3 ms·
The key distinction between previous "decriminalization" and this change to real decriminalization, is that previously it was only a prosecutorial and policing
by 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 agoBut 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.
- netizen-936824 4y agoThere are countries where drinking in public is fine, why are other drugs different
- refurb 4y agoIs drinking to the point of unconsciousness or running around naked trying to hit people legal where you are?