MDMA is less than single-dose coke and equals meth in terms of physical harm. Of course very different story if you consider repeated usage.
  - netizen-936824 4y ago
    What, exactly, is a single dose of each of those substances? What makes them equal pharmacologically?
    - qwerty456127 4y ago
      The dose an ordinary person (not a regular abuser) would take. Coke is not equal (I mean it is arguably zero harm if taken rarely, but pretty addictive and serious harm if taken regularly), MDMA and meth are extremely similar substances chemically (MA=meth) and have similar mechanisms of action. Same harm prevention techniques work great with both. The most important difference is MDMA being harder to abuse than meth is, because a number of reasons. Most of MDMA users take it occasionally for good, most of meth users take it regularly for harm. AFAIK. Obviously there are many exceptions.
      - netizen-936824 4y ago
        I would argue that MDMA and methamphetamine, while slightly similar in chemical structure, have very different mechanisms of action. Methamphetamine, at high enough doses. This is why dose is important, some recreational doses will cause dopamine efflux from the dopamine uptake transporter but MDMA does not do this Doses are incredibly portant when discussing the mechanisms of drugs and comparing them because a compound may interact with new and different proteins when the concentration gets high enough. Recreational doses for methamphetamine and cocaine are all over the place partially due to the fact that you can develop tolerance and increase your dose. This doesn't really happen with MDMA as much, and while you can take repeated doses they will rapidly stop working if taken within a small enough time frame. Methamphetamine and cocaine do not have the same tolerance build up While cocaine is a triple reuptake inhibitor and does interact with serotonin, I don't think its comparable to MDMA
momothereal 4y ago
*Only in British Columbia, which is less than 15% of the population. Also important to note that this has to happen in agreement with both the provincial and federal governments, which is far from guaranteed to succeed in other provinces. See: Alberta. IMO this is a more detailed article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/opioid-crisis-bc-canada-1.6471878 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/opioid-crisis-bc-canada-1.6...
- hbrav 4y ago
  Hang on, I don't think it's true that this had to have provincial agreement for this to happen. The federal government makes criminal law in Canada, not the provinces. But if you're looking to trial this and you have a province that is asking to be allowed to try it, then using the province as the experiment ground is the obvious choice.
  - momothereal 4y ago
    Legally speaking, the federal government can drop all enforcement across the country. Striking those laws would take a parliament vote however. The reason provinces need to agree is because healthcare is under their jurisdiction. Parliament and Health Canada will not impose a drastic shift in drug/addiction management on the provinces without working with their health units. For instance, only the BC government and the Toronto Health Unit have petitioned thus far.
  - acoard 4y ago
    In effect, yes, it does require provincial approval. For one, healthcare is purely the purview of the province. The federal government has no ability to force provinces to treat drug use as a healthcare issue. Secondly, enforcement of laws in BC is a mix of both provincial and federal and this gives the provincial government leeway. In BC, the RCMP is responsible for both provincial and federal enforcement. One of the earlier marijuana legalization efforts in British Columbia, which was supported by mayors and previous provincial ministers, hinged on enforcement. The plan was effectively to order law enforcement to not enforce marijuana laws. The province itself couldn't strike the law, but they could effectively not comply. Admittedly this is a grey area, which theoretically would require the courts to sort out, but in practice it shows some viability of the approach. In general, Canada's governments skews heavily towards provinces rather than federal (unlike the USA which has a very big federal government, most Canadian gov employees are provincial). Provinces have had the upper hand since Confederation and have been unwilling to give up much power. As such, I doubt how much approval the province needs from the federal for an action like this.
alldayeveryday 4y ago
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  People should have a right to do with their minds and bodies whatever they want without interference from others. Keeping drugs illegal harms countless users, who can't be sure the drug they're using isn't cut with something harmful or is what they though they were getting or isn't too pure (all of which are the major causes of overdoses and deaths). Throwing people in jail also harms them and their families (and risks them getting killed or maimed during arrest or while in jail). Jail itself is a training ground for criminals, and many inmates come out more hardened criminals, and they're forced in to committing more crimes because once they've been in jails many legal jobs are closed to them because most companies don't want to hire people with a criminal record. Society also wastes billions of dollars on fighting the War on Drugs, which could be used much more productively, especially as the War on Drugs is so ineffective and actually hurts millions of people world-wide, causes organized crime to thrive, and even destabilizes governments when organized crime gets too powerful and starts corrupting/killing politicians, lawyers, journalists, and judges... etc. Addiction should be treated as a medical issue, not a criminal one.
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    It sounds like you’ve never had to deal with an addict in your close personal circle. I’m glad for you. When addicts cannot find a supply of their chosen drug, they’ll steal from anyone, even those closest to them, to fund their addiction. If they go homeless, you can’t give them money because you can’t trust that they won’t just use it to buy more drugs. This is to ignore the fact that buying most hard drugs directly funds the Mexican drug cartels and the atrocities they commit in many countries. This is also to ignore the terrible and unrecoverable health effects that many drugs have. Have you heard of meth mouth? Meth rots your teeth no matter how much you brush them [0]. It also causes permanent brain damage but I find that the kind of people pushing to legalize meth find losing teeth to be a worse outcome. Jail isn’t the best outcome for inmates, sure, but it’s the cheapest. If you’re a Governor of a US state and your voters see that you took money away from schools, the police, the fire department, or the roads to give to addicts instead, you’re not going to get re-elected. [0] https://www.mouthhealthy.org/en/az-topics/m/meth-mouth https://www.mouthhealthy.org/en/az-topics/m/meth-mouth
belval 4y ago
Coming back from Vacouver, I might be cynical but this is symbolic if anything. I work in downtown and got to see junkies shooting up in broad daylight, the cops weren't arresting them for possession, they just walked by like everyone else. These drugs have been unofficially decrimininalized for years in BC. This doesn't change anything. > The fear of being criminalized has led many people to hide their addiction and use drugs alone. They have literal camps of homeless near Chinatown/Gastown with pockets everywhere else. They don't seem to be shy about their substance abuse.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  Those cops might have walked past those particular users, but that doesn't mean they didn't harass or arrest others. Keeping drugs illegal allows selective enforcement, where people are treated differently at the whim of law enforcement.
  - belval 4y ago
    The uncomfortable truth is that selective enforcement is a way to deal with homeless people causing trouble and leaving those that are just staying in their corner alone. This will not lead to a quality of life improvement for people in Vancouver.
    - throwaway92394 4y ago
      That's not a good solution because it makes the law ambiguous as to where it should be enforced. The better solution is to treat it like alcohol - legalize it but make being a nuisance still be a violation (ie Disorderly Conduct and Public Intoxication). This makes it clear it shouldn't be enforced say in a night club or likely a homeless camp - but still allows police to intervene with people causing problems.
    - pmoriarty 4y ago
      It's not just troublemakers who the cops harass. It depends on the cop, the situation, who you are, and the cop's mood. It's the most vulnerable, powerless, and despised (like poor drug addicts) who are most likely to have some asshole, powertripping cop selectively target -- whether or not the victim is doing anything wrong.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Several commenters seem to have missed the distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation so here is the vital difference: > Adults will be allowed to possess a combined total of 2.5 grams of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA. > While those substances will remain illegal, adults found in possession for personal use will not be arrested, charged or have their drugs seized. Instead, they will be offered information on available health and social services > In its request to the federal government last year, BC said it asked for the drug laws exemption in order "to remove the shame that often prevents people from reaching out for life-saving help
- dontbenebby 4y ago
  And what happens when the people who sell those decriminalized drugs move on to things like buying up real estate and gentrifying the people who were self medicating out of their homes with their profits? Decriminalization solves the mass incarceration issue, possibly, but there are other things to think about.
- sergnio 4y ago
  > Instead, they will be offered information on available health and social services I can't emphasize this enough. If you hate drugs and think they're strictly horrible for society, what's worse is us ignoring the underlying reasons for using drugs to extreme levels. If anyone hasn't heard of Rat Park, please do yourself and everyone a favor and watch this video / read on it "How the flawed Rat Park experiment launched the drug war" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-0KfwFCMRM&ab_channel=Freethink https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-0KfwFCMRM&ab_channel=Freet...
  - bsnal 4y ago
    I don’t hate drugs. Drugs are inert things. I hate drug users.
    - dns_snek 4y ago
      Does your definition of a drug include alcohol, nicotine and caffeine? If you hate anyone who consumes any kind of mind-altering substance, for any reason, in any circumstance, and regardless of the impact on their life, then that list includes most of the human population which doesn't seem productive.
anaisbetts 4y ago
The tactic of using criminalization and legal threats to solve the problem of drug addiction has been thoroughly, inarguably disproven to work. Decriminalization allows that incredible amount of money being spent towards prosecuting people who need Help, and instead frees that up to spend it towards something that will actually improve the situation, which is treating this as the public health issue that it is. BC can take that exact same money that it's currently spending to lock people up, and instead spend it on public health solutions that have been shown time and time again to improve outcomes and make significant progress towards this issue. From an outcome-based policy perspective, this is an obvious choice.
- refurb 4y ago
  I think the point is BC isnt prosecuting or jailing people now. I have family there and even big time dealers rarely do prison time unless it some bigger criminal conspiracy. Users? Never. Even when repeated charged.
  - Tiktaalik 4y ago
    The key distinction between previous "decriminalization" and this change to real decriminalization, is that previously it was only a prosecutorial and policing policy to not charge users, but it wasn't a criminal code change. Drug users were still actively policed with users reporting feeling "harassed" as their drugs were often confiscated, which simply made their life worse and didn't help them at all. With this change police can no longer confiscate drugs, so the intent is to reduce police pressure on drug users. As there are still limits to the amount of drugs that can carried, there remains the possibility for severely active policing, harassment and street checks in police actively checking people to see how much drugs they're carrying.
    - refurb 4y ago
      But again, nobody was even being charge. Open air drug use is common. Cops don't do anything. It's like when marijuana was legalized in CA a few year back. You could walk down the street smoking a joint for a couple decades before that. This does nothing but updates the law to reflect how it was already being enforced. Thus no real change. As I mentioned, in BC, not long ago a prolific dealer, caught with kgs of meth was convicted to only at-home observation. Basically "pinky promise you won't commit more crimes". If a huge dealer isn't going to prison, it's pretty clear users aren't even being bothered.
corry 4y ago
This reminds me of how the shroom dispensaries popped up in Vancouver because City Council has barred the police force from enforcing psilocybin prohibition (ostensibly so that police can focus on opioids instead, although any positive outcomes from that approach seems dubious). So you have 'mainstream' online shrooms shops in Canada. It's great, on the one hand. On the other hand, it's easy for everyone to assume that magic mushrooms are almost legal (like cannabis was) even though it's very different. Medicinal cannabis was around for a long time; currently Health Canada only allows ~80 people in the country to use psilocybin for health. But why didn't they include psilocybin or other psychedelics in this decriminalization? It is because they are defacto decriminalized already due to this policing decision?
- dontbenebby 4y ago
  I tried truffles in Amsterdam, I was told one reason they sell those is you need to take a lot more to get a bad trip, similar to why they only sold poundcakes as edibles. (I was trying to stick to flower so I didn't look hard for magic brownies, but honestly I think poundcake tastes better -- now that I don't drink I often want to grab something like a poundcake or pocky that has calories and carbs but not as much as a Hershey bar, when I literally just want something small to settle my stomach and have zero desire for psychoactivity) Doing psilocybint was a lifechanging experience, in a positive way -- it cured me of a huge chunk of my depression, at the expense I saw every interaction that followed, including two coworkers collaborating to try to get me to step in front of a train. One stood, and told me it was safe to cross, as the other looked around the corner to make sure a tram was coming. I she reads these: I gave you my salary information and I told you this isn't high school, and then you tried to fake an accidental death. In parallel with that, a different woman, from a different country, also attending the conferene, told me that some people made it through the fall of the GDR and the Nazis unpunished. I deeply appreciate interactions like the second, but I will never forgive or forget that when I tried to do what people told me to since childhood, someone tried to kill me, a pattern that needs to end. (I've only been to Vancouver once, it was a really nice city when I visited but like any similar sized one in the states, you gotta be careful -- it's not Ottawa!!)
  - 4y ago
wly_cdgr 4y ago
Drugs should be illegal because doing them is morally bad, not because being addicted to them is bad for you
pluc 4y ago
It's not Canada-wide as the headline suggests, it's only in BC.
zeryx 4y ago
I know this is a very contentious issue, and I'm by no means an expert. I don't think there are any correct paths, especially when it comes to tax payer expenses, but I can't help feeling like this is giving up. Very crude and unhelpful anecdote coming: I recently travelled to a US West Coast city for the first time in 4 years, and the change was stark: homeless in every street corner, drug dealers selling meth and heroin on the street, while tech workers were driving beside in their luxury SUVs. I couldn't help but feel like this city has become Gotham, and that crime was everywhere; and there was nothing anyone could do. I know it's not just US cities, but the only place in Canada (as a Canadian) I've seen this similar devolution is in Vancouver. I'd honestly really appreciate being directed to arguments that showcase that decriminalization of drugs and theft provide any positive outcomes beyond less incarceration rates. I really feel for the people on the street who have gotten there, and the residents that live nearby - I would certainly not want to live there or visit again.
- fnbr 4y ago
  Right, but they _just_ decriminalized drugs, so we haven’t seen the impact. What you’re describing in Vancouver is the result of the existing policies which criminalized drugs.
- water554 4y ago
  You decriminalize drugs and criminalize pitching a tent in the park. The benefit is that the government no longer tells an individual what they can and cannot put into their own body.
- jamil7 4y ago
  Decriminalisation alone won't improve what you're talking about. But the idea usually is decriminalisation plus redirecting those freed up funds into policies for harm reduction, addiction treatment, injection rooms etc. Reframing it as a public health issue not a criminal issue. The only example I know of is Portugal.
- stevehiehn 4y ago
  When I moved to Vancouver from Toronto I found the homeless population striking. I'd ask people why they thought its the case. Many folks are of the mind that its pretty much the only city in Canada a person can sleep on the street 365d a yr. I'm sure there are other reasons but if you don't understand how dangerously cold a Canadian winter gets you might not factor this in.
swearwolf 4y ago
Oregon did the same, back in 2020. It hasn’t gone very well. Some key problems: 1.) Dealers have learned to take advantage of the personal use amount protection by keeping small amounts on their person and a stash nearby. 2.) Several gangs from larger West Coast cities have moved here to expand their territory. We’ve had a big uptick in shootings in the past few years, and a lot of them have been due to this. There was an inciting incident in which a prominent member was killed at a memorial service, which resulted in a back and forth retaliation war that killed a lot of people. 3.) Related to #1 and #2, these gangs have learned that the homeless community is both an ideal customer and an ideal base of operations. Dealers often set up shop in a tent in the larger encampments, or in an RV nearby. This has made the meth and fentanyl problem amongst that community much worse. 4.) It’s too early to judge, but so far it’s looking like the rate at which addicts who are offered resources to help them actually accept that help is very low. When this issue was presented as a ballot measure, it was described as following Portugal’s model. However, our implementation is missing a key ingredient: consequences. Although Portugal did decriminalize drugs, they don’t just give people a pamphlet about where to get help and send them on their way. Instead they have a series of interventions, managed by doctors and social workers, that impose increasing penalties as a person’s addiction becomes more harmful to the community, and they don’t permit drug use in public. Lacking these features, the net effect of Oregon’s decriminalization measure has been a big increase in public drug use and not much else.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  "1.) Dealers have learned to take advantage of the personal use amount protection by keeping small amounts on their person and a stash nearby." This is not a problem for me, as I believe drugs should be legal, and neither users nor dealer should be penalized. On points 2 and 3, regarding drug gang violence: This is a problem with the half-way measure of decriminalization as opposed to full legalization. When drugs are fully legal and manufacturing/selling them is legal then there'll be no shootings over drug turf any more than Phizer and Merk shoot each other over the sale of Viagra. "4.) It’s too early to judge, but so far it’s looking like the rate at which addicts who are offered resources to help them actually accept that help is very low." What "help" are you talking about? Grown adults whose lives are absolutely miserable often turn to drugs because it's the one source of pleasure, even ecstasy that they have in their life -- the drugs are so intensely fantastic that they eclipse nearly everything else they've ever experienced, to a degree non-drug users can't even imagine.... and then someone offers to take that away so they can go back to their miserable lives with no hope of escape? Why wouldn't they refuse?
Tiktaalik 4y ago
We're at the point where six people in BC are dying a day due to toxic drugs and the body count is far, far exceeding that of the other public health emergency, the covid-19 pandemic. It's hard to applaud the government for finally turning away from Regan era drug policy thinking and enacting this change because it's taken years and the amount of dead due to inaction so great. It has been obvious for years that there was a toxic drug crisis on the street, that the drugs were poisoned and that people were overdosing and dying because it was impossible to know what was in the drugs and how much to use without overdosing. The real solution to this problem will be to replace the toxic street drugs with a safe supply of prescribed drugs so that people know what they're using. This decriminalization move is a small step toward that future outcome, while in the mean time making it safer for drug users to using in a safe injection site context without fear that they're doing something illegal and having their drugs confiscated by police.
pipeline_peak 4y ago
Wouldn’t this make drugs more accessible?
hydrok9 4y ago
As a Canadian and former addict, I am all for this, I still see addicts daily and the number one thing that strikes me is how truly pathetic of a life it is. You really don't know suffering until you've been in and out of addiction. Whatever it is that helps addicts kick addiction, DO IT. I was lucky in that I still had something to lose when I hit rock bottom. But when I was able to convince myself that I had nothing to live for other than drugs, drugs became my whole world. If I had been in jail, I would have used drugs. If I was homeless, I would've used drugs. Your physical realities don't matter. Lock me up and call me a worthless junkie, I don't care. Except I really did care, it's just that I forgot what that feels like, because of all the drugs! If you don't offer addicts a chance to get back to real life, they will usually stay addicts. Ideas and threats can't compete with a fantasy world, only reality can.

100 points by pmoriarty 4y ago

The problem with decriminalization is that there's no way to legally buy the substances, so organized crime is still involved, and consumers still can't tell whether the substances they buy and use are safe. Legalization would solve both those problems.

sudosysgen 4y ago
Décriminalisation means users can legally get their drugs tested and know they are safe because the infrastructure to do that is now generally legal. It's not clear to me we want, for example, heroin to be freely available. So it seems like a good least worst option.
version_five 4y ago
Those problems exist under the current system too. Decriminalization is still a step forward because it undoes much of what makes prohibition bad, such as it moves use out into the open where it becomes less harmful. And it stops police from having a tool they can use to harass the people who they want to harass, and hopefully some day focus on real crimes
atemerev 4y ago
In Switzerland, you can visit the specialized centers for drug users, buy pharmaceutical-quality substances, and consume there directly (no outside consumption is allowed). This works, because the interior of the center is very uncool, boring, and it is filled with leaflets on getting help on quitting drugs. This system is amazing, and I can only wonder why it is not implemented everywhere (Switzerland and Portugal are working examples).
Tiktaalik 4y ago
Creating a safe supply of drugs that can be prescribed by doctors is def a topic of conversation in BC politics as the ultimate solution to this problem. I would like to think that this decriminalization change is a necessary precursor to this and that we will be moving swiftly to get Doctors on board around prescribing people the drugs they need to get them off the toxic street drugs. I mean presumably Doctors would decline to write a prescription for a drug that is illegal to hold.
Vladimof 4y ago
At least they won't fill the jails with users...

epmatsw 4y ago

Kinda wild that MDMA is on the list with those other three (opioids, meth, and coke). Seems firmly in a less harmful tier to me.

qwerty456127 4y ago
Arguably single-dose MDMA is less than single-dose coke and equals meth in terms of physical harm. Of course very different story if you consider repeated usage.
- netizen-936824 4y ago
  What, exactly, is a single dose of each of those substances? What makes them equal pharmacologically?
  - qwerty456127 4y ago
    The dose an ordinary person (not a regular abuser) would take. Coke is not equal (I mean it is arguably zero harm if taken rarely, but pretty addictive and serious harm if taken regularly), MDMA and meth are extremely similar substances chemically (MA=meth) and have similar mechanisms of action. Same harm prevention techniques work great with both. The most important difference is MDMA being harder to abuse than meth is, because a number of reasons. Most of MDMA users take it occasionally for good, most of meth users take it regularly for harm. AFAIK. Obviously there are many exceptions.
    - netizen-936824 4y ago
      I would argue that MDMA and methamphetamine, while slightly similar in chemical structure, have very different mechanisms of action. Methamphetamine, at high enough doses. This is why dose is important, some recreational doses will cause dopamine efflux from the dopamine uptake transporter but MDMA does not do this Doses are incredibly portant when discussing the mechanisms of drugs and comparing them because a compound may interact with new and different proteins when the concentration gets high enough. Recreational doses for methamphetamine and cocaine are all over the place partially due to the fact that you can develop tolerance and increase your dose. This doesn't really happen with MDMA as much, and while you can take repeated doses they will rapidly stop working if taken within a small enough time frame. Methamphetamine and cocaine do not have the same tolerance build up While cocaine is a triple reuptake inhibitor and does interact with serotonin, I don't think its comparable to MDMA

momothereal 4y ago

*Only in British Columbia, which is less than 15% of the population. Also important to note that this has to happen in agreement with both the provincial and federal governments, which is far from guaranteed to succeed in other provinces. See: Alberta. IMO this is a more detailed article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/opioid-crisis-bc-canada-1.6471878 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/opioid-crisis-bc-canada-1.6...

hbrav 4y ago
Hang on, I don't think it's true that this had to have provincial agreement for this to happen. The federal government makes criminal law in Canada, not the provinces. But if you're looking to trial this and you have a province that is asking to be allowed to try it, then using the province as the experiment ground is the obvious choice.
- momothereal 4y ago
  Legally speaking, the federal government can drop all enforcement across the country. Striking those laws would take a parliament vote however. The reason provinces need to agree is because healthcare is under their jurisdiction. Parliament and Health Canada will not impose a drastic shift in drug/addiction management on the provinces without working with their health units. For instance, only the BC government and the Toronto Health Unit have petitioned thus far.
- acoard 4y ago
  In effect, yes, it does require provincial approval. For one, healthcare is purely the purview of the province. The federal government has no ability to force provinces to treat drug use as a healthcare issue. Secondly, enforcement of laws in BC is a mix of both provincial and federal and this gives the provincial government leeway. In BC, the RCMP is responsible for both provincial and federal enforcement. One of the earlier marijuana legalization efforts in British Columbia, which was supported by mayors and previous provincial ministers, hinged on enforcement. The plan was effectively to order law enforcement to not enforce marijuana laws. The province itself couldn't strike the law, but they could effectively not comply. Admittedly this is a grey area, which theoretically would require the courts to sort out, but in practice it shows some viability of the approach. In general, Canada's governments skews heavily towards provinces rather than federal (unlike the USA which has a very big federal government, most Canadian gov employees are provincial). Provinces have had the upper hand since Confederation and have been unwilling to give up much power. As such, I doubt how much approval the province needs from the federal for an action like this.

alldayeveryday 4y ago

pmoriarty 4y ago
People should have a right to do with their minds and bodies whatever they want without interference from others. Keeping drugs illegal harms countless users, who can't be sure the drug they're using isn't cut with something harmful or is what they though they were getting or isn't too pure (all of which are the major causes of overdoses and deaths). Throwing people in jail also harms them and their families (and risks them getting killed or maimed during arrest or while in jail). Jail itself is a training ground for criminals, and many inmates come out more hardened criminals, and they're forced in to committing more crimes because once they've been in jails many legal jobs are closed to them because most companies don't want to hire people with a criminal record. Society also wastes billions of dollars on fighting the War on Drugs, which could be used much more productively, especially as the War on Drugs is so ineffective and actually hurts millions of people world-wide, causes organized crime to thrive, and even destabilizes governments when organized crime gets too powerful and starts corrupting/killing politicians, lawyers, journalists, and judges... etc. Addiction should be treated as a medical issue, not a criminal one.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  It sounds like you’ve never had to deal with an addict in your close personal circle. I’m glad for you. When addicts cannot find a supply of their chosen drug, they’ll steal from anyone, even those closest to them, to fund their addiction. If they go homeless, you can’t give them money because you can’t trust that they won’t just use it to buy more drugs. This is to ignore the fact that buying most hard drugs directly funds the Mexican drug cartels and the atrocities they commit in many countries. This is also to ignore the terrible and unrecoverable health effects that many drugs have. Have you heard of meth mouth? Meth rots your teeth no matter how much you brush them [0]. It also causes permanent brain damage but I find that the kind of people pushing to legalize meth find losing teeth to be a worse outcome. Jail isn’t the best outcome for inmates, sure, but it’s the cheapest. If you’re a Governor of a US state and your voters see that you took money away from schools, the police, the fire department, or the roads to give to addicts instead, you’re not going to get re-elected. [0] https://www.mouthhealthy.org/en/az-topics/m/meth-mouth https://www.mouthhealthy.org/en/az-topics/m/meth-mouth

belval 4y ago

Coming back from Vacouver, I might be cynical but this is symbolic if anything. I work in downtown and got to see junkies shooting up in broad daylight, the cops weren't arresting them for possession, they just walked by like everyone else. These drugs have been unofficially decrimininalized for years in BC. This doesn't change anything. > The fear of being criminalized has led many people to hide their addiction and use drugs alone. They have literal camps of homeless near Chinatown/Gastown with pockets everywhere else. They don't seem to be shy about their substance abuse.

pmoriarty 4y ago
Those cops might have walked past those particular users, but that doesn't mean they didn't harass or arrest others. Keeping drugs illegal allows selective enforcement, where people are treated differently at the whim of law enforcement.
- belval 4y ago
  The uncomfortable truth is that selective enforcement is a way to deal with homeless people causing trouble and leaving those that are just staying in their corner alone. This will not lead to a quality of life improvement for people in Vancouver.
  - throwaway92394 4y ago
    That's not a good solution because it makes the law ambiguous as to where it should be enforced. The better solution is to treat it like alcohol - legalize it but make being a nuisance still be a violation (ie Disorderly Conduct and Public Intoxication). This makes it clear it shouldn't be enforced say in a night club or likely a homeless camp - but still allows police to intervene with people causing problems.
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    It's not just troublemakers who the cops harass. It depends on the cop, the situation, who you are, and the cop's mood. It's the most vulnerable, powerless, and despised (like poor drug addicts) who are most likely to have some asshole, powertripping cop selectively target -- whether or not the victim is doing anything wrong.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Several commenters seem to have missed the distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation so here is the vital difference: > Adults will be allowed to possess a combined total of 2.5 grams of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA. > While those substances will remain illegal, adults found in possession for personal use will not be arrested, charged or have their drugs seized. Instead, they will be offered information on available health and social services > In its request to the federal government last year, BC said it asked for the drug laws exemption in order "to remove the shame that often prevents people from reaching out for life-saving help

dontbenebby 4y ago
And what happens when the people who sell those decriminalized drugs move on to things like buying up real estate and gentrifying the people who were self medicating out of their homes with their profits? Decriminalization solves the mass incarceration issue, possibly, but there are other things to think about.
sergnio 4y ago
> Instead, they will be offered information on available health and social services I can't emphasize this enough. If you hate drugs and think they're strictly horrible for society, what's worse is us ignoring the underlying reasons for using drugs to extreme levels. If anyone hasn't heard of Rat Park, please do yourself and everyone a favor and watch this video / read on it "How the flawed Rat Park experiment launched the drug war" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-0KfwFCMRM&ab_channel=Freethink https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-0KfwFCMRM&ab_channel=Freet...
- bsnal 4y ago
  I don’t hate drugs. Drugs are inert things. I hate drug users.
  - dns_snek 4y ago
    Does your definition of a drug include alcohol, nicotine and caffeine? If you hate anyone who consumes any kind of mind-altering substance, for any reason, in any circumstance, and regardless of the impact on their life, then that list includes most of the human population which doesn't seem productive.

anaisbetts 4y ago

The tactic of using criminalization and legal threats to solve the problem of drug addiction has been thoroughly, inarguably disproven to work. Decriminalization allows that incredible amount of money being spent towards prosecuting people who need Help, and instead frees that up to spend it towards something that will actually improve the situation, which is treating this as the public health issue that it is. BC can take that exact same money that it's currently spending to lock people up, and instead spend it on public health solutions that have been shown time and time again to improve outcomes and make significant progress towards this issue. From an outcome-based policy perspective, this is an obvious choice.

refurb 4y ago
I think the point is BC isnt prosecuting or jailing people now. I have family there and even big time dealers rarely do prison time unless it some bigger criminal conspiracy. Users? Never. Even when repeated charged.
- Tiktaalik 4y ago
  The key distinction between previous "decriminalization" and this change to real decriminalization, is that previously it was only a prosecutorial and policing policy to not charge users, but it wasn't a criminal code change. Drug users were still actively policed with users reporting feeling "harassed" as their drugs were often confiscated, which simply made their life worse and didn't help them at all. With this change police can no longer confiscate drugs, so the intent is to reduce police pressure on drug users. As there are still limits to the amount of drugs that can carried, there remains the possibility for severely active policing, harassment and street checks in police actively checking people to see how much drugs they're carrying.
  - refurb 4y ago
    But again, nobody was even being charge. Open air drug use is common. Cops don't do anything. It's like when marijuana was legalized in CA a few year back. You could walk down the street smoking a joint for a couple decades before that. This does nothing but updates the law to reflect how it was already being enforced. Thus no real change. As I mentioned, in BC, not long ago a prolific dealer, caught with kgs of meth was convicted to only at-home observation. Basically "pinky promise you won't commit more crimes". If a huge dealer isn't going to prison, it's pretty clear users aren't even being bothered.

corry 4y ago

This reminds me of how the shroom dispensaries popped up in Vancouver because City Council has barred the police force from enforcing psilocybin prohibition (ostensibly so that police can focus on opioids instead, although any positive outcomes from that approach seems dubious). So you have 'mainstream' online shrooms shops in Canada. It's great, on the one hand. On the other hand, it's easy for everyone to assume that magic mushrooms are almost legal (like cannabis was) even though it's very different. Medicinal cannabis was around for a long time; currently Health Canada only allows ~80 people in the country to use psilocybin for health. But why didn't they include psilocybin or other psychedelics in this decriminalization? It is because they are defacto decriminalized already due to this policing decision?

dontbenebby 4y ago
I tried truffles in Amsterdam, I was told one reason they sell those is you need to take a lot more to get a bad trip, similar to why they only sold poundcakes as edibles. (I was trying to stick to flower so I didn't look hard for magic brownies, but honestly I think poundcake tastes better -- now that I don't drink I often want to grab something like a poundcake or pocky that has calories and carbs but not as much as a Hershey bar, when I literally just want something small to settle my stomach and have zero desire for psychoactivity) Doing psilocybint was a lifechanging experience, in a positive way -- it cured me of a huge chunk of my depression, at the expense I saw every interaction that followed, including two coworkers collaborating to try to get me to step in front of a train. One stood, and told me it was safe to cross, as the other looked around the corner to make sure a tram was coming. I she reads these: I gave you my salary information and I told you this isn't high school, and then you tried to fake an accidental death. In parallel with that, a different woman, from a different country, also attending the conferene, told me that some people made it through the fall of the GDR and the Nazis unpunished. I deeply appreciate interactions like the second, but I will never forgive or forget that when I tried to do what people told me to since childhood, someone tried to kill me, a pattern that needs to end. (I've only been to Vancouver once, it was a really nice city when I visited but like any similar sized one in the states, you gotta be careful -- it's not Ottawa!!)
- 4y ago

wly_cdgr 4y ago

Drugs should be illegal because doing them is morally bad, not because being addicted to them is bad for you

pluc 4y ago

It's not Canada-wide as the headline suggests, it's only in BC.

zeryx 4y ago

I know this is a very contentious issue, and I'm by no means an expert. I don't think there are any correct paths, especially when it comes to tax payer expenses, but I can't help feeling like this is giving up. Very crude and unhelpful anecdote coming: I recently travelled to a US West Coast city for the first time in 4 years, and the change was stark: homeless in every street corner, drug dealers selling meth and heroin on the street, while tech workers were driving beside in their luxury SUVs. I couldn't help but feel like this city has become Gotham, and that crime was everywhere; and there was nothing anyone could do. I know it's not just US cities, but the only place in Canada (as a Canadian) I've seen this similar devolution is in Vancouver. I'd honestly really appreciate being directed to arguments that showcase that decriminalization of drugs and theft provide any positive outcomes beyond less incarceration rates. I really feel for the people on the street who have gotten there, and the residents that live nearby - I would certainly not want to live there or visit again.

fnbr 4y ago
Right, but they _just_ decriminalized drugs, so we haven’t seen the impact. What you’re describing in Vancouver is the result of the existing policies which criminalized drugs.
water554 4y ago
You decriminalize drugs and criminalize pitching a tent in the park. The benefit is that the government no longer tells an individual what they can and cannot put into their own body.
jamil7 4y ago
Decriminalisation alone won't improve what you're talking about. But the idea usually is decriminalisation plus redirecting those freed up funds into policies for harm reduction, addiction treatment, injection rooms etc. Reframing it as a public health issue not a criminal issue. The only example I know of is Portugal.
stevehiehn 4y ago
When I moved to Vancouver from Toronto I found the homeless population striking. I'd ask people why they thought its the case. Many folks are of the mind that its pretty much the only city in Canada a person can sleep on the street 365d a yr. I'm sure there are other reasons but if you don't understand how dangerously cold a Canadian winter gets you might not factor this in.

swearwolf 4y ago

Oregon did the same, back in 2020. It hasn’t gone very well. Some key problems: 1.) Dealers have learned to take advantage of the personal use amount protection by keeping small amounts on their person and a stash nearby. 2.) Several gangs from larger West Coast cities have moved here to expand their territory. We’ve had a big uptick in shootings in the past few years, and a lot of them have been due to this. There was an inciting incident in which a prominent member was killed at a memorial service, which resulted in a back and forth retaliation war that killed a lot of people. 3.) Related to #1 and #2, these gangs have learned that the homeless community is both an ideal customer and an ideal base of operations. Dealers often set up shop in a tent in the larger encampments, or in an RV nearby. This has made the meth and fentanyl problem amongst that community much worse. 4.) It’s too early to judge, but so far it’s looking like the rate at which addicts who are offered resources to help them actually accept that help is very low. When this issue was presented as a ballot measure, it was described as following Portugal’s model. However, our implementation is missing a key ingredient: consequences. Although Portugal did decriminalize drugs, they don’t just give people a pamphlet about where to get help and send them on their way. Instead they have a series of interventions, managed by doctors and social workers, that impose increasing penalties as a person’s addiction becomes more harmful to the community, and they don’t permit drug use in public. Lacking these features, the net effect of Oregon’s decriminalization measure has been a big increase in public drug use and not much else.

pmoriarty 4y ago
"1.) Dealers have learned to take advantage of the personal use amount protection by keeping small amounts on their person and a stash nearby." This is not a problem for me, as I believe drugs should be legal, and neither users nor dealer should be penalized. On points 2 and 3, regarding drug gang violence: This is a problem with the half-way measure of decriminalization as opposed to full legalization. When drugs are fully legal and manufacturing/selling them is legal then there'll be no shootings over drug turf any more than Phizer and Merk shoot each other over the sale of Viagra. "4.) It’s too early to judge, but so far it’s looking like the rate at which addicts who are offered resources to help them actually accept that help is very low." What "help" are you talking about? Grown adults whose lives are absolutely miserable often turn to drugs because it's the one source of pleasure, even ecstasy that they have in their life -- the drugs are so intensely fantastic that they eclipse nearly everything else they've ever experienced, to a degree non-drug users can't even imagine.... and then someone offers to take that away so they can go back to their miserable lives with no hope of escape? Why wouldn't they refuse?

Tiktaalik 4y ago

We're at the point where six people in BC are dying a day due to toxic drugs and the body count is far, far exceeding that of the other public health emergency, the covid-19 pandemic. It's hard to applaud the government for finally turning away from Regan era drug policy thinking and enacting this change because it's taken years and the amount of dead due to inaction so great. It has been obvious for years that there was a toxic drug crisis on the street, that the drugs were poisoned and that people were overdosing and dying because it was impossible to know what was in the drugs and how much to use without overdosing. The real solution to this problem will be to replace the toxic street drugs with a safe supply of prescribed drugs so that people know what they're using. This decriminalization move is a small step toward that future outcome, while in the mean time making it safer for drug users to using in a safe injection site context without fear that they're doing something illegal and having their drugs confiscated by police.

pipeline_peak 4y ago

Wouldn’t this make drugs more accessible?

hydrok9 4y ago

As a Canadian and former addict, I am all for this, I still see addicts daily and the number one thing that strikes me is how truly pathetic of a life it is. You really don't know suffering until you've been in and out of addiction. Whatever it is that helps addicts kick addiction, DO IT. I was lucky in that I still had something to lose when I hit rock bottom. But when I was able to convince myself that I had nothing to live for other than drugs, drugs became my whole world. If I had been in jail, I would have used drugs. If I was homeless, I would've used drugs. Your physical realities don't matter. Lock me up and call me a worthless junkie, I don't care. Except I really did care, it's just that I forgot what that feels like, because of all the drugs! If you don't offer addicts a chance to get back to real life, they will usually stay addicts. Ideas and threats can't compete with a fantasy world, only reality can.