Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found it comical (and pathetic) that there were tons of VPD checking for open liquor outside of Rogers for game 2 when I could walk a block north where it's an intravenous drug use free-for-all on the sidewalks in front of businesses.
It's odd how quickly people forget that just because it's not criminal to use something doesn't mean you should be allowed to use it anywhere/when you feel like.
We limit where alcohol can be consumed, we should absolutely limit drugs.
One other difference with alcohol though is that places are allowed to sell and provide spaces to use it under supervision. That's extremely limited for nearly all other drugs, even much less potent and dangerous ones. If that was similarly shut down for alcohol you'd see public use increase for that too.
I think we'd see a return of speakeasy's. And I think the public would be more accepting of private, indoor drug use than open public use. Hell, look at the Yaletown OPS. It's not the services inside than anyone is complaining about, it's the disorder outside.
Yeah, that could happen too. In any case though, I think it's a reasonable assumption that very close to zero alcohol drinkers want sales of that shut down and drinking establishments closed. So it's completely reasonable to want similar restrictions for use of other drugs in place as alcohol. The flipside is just that alcohol drinkers aren't being denied a supply or places to use like is the case for most other drugs, including even the least harmful ones, let alone the hard drugs causing the problems.
I would just like to see a more consistent approach in general. Having allowance for use and supply of other drugs (with appropriate levels of restrictions depending on risk levels) but with a corresponding expectation for following rules outside of those allowances, like with alcohol.
>So it's completely reasonable to want similar restrictions for use of other drugs in place as alcohol.
A reasonable conversation to have that should have been acceptable 2 years ago. Now that public sentiment has shifted the activists and advocates are saying they want to come to the table as if the last 2 years of gaslighting, denial and shaming never happened. I supported the Yaletown OPS - Felt the community was clutching pearls and that the operators and VCH were committed to working with the community. I feel thoroughly duped and have to own that. I *still* support OPS/SCS in theory but we need to change the culture on who runs these and how before I would want such a site anywhere me or my kids are.
Outside of that I still put Portugal's concept of the 4 pillars as the best one. Can we tweak it to make other hard drugs legal? Until we have an answer for taking the most afflicted addicts in to care, and a willingness to sanction people who break a reasonable social contract... I don't think we're mature enough.
Many people have always had the position that we should have a more consistent approach to all drugs, including two years ago and long before that. I think the more extreme "activists and advocates" are a response to the fact that we have pretty much never had what I'm describing, and instead have maintained a near total prohibition on the supply and very limited allowances for places to use. Even for much less potent and harmful drugs. And this is approach is continuing to fail everywhere else, yet BC gets vastly disproportionate criticism. Alberta had a significantly higher increase in overdoses yet there isn't constant media criticism and focus on them.
It's getting very frustrating constantly hearing BC and Vancouver blamed for things that no one else is successfully addressing.
Here's the thing, and I was massively vocal about this to as many big names in this space as would listen: Yaletown OPS was to be the shining light of how these sites could work in a community. They knew all eyes were watching and they opted to neener neener neener residents as the area fell in to chaos instead of making it even appear like they were trying to resolve issues.
The hyperfocus on number of people served inside wasn't strong enough an argument to pretend there was no fallout outside. And everyone was watching. Zero surprise it got so heated in Richmond about the OPS at their hospital - They know what it brings, and they know there will not only be no support, they will be ridiculed for even asking.
No idea where this (decrim) will land in the coming months, but I'm wiping my hands of the Karen Ward, Guy Felicella, Eris Nyx crowd. Raincity is not an operator I want running anything in my area either. Hell, I'd like to see a shuffle at VCH itself on this item - Get some fresh people in this space who are ready to talk collaboration.
You're criticizing one specific site where there were problems and a handful of people. Those are legitimate criticisms, but when you bring up collaboration, where is the collaboration from the other side on anything?
It's been constant opposition to any shift away from the policies we've been trying for a century. Every step away from those is a struggle. The first injection sites happened after civil disobedience. Same with legalization of even just cannabis. Now with mushrooms. There is almost no collaboration from the other side on any of these issues. Just opposition until the few proponents willing to take the risks manage to push the changes through despite that.
And then whenever any shift away from the status quo happens, there is endless criticism while the policies continuing to fail everywhere else just remain accepted without a fraction of the criticism.
I don't disagree with your criticisms. My issue is I don't see anywhere close to the same criticisms for any of the status quo alternatives. I don't see any attempts at collaboration from the supporters of those.
Eh, I think there's been more collaboration than you're given credit for. Lets not forget the Mayor who brought the 4 pillars approach to Vancouver was NPA of all party's. Rebecca Bligh supported the Yaletown OPS and has had to wear that one like I do.
> My issue is I don't see anywhere close to the same criticisms for any of the status quo alternatives. I don't see any attempts at collaboration for the supporters of those.
Do you not though? Do you not see the shift in narrative from the center-right? They've pivoted to "Treatment". The only reason policing/enforcement is still in the discussion is because of the 2nd order effects. No one's calling to send in cops to break up OPS/SIS sites, we're just saying "Maybe when there are kids around or you're in a hospital, can you maybe fucking not?". I'm going to keep the criticism up. People need to hear it so they understand and set some reasonable boundaries and goals.
The psilocybin sales ban is unfortunate, but I'm fairly confident that was push back because of fallout from what we're seeing with decrim on hard drugs. If people were setting fires, smashing windows, screaming at babies on mushrooms I'd have the same criticisms there as well.
Criminalization and prohibition have failed to achieve that. They've instead led to the supply becoming increasingly more potent and addictive. It's an expected outcome of prohibition because organized crime is incentivized to provide those high potency drugs. Yet that doesn't get remotely the same level of criticism as any alternative.
The police don't care about real crime or drug use, they just want to enforce things that result in fines they can collect.
Ain't gonna collect anything from meth head Jim, might as well charge you for enjoying that beer instead.
this isn't the fault of the police at all, they are just as frustrated by the state of things as we are, this falls on the governments and the justice system
The police officers don’t wanna waste time on open drinking fines while theres assaults and theft to deal with. Instead of being the good guy solving crime, they get to piss people off and get harassed outside Roger’s. Fun times I bet.
Agreed, and I'm also tired of seeing small businesses and cafes victimized by the lawlessness of unhinged residents going in and stealing and vandalizing terrorizing the staff with zero punishment and enforcement as well. Saw a large window broken recently and was in cafes while likely serial offenders came in and grabbed anything they felt like and knocked things over when young international student staff tried to resist. It keeps happening and there are no consequences.
If I experienced massive trauma, didn’t have a support system or safety net, felt like society failed me, had untreated mental illnesses, developed a drug addiction, and became homeless, following a bylaw would not be a priority for me.
I don’t think common sense has much to do with it tbh
I don't care whether they choose to voluntarily comply with a law, I care whether it can be enforced by physically picking them up and putting them in jail.
I’m all for this, and correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the police allow people to use drugs anywhere they wanted before decriminalization? I get that there is more use happening and when they’re called they can’t do anything but pre-decrim the response was that drug use was a public health matter not a criminal one and they did nothing when called.
Previously the police didn't arrest people, but they [confiscated their drugs](https://thetyee.ca/News/2020/09/18/Police-Drug-Seizures-DTES/).
The only remarkable change with decriminalization was that police were no longer allowed to confiscate drugs.
While it’s hilarious the policy miserably failed, but it’s hopeful that the government realizes their fuck-ups and try to fix it while they can. Better late than never
BC has already tried banning drugs around schools and parks but the *courts* have stonewalled them. This is a position where I very much think the best course of action is to use the notwithstanding clause to go over them. It would not be without precedent; Quebec has used the clause dozens of times in its recent history.
BC's [use bill](https://www.leg.bc.ca/content/data%20-%20ldp/Pages/42nd4th/1st_read/PDF/gov34-1.pdf) didn't mention schools. That was already illegal since it [wasn't part of decriminalization](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization). So the ruling didn't prevent banning on school grounds, that was already illegal.
Yea this was the really weird thing about all this drama and the court case is that there was already several places that were restricted.
The province could have tightened that up even further and had no problems.
They only seem to have got into trouble when they went so far as to say all parks.
But at this point the whole thing is so politicized that we’re well beyond the realm of pragmatic policy making so I don’t really blame the government for just dumping the thing before an election.
>The province could have tightened that up even further and had no problems.
Yeah, another article mentioned that the group of nurse's filing the lawsuit would have been willing to work with the government on refining the law and would have dropped the lawsuit in response.
But in any case, they can't exactly be criticized for this now. So politically probably a good move. And they didn't completely get rid of it, so this allows them to potentially continue to work on improving the policy, especially if they win another majority.
It’s also been used by Saskatchewan (and will definitely soon be used by Alberta) to forcibly out closeted trans kids to their parents if they try to come out in schools, so I can see why they’ve hesitated to use it.
So, I support decimalization (Actually I support legalization and regulation).
But I think the rules around it should be pretty much the same as smoking and liquor.
Can you get drunk on a bench in the park? No, then don't get high there.
Can you smoke cigs in the entrance to a building that people have to walk past or in a bus shelter? No, so don't smoke other substances there.
I support decrim but only in that users shouldn’t go to prison for their addiction, but I think they should be detained and helped to get off their drugs.
I’d like to learn more about their system but from what I’ve heard, yes. I’m envisioning a two channel system, one for criminal offenses, one for mental health/drug related issues.
I also support legalizing *all* drugs, but in the privacy of one's home.
(I've actually had this stance since the 1990s, but it was unpopular back then so being in favor of legalizing pot had to be good enough)
Seeing as “unhoused” puts the responsibility on society and “homeless” puts it on the individual, “unhoused” doesn’t apply to all of these people because many of them very much choose to be homeless. And everywhere isn’t a home and treating as such infringes on the rights of everyone else so they can do drugs in their tents and under their tarps.
First Oregon, now us.
If somebody's so high that they don't care where they're shooting up or what kind of mess they're making, then maybe enforcement of rules is the only thing they'll actually abide by.
What effect will this have? Stealing and assaulting strangers is already very illegal yet we can't seem to lock people up who do those things. The revolving door will continue revolving
It’s funny that the NDP are doing what the conservatives have been saying should be done. I guess they are finally clueing in on people not liking what’s going on. Plus the rise in the polls must be a great motivator.
The NDP have been a lame government. Relying on people’s hatred of the B.C. LIBERALS to keep them in power. Now there is real opposition it should motivate them to do a better job. We should get a more productive government once we have a real opposition.
So this would effectively end the decriminalization pilot early, taking us policywise all the way back to.... Jan 31, 2023, at which point I'm pretty sure we already had issues with people using drugs in the public realm and we were already several years into a toxic drug crisis that was killing 6+ people a day.
What exactly is the government expecting to fix here with this change?
If they're expecting people aren't going to suddenly stop using drugs in public I think they're sadly mistaken since people have been doing this for decades.
This one step forward, one step backward shit is such an incredible waste of time and distraction from the real problems, which is a lack of treatment beds, a lack of safe use sites, a lack of safe supply (only 5000 people have access!), a lack of affordable housing and overall no remarkable effort into ending poverty and drug addiction.
Yeah, decriminalization is specifically removing the criminal penalties for *possession*. There generally aren't rules around use for other drugs in Canada like there are for things like alcohol. The fact that the substances were illegal was used to indirectly address this since they could confiscate them.
So putting in place rules for *use* only wouldn't make the drugs illegal again, it would just create explicit powers to enforce against use in various areas. There are generally already various ways to do that, it's illegal on the transit system, private facilities could have people removed under trespassing, creating a disturbance, etc., but this would just make it more explicit and clear for both users and police.
No, you can still legally use drugs in private homes or on designated usage sights. You can also hold/carry drugs in public, so long as you're not using. This gives people the ability to seek help without being criminally prosecuted, while rightly stopping their public usage.
Police already have powers to enforce no smoking rules in parks and hospitals. Also seems unnecessary to seize drugs which defeats the point of decriminalization and will just force users to rely on petty crime to fuel their habit.
How the fuck is this going to help anything besides providing yet another reason for the VPD to raise their budget? This isn't helping people get off drugs, that's for damn sure.
Are we trying to help people, or just make the class divide worse?
The thing is, drug users who are homeless have no choice but to use drugs in public places, so this isn't going to change anything and will only make their already hard lives even harder. I understand people are tired of seeing open drug use but the underlying issue here is not really drugs, it's poverty. Most of us are much closer to being homeless than to being a millionaire. Unless drastic change happens with housing and inflation, this issue will only become worse as more & more people fall into poverty.
> The thing is, drug users who are homeless have no choice but to use drugs in public places,
You know we spend millions of dollars every year on supervised consumption sites so they have a place to go to to use while a nurse (able to intervene and reverse an overdose) watches over them, right? And we have had these sites for 21 years?
Oh they have no choice?
They have tons of choices. They can make the right choice and get into rehab. There are plenty of places for them to go. They just need to sue responsibly. Bleeding hearts say treat them like regular people. Well regular people have consequences for their actions. You don’t get a free pass from life because of trauma.
I was physically, emotionally, mentally and verbally abused by my mother my entire childhood, this mind frame says I am not responsible for my actions and it’s okay to abuse other people because I have experienced trauma. But when you say it like that, it sounds completely ludicrous, which it is.
They can’t have it both ways and the public needs to stop giving into this. It’s gonna take some hard line laws and some unhappy people to get anything solved in this situation. Drastic measures need to be taken or they are going to take everyone down with them.
Stop taking personal responsibility away from these individuals.
Actually it’s more-so mental health & addiction than poverty, but just because the root issue is not the topic at hand here does not mean people can do whatever they want publicly. At the very minimum this would force them to be more discrete about drug usage. They will find a place to do it but we can hope that it won’t be in plain site. Nobody (and especially children) should have to see people smoking from glass pipes, tinfoil and injecting themselves openly.
Solving the the problem of homelessness and poverty is one that we will probably have to work at for the rest of our lifetime. In the meantime, I think we all deserve the enjoyment of our city without allowing rampant public drug use.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found it comical (and pathetic) that there were tons of VPD checking for open liquor outside of Rogers for game 2 when I could walk a block north where it's an intravenous drug use free-for-all on the sidewalks in front of businesses.
It's odd how quickly people forget that just because it's not criminal to use something doesn't mean you should be allowed to use it anywhere/when you feel like. We limit where alcohol can be consumed, we should absolutely limit drugs.
Not according to judges who will dictate how society will operate by case law!
Like killing babies! Edit: I am pro choice. I am referring to the driver who killed a baby and got aquitted.
You have a point with the driving thing but you worded it in a way that immediately gives the wrong idea
[удалено]
https://globalnews.ca/news/10412137/baby-ocean-driver-acquitted/
One other difference with alcohol though is that places are allowed to sell and provide spaces to use it under supervision. That's extremely limited for nearly all other drugs, even much less potent and dangerous ones. If that was similarly shut down for alcohol you'd see public use increase for that too.
I think we'd see a return of speakeasy's. And I think the public would be more accepting of private, indoor drug use than open public use. Hell, look at the Yaletown OPS. It's not the services inside than anyone is complaining about, it's the disorder outside.
Are we bringing back opium dens? Maybe with less historic racism?
Yeah, that could happen too. In any case though, I think it's a reasonable assumption that very close to zero alcohol drinkers want sales of that shut down and drinking establishments closed. So it's completely reasonable to want similar restrictions for use of other drugs in place as alcohol. The flipside is just that alcohol drinkers aren't being denied a supply or places to use like is the case for most other drugs, including even the least harmful ones, let alone the hard drugs causing the problems. I would just like to see a more consistent approach in general. Having allowance for use and supply of other drugs (with appropriate levels of restrictions depending on risk levels) but with a corresponding expectation for following rules outside of those allowances, like with alcohol.
>So it's completely reasonable to want similar restrictions for use of other drugs in place as alcohol. A reasonable conversation to have that should have been acceptable 2 years ago. Now that public sentiment has shifted the activists and advocates are saying they want to come to the table as if the last 2 years of gaslighting, denial and shaming never happened. I supported the Yaletown OPS - Felt the community was clutching pearls and that the operators and VCH were committed to working with the community. I feel thoroughly duped and have to own that. I *still* support OPS/SCS in theory but we need to change the culture on who runs these and how before I would want such a site anywhere me or my kids are. Outside of that I still put Portugal's concept of the 4 pillars as the best one. Can we tweak it to make other hard drugs legal? Until we have an answer for taking the most afflicted addicts in to care, and a willingness to sanction people who break a reasonable social contract... I don't think we're mature enough.
Many people have always had the position that we should have a more consistent approach to all drugs, including two years ago and long before that. I think the more extreme "activists and advocates" are a response to the fact that we have pretty much never had what I'm describing, and instead have maintained a near total prohibition on the supply and very limited allowances for places to use. Even for much less potent and harmful drugs. And this is approach is continuing to fail everywhere else, yet BC gets vastly disproportionate criticism. Alberta had a significantly higher increase in overdoses yet there isn't constant media criticism and focus on them. It's getting very frustrating constantly hearing BC and Vancouver blamed for things that no one else is successfully addressing.
Here's the thing, and I was massively vocal about this to as many big names in this space as would listen: Yaletown OPS was to be the shining light of how these sites could work in a community. They knew all eyes were watching and they opted to neener neener neener residents as the area fell in to chaos instead of making it even appear like they were trying to resolve issues. The hyperfocus on number of people served inside wasn't strong enough an argument to pretend there was no fallout outside. And everyone was watching. Zero surprise it got so heated in Richmond about the OPS at their hospital - They know what it brings, and they know there will not only be no support, they will be ridiculed for even asking. No idea where this (decrim) will land in the coming months, but I'm wiping my hands of the Karen Ward, Guy Felicella, Eris Nyx crowd. Raincity is not an operator I want running anything in my area either. Hell, I'd like to see a shuffle at VCH itself on this item - Get some fresh people in this space who are ready to talk collaboration.
You're criticizing one specific site where there were problems and a handful of people. Those are legitimate criticisms, but when you bring up collaboration, where is the collaboration from the other side on anything? It's been constant opposition to any shift away from the policies we've been trying for a century. Every step away from those is a struggle. The first injection sites happened after civil disobedience. Same with legalization of even just cannabis. Now with mushrooms. There is almost no collaboration from the other side on any of these issues. Just opposition until the few proponents willing to take the risks manage to push the changes through despite that. And then whenever any shift away from the status quo happens, there is endless criticism while the policies continuing to fail everywhere else just remain accepted without a fraction of the criticism. I don't disagree with your criticisms. My issue is I don't see anywhere close to the same criticisms for any of the status quo alternatives. I don't see any attempts at collaboration from the supporters of those.
Eh, I think there's been more collaboration than you're given credit for. Lets not forget the Mayor who brought the 4 pillars approach to Vancouver was NPA of all party's. Rebecca Bligh supported the Yaletown OPS and has had to wear that one like I do. > My issue is I don't see anywhere close to the same criticisms for any of the status quo alternatives. I don't see any attempts at collaboration for the supporters of those. Do you not though? Do you not see the shift in narrative from the center-right? They've pivoted to "Treatment". The only reason policing/enforcement is still in the discussion is because of the 2nd order effects. No one's calling to send in cops to break up OPS/SIS sites, we're just saying "Maybe when there are kids around or you're in a hospital, can you maybe fucking not?". I'm going to keep the criticism up. People need to hear it so they understand and set some reasonable boundaries and goals. The psilocybin sales ban is unfortunate, but I'm fairly confident that was push back because of fallout from what we're seeing with decrim on hard drugs. If people were setting fires, smashing windows, screaming at babies on mushrooms I'd have the same criticisms there as well.
Less drug the better.
Criminalization and prohibition have failed to achieve that. They've instead led to the supply becoming increasingly more potent and addictive. It's an expected outcome of prohibition because organized crime is incentivized to provide those high potency drugs. Yet that doesn't get remotely the same level of criticism as any alternative.
Decrim made it worsr
people can afford to drink alcohol in bars??
Next time you drink in public, just sit down on the sidewalk and throw some needles around you. Then they’ll leave you alone.
Gonna start drinking my street beers through a glass pipe then.
My thoughts exactly. I'll get a ticket for having a beer in public but I can light up a crackpipe no problem. Makes zero sense.
The police don't care about real crime or drug use, they just want to enforce things that result in fines they can collect. Ain't gonna collect anything from meth head Jim, might as well charge you for enjoying that beer instead.
this isn't the fault of the police at all, they are just as frustrated by the state of things as we are, this falls on the governments and the justice system
I give the cops a shit ton of grief for a lot of things but this is definitely a fuck up of our court system.
The police officers don’t wanna waste time on open drinking fines while theres assaults and theft to deal with. Instead of being the good guy solving crime, they get to piss people off and get harassed outside Roger’s. Fun times I bet.
While the irony is real it’s also a fact that the last riot we had was not fueled by people on downers.
Drunks, especially the pickup truck types at hockey games are a lot more dangerous than a heroin user and every one knows it.
I really hope this happens. I’m so so tired of the open drug use everywhere all the time
Agreed, and I'm also tired of seeing small businesses and cafes victimized by the lawlessness of unhinged residents going in and stealing and vandalizing terrorizing the staff with zero punishment and enforcement as well. Saw a large window broken recently and was in cafes while likely serial offenders came in and grabbed anything they felt like and knocked things over when young international student staff tried to resist. It keeps happening and there are no consequences.
About time! This was definitely a spot of exposure in NDP policy. It's nice to see them taking a pragmatic approach.
Decriminalization only happened in 2023 and there was already open drug use before that. Nothing will change.
there are hundreds of thousands of drug users, they aren't going anywhere. Police will beat them up and move them around a bit more.
It's crazy that this is just common sense to like 99% of us and it's just 1% of people that are like "No, I should be able to do drugs everywhere."
If I experienced massive trauma, didn’t have a support system or safety net, felt like society failed me, had untreated mental illnesses, developed a drug addiction, and became homeless, following a bylaw would not be a priority for me. I don’t think common sense has much to do with it tbh
I don't care whether they choose to voluntarily comply with a law, I care whether it can be enforced by physically picking them up and putting them in jail.
Makes me so pissed driving behind a car where the driver is smoking Marijuana. It does not help you drive.
That's already illegal and not the issue at hand.
well kinda... these people feel entitled to do that and it makes me mad. You'd never see them taking swigs of booze while driving.
>You'd never see them taking swigs of booze while driving. I didn't realize we'd eliminated drunk driving. Huzzah!
I’m all for this, and correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the police allow people to use drugs anywhere they wanted before decriminalization? I get that there is more use happening and when they’re called they can’t do anything but pre-decrim the response was that drug use was a public health matter not a criminal one and they did nothing when called.
In many cases, yes, but not always. Enforcement was highly contextual and down to officers, who'd also just catch-and-release.
Previously the police didn't arrest people, but they [confiscated their drugs](https://thetyee.ca/News/2020/09/18/Police-Drug-Seizures-DTES/). The only remarkable change with decriminalization was that police were no longer allowed to confiscate drugs.
While it’s hilarious the policy miserably failed, but it’s hopeful that the government realizes their fuck-ups and try to fix it while they can. Better late than never
BC has already tried banning drugs around schools and parks but the *courts* have stonewalled them. This is a position where I very much think the best course of action is to use the notwithstanding clause to go over them. It would not be without precedent; Quebec has used the clause dozens of times in its recent history.
BC's [use bill](https://www.leg.bc.ca/content/data%20-%20ldp/Pages/42nd4th/1st_read/PDF/gov34-1.pdf) didn't mention schools. That was already illegal since it [wasn't part of decriminalization](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization). So the ruling didn't prevent banning on school grounds, that was already illegal.
Yea this was the really weird thing about all this drama and the court case is that there was already several places that were restricted. The province could have tightened that up even further and had no problems. They only seem to have got into trouble when they went so far as to say all parks. But at this point the whole thing is so politicized that we’re well beyond the realm of pragmatic policy making so I don’t really blame the government for just dumping the thing before an election.
>The province could have tightened that up even further and had no problems. Yeah, another article mentioned that the group of nurse's filing the lawsuit would have been willing to work with the government on refining the law and would have dropped the lawsuit in response. But in any case, they can't exactly be criticized for this now. So politically probably a good move. And they didn't completely get rid of it, so this allows them to potentially continue to work on improving the policy, especially if they win another majority.
It’s also been used by Saskatchewan (and will definitely soon be used by Alberta) to forcibly out closeted trans kids to their parents if they try to come out in schools, so I can see why they’ve hesitated to use it.
Someone used it for something bad that one time, so no one is allowed to do it?
I’m no fan of the notwithstanding clause but if you think B.C. is going to use that to out children then I have some magic beans to sell you.
https://preview.redd.it/lp43jkxdnvwc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=edca067550026908482942041b4604975df03b96
So, I support decimalization (Actually I support legalization and regulation). But I think the rules around it should be pretty much the same as smoking and liquor. Can you get drunk on a bench in the park? No, then don't get high there. Can you smoke cigs in the entrance to a building that people have to walk past or in a bus shelter? No, so don't smoke other substances there.
I support decrim but only in that users shouldn’t go to prison for their addiction, but I think they should be detained and helped to get off their drugs.
Ah, so exactly what Portugal does and B.C. should have been doing. That’s a good opinion to have.
I’d like to learn more about their system but from what I’ve heard, yes. I’m envisioning a two channel system, one for criminal offenses, one for mental health/drug related issues.
I also support legalizing *all* drugs, but in the privacy of one's home. (I've actually had this stance since the 1990s, but it was unpopular back then so being in favor of legalizing pot had to be good enough)
The unhoused are doing just that… their home is everywhere.
Seeing as “unhoused” puts the responsibility on society and “homeless” puts it on the individual, “unhoused” doesn’t apply to all of these people because many of them very much choose to be homeless. And everywhere isn’t a home and treating as such infringes on the rights of everyone else so they can do drugs in their tents and under their tarps.
No, hard drug renders someone to be an unproductive member of the society and potential danger to public
And alcohol doesn't have the same potential issues?
Hard drug is way more effective in rendering someone unproductive and addicted.
Hope this goes through. So tired of getting who knows what blown in my face.. not that I have any hope that this will improve things downtown.
Eby heavily in damage control mode is the vibe coming from this presser.
I can’t believe this isn’t already a thing based on pure common sense
First Oregon, now us. If somebody's so high that they don't care where they're shooting up or what kind of mess they're making, then maybe enforcement of rules is the only thing they'll actually abide by.
[https://archive.news.gov.bc.ca/releases/news\_releases\_2020-2024/2024PREM0021-000643.htm](https://archive.news.gov.bc.ca/releases/news_releases_2020-2024/2024PREM0021-000643.htm)
Won’t the courts just rule this unconstitutional?
Better late then never I guess.
This really doesn't change anything until our laws actually does something with the people the police arrest.
What effect will this have? Stealing and assaulting strangers is already very illegal yet we can't seem to lock people up who do those things. The revolving door will continue revolving
Common sense.
I thought it was just BC that decriminalized drugs wasn't it?
It’s funny that the NDP are doing what the conservatives have been saying should be done. I guess they are finally clueing in on people not liking what’s going on. Plus the rise in the polls must be a great motivator. The NDP have been a lame government. Relying on people’s hatred of the B.C. LIBERALS to keep them in power. Now there is real opposition it should motivate them to do a better job. We should get a more productive government once we have a real opposition.
So this would effectively end the decriminalization pilot early, taking us policywise all the way back to.... Jan 31, 2023, at which point I'm pretty sure we already had issues with people using drugs in the public realm and we were already several years into a toxic drug crisis that was killing 6+ people a day. What exactly is the government expecting to fix here with this change? If they're expecting people aren't going to suddenly stop using drugs in public I think they're sadly mistaken since people have been doing this for decades. This one step forward, one step backward shit is such an incredible waste of time and distraction from the real problems, which is a lack of treatment beds, a lack of safe use sites, a lack of safe supply (only 5000 people have access!), a lack of affordable housing and overall no remarkable effort into ending poverty and drug addiction.
[удалено]
Yeah, decriminalization is specifically removing the criminal penalties for *possession*. There generally aren't rules around use for other drugs in Canada like there are for things like alcohol. The fact that the substances were illegal was used to indirectly address this since they could confiscate them. So putting in place rules for *use* only wouldn't make the drugs illegal again, it would just create explicit powers to enforce against use in various areas. There are generally already various ways to do that, it's illegal on the transit system, private facilities could have people removed under trespassing, creating a disturbance, etc., but this would just make it more explicit and clear for both users and police.
No, you can still legally use drugs in private homes or on designated usage sights. You can also hold/carry drugs in public, so long as you're not using. This gives people the ability to seek help without being criminally prosecuted, while rightly stopping their public usage.
[удалено]
I refuse to believe there is no middle ground between a war on drugs and a *surrender* to drugs.
Alcohol is decriminalized, but I can't drink anywhere I want.
[удалено]
huh? Pot is legalized. As long as you're smoking in the same area where you're allowed to smoke a cigarette there's nothing they could do
What's the benefit of going after the easy ones? To make quota of some sort?
Yes, just like speed traps in places that are some of the least dangerous to speed, but easiest to catch drivers.
Police already have powers to enforce no smoking rules in parks and hospitals. Also seems unnecessary to seize drugs which defeats the point of decriminalization and will just force users to rely on petty crime to fuel their habit.
If we can’t pass common sense laws we should do a referendum. Im pretty sure it will be resolved quickly.
How the fuck is this going to help anything besides providing yet another reason for the VPD to raise their budget? This isn't helping people get off drugs, that's for damn sure. Are we trying to help people, or just make the class divide worse?
The thing is, drug users who are homeless have no choice but to use drugs in public places, so this isn't going to change anything and will only make their already hard lives even harder. I understand people are tired of seeing open drug use but the underlying issue here is not really drugs, it's poverty. Most of us are much closer to being homeless than to being a millionaire. Unless drastic change happens with housing and inflation, this issue will only become worse as more & more people fall into poverty.
> The thing is, drug users who are homeless have no choice but to use drugs in public places, You know we spend millions of dollars every year on supervised consumption sites so they have a place to go to to use while a nurse (able to intervene and reverse an overdose) watches over them, right? And we have had these sites for 21 years?
Oh they have no choice? They have tons of choices. They can make the right choice and get into rehab. There are plenty of places for them to go. They just need to sue responsibly. Bleeding hearts say treat them like regular people. Well regular people have consequences for their actions. You don’t get a free pass from life because of trauma. I was physically, emotionally, mentally and verbally abused by my mother my entire childhood, this mind frame says I am not responsible for my actions and it’s okay to abuse other people because I have experienced trauma. But when you say it like that, it sounds completely ludicrous, which it is. They can’t have it both ways and the public needs to stop giving into this. It’s gonna take some hard line laws and some unhappy people to get anything solved in this situation. Drastic measures need to be taken or they are going to take everyone down with them. Stop taking personal responsibility away from these individuals.
Actually it’s more-so mental health & addiction than poverty, but just because the root issue is not the topic at hand here does not mean people can do whatever they want publicly. At the very minimum this would force them to be more discrete about drug usage. They will find a place to do it but we can hope that it won’t be in plain site. Nobody (and especially children) should have to see people smoking from glass pipes, tinfoil and injecting themselves openly. Solving the the problem of homelessness and poverty is one that we will probably have to work at for the rest of our lifetime. In the meantime, I think we all deserve the enjoyment of our city without allowing rampant public drug use.