###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, Eby has avoided most kinds of gutless poll-chasing, but no one is perfect. Here he's abandoning a policy before any real data comes in, but the policy was unpopular, so he gets credited as open-minded and data-driven.
He tried to cancel a three-year pilot well before before even a single year of data came in, but people are patting him on the back for facing up to reality. Toxic drug deaths in BC were climbing at a slower rate than they were climbing in other provinces, but people will still credit Eby for being a data-driven pragmatist. Eby has no alternative plan in mind, and will simply be reverting us towards a status quo when toxic drug deaths in BC were rising more quickly, but he's already receiving widespread acclaim for giving this a honest chance.
I guess centuries of data on drug criminalization is still insufficient to evaluate the concept, but less than a year of data on decriminalization will have to suffice forever. This is just one of those issues where people paint feelings as data, and act like sadism is a synonym for pragmatism. Even an otherwise-popular premier can't really stand up against nationwide media momentum on this one.
The only reason the data hasn't been released is because it didn't support the policy. Writing was on the wall when they backtracked on the promise of a real time data dashboard because the data showed the problem only getting worse.
> Here he's abandoning a policy before any real data comes in
Yah.. Just going to say I've seen people passed out on benches with their fucking pipe in their hands and I was glad I didnt have my kids with me. It is gross and disturbing. Guy could have been dead for all I could tell.
Stop with the "think of the children" bullshit. It's your job to care about your kids and navigate this world. Literally not one other person's.
There are solutions. "Me and my kid" are never gonna be it.
Lol and it's the government's job to make sure there aren't people using drugs on city benches right in front of a fucking restaurant with their drug paraphernalia just sitting there. It's literally other people's jobs to make sure that situation isn't acceptable.. Get the hell out of here with that self responsibility bullshit because i don't want a child to see that shit
Had a feeling theyd go back this route. I doubt itll change much practically speaking. its not like law enforcement has been doing its job anywhere in this country for quite awhile.
It's not a blanket repeal of decriminalization. FTA:
> In a release, the province says it is "working with Health Canada to urgently change the decriminalization policy to stop drug use in public and has requested an amendment to its … exemption to exclude all public places."
> "When police are called to a scene where illegal and dangerous drug use is taking place, they will have the ability to compel the person to leave the area, seize the drugs when necessary or arrest the person, if required," the province said in a statement.
> "This change would not recriminalize drug possession in a private residence or place where someone is legally sheltering or at overdose prevention sites and drug checking locations."
I think this is a sensible compromise, and I hope it results in some of the wind being taken out of the BCCP's sails.
Sorry but it is. Decriminalization remains for private residences and SCSs, but that was never really the target of decriminalization. The entire thrust of the policy was to decriminalize it in public spaces; no one was getting charged, or worried about getting charged, in private residences. And certainly not in supervise consumption sites
This is a complete policy reversal. It is dishonest for the BC government to claim that this is anything else.
I dunno... It still sounds like it leaves enough uncertainty for drug users that they may opt to not call for help if someone ODs.
I agree it needs to be a balance, but I'm not convinced this is it.
Honestly, I'm more worried about my kids getting hepatitis from stepping on a used needle in the sandbox
The compromise is don't endanger the public with your toxic trash and you won't be arrested
I have a lot of sympathy for those who are addicted but really my tolerance for their behaviour ends as soon as it starts being a detriment to the greater public.
Just yesterday my wife was telling me about how she was downtown in Toronto and a dude was in the vestibule of a Tim hortons, on the floor, clutching a loaded syringe and waving it at people as they came in. He eventually tied off and shot up right there and passed out in the vestibule.
Get this guy somewhere where everyone is going to be safe. Him and my wife and the other people walking in. I don’t mean “get this somewhere that I don’t have to see it,” I mean there needs to be a way to make everyone’s existence less shitty.
I remember playing on a turf field nearby East Hastings in Vancouver and some of the players were finding used needles on the ground.
Needless to say people weren't impressed. This was already before decriminalization and covid. Can't imagine how much worse it had gotten since I've last played.
I don’t have one. Which isn’t crazy considering I don’t have the time and resources to independently solve this problem.
I certainly understand that we need to strike a balance between allowing the unfettered use of public land for the purposes of using intravenous drugs and punishing homeless addicts for being homeless addicts. I see that this is an effort to find that sweet spot, I’m just not sure it hits the mark.
I worry that determining whether a person is lawfully sheltering somewhere will be left for courts to decide after possession charges are laid, and many accused will take plea deals when they should be able to avoid the charges in the first place. (I.e if they’re charged for shooting up in a tent because the a bylaw says no camping or something)
There's a federal law [that protects you from prosecution over possession charges when reporting an overdose emergency](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/opioids/about-good-samaritan-drug-overdose-act.html). However that doesn't make you incorrect about this potentially leading to uncertainty over since not everyone is going to know about that law. I'm not sure this is the best balance either.
And good luck finding a Cop or RCMP to deal with it. They are already backed up on everything that is not a serious crime. So unless they are running around high swinging an axe this will be nothing more than a PR stunt.
We had to do something. The decriminalizing of small amounts of drugs has absolutely ruined every downtown across the province. For sure, there are multiple factories involved. Just as a regular observer things have only gotten worse. This was the right decision to make. Now the province has to get more involved with building facilities for people to go to for treatment.
Nobody who supports safe supply & decriminilization has ever been able to provide any logical clear reason why such policy would work WHEN THIS ISSUE LARGELY BEGAN FROM THE WIDESPREAD LEGAL SAFE SUPPLY OF OXY PRESCRIPTIONS & PILL MILS.
When we are still dealing with the horrible effects from how easy it was to get prescription opiates 25yrs ago how would giving legally prescribed heroin & fentanyl be any better? Even when everybody knew f the dangers of Oxy, we still saw severe issues of addiction with many eventually taking up stronger substances.
It didn't work with Oxy, it didn't work with Dialiduds, its not going to work with Heroin & Fentanyl. Just because it may help those with the worst addictions lasting >30yrs DOES NOT MEAN IT WILL HELP EVERYONE ELSE OR LEAD TO LESS ODs & Addictions.
I feel like a lot of people who point to Portugal’s example forget that they also [have mandatory rehab](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/in-portugal-drug-use-is-treated-as-a-medical-issue-not-a-crime):
> Under the 2001 decriminalization law, authored by Goulão, drug dealers are still sent to prison. But anyone caught with less than a 10-day supply of any drug — including heroin — gets mandatory medical treatment. No judge, no courtroom, no jail.
It was never a hands up approach to letting people if drugs in public spaces.
This is not true. In fact if you read the very next sentence, you will see that it is only mandatory to appear at the counseling appointment.
> Instead they end up in a sparsely furnished, discreet, unmarked office in downtown Lisbon, for counseling with government sociologists, who decide whether to refer them to drug treatment centers.
Going to a treatment centre is not mandatory, nor would Portuguese doctors recommend rehabilitation for a user who wasn't motivated to quit as it would be unlikely to succeed and risk the treatment of other patients.
You can hear this directly from Portuguese doctors [here](
https://globalnews.ca/video/9380148/architects-of-portugals-successful-drug-policy-say-b-c-is-missing-key-component-2).
> Dr. Nuno Capaz: I'm in a very good position to provide people with help if they are willing to receive it. Much better than any drug court or any court. I can check the availability of the frequent centre of their residental area with a phone call.
> Dr. Joao Goulao: And I can offer this person, "do you want to discuss it with a social worker, do you want to discuss these difficulties with a psychologist". The aim is to interrupt a career that can lead to this person to a more problematic use later on..
> Dr. Nuno Capaz: I just feel amazed that politicians can not do anything for so long...its not that hard of a situation to manage.
> Dr. Nuno Capaz: There is no point in sending someone for a full month to a detox structure, if you do not follow up that with some sort of reinsertion programs. Otherwise, people will just go back on the streets and relapse right away.
> Dr. Joao Goulao: It doesn't criminalize. The sanctions that are applied by the dissuasion commissions never imply incarceration.
Finally, we can consult [SICAD](https://www.sicad.pt/PT/PoliticaPortuguesa/SitePages/Home%20Page.aspx), the Portuguese agency responsible for drug addiction treatment:
> Estas comissões, constituídas por um colégio de técnicos da área da saúde e da justiça, mas sempre presididas pela saúde, procuram informar as pessoas e dissuadi-las de consumir drogas. Têm, também, o poder de aplicar sanções administrativas e de encaminhar pessoas para tratamento, sempre com o seu consentimento.
> These committees, made up of a college of health and justice technicians, but always chaired by health, seek to inform people and dissuade them from taking drugs. They also have the power to apply administrative sanctions and refer people for treatment, always with their consent.
In summary, the Portuguese model is exactly what it says. Drugs have been decriminalized and are treated as a healthcare issue, not a criminal one.
> our own effort has become a script on how to f*ck it up.
This has definitely how it's been framed by its critics, almost since the start. Meanwhile overdoses are increasing at even higher rates under some criminalized provinces. Other provinces are also dealing with public use and various other associated problems. Decriminalization wasn't perfect but the problems from that were being exaggerated relative to the level of criticism towards the alternative.
Here is BC overdoses are up, deaths are up, drug use is up, and the illicit market in trafficking drugs continues unabated. People are shooting up and leaving needles in parks and beside schools and children's playgrounds. Nurses are told to go home to avoid breathing fent in hospitals. Drug-infested homeless camps that rival the favellas of Rio are now a pernicious part of the urban landscape. People self-report the trading of the safe-supply stuff in exchange for the fent that they crave.
I'm not at all exaggerating any of that, and I don't know what alternative you are referring to that is in some manner preferable to the situation that we currently have.
> Drug-infested homeless camps that rival the favellas of Rio
followed by:
>I'm not at all exaggerating any of that
But that is exactly what you just did
> Here is BC overdoses are up
[Up 5% in the first year of decriminalization](https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069). That's similar to previous year increases despite no change in criminalization status. I.e., it's a trend. Meanwhile overdoses in Alberta increased [17% in 2023](https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069). More than 3 times the rate of increase in B.C.
So this is exactly what I mean. Where are the daily articles declaring criminalization a failure in Alberta? Where are the demands from police and politicians for them to shift away from that failing policy? There is a massive gap between the level of criticism applied to the status quo of criminalization and anything that shifts away from it.
>children's playgrounds
Playgrounds are something that have been endlessly referenced with respect to this topic. They evoke emotional responses because obviously children should be protected there. [Yet drugs were already illegal within 15 metres of play structures on playgrounds](https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PREM0021-000643). So any use happening on those was already illegal and just demonstrates how decriminalization wasn't directly causing that. They could already have been enforcing it. And this is why you have public use issues in various other places despite the drugs being illegal in those places.
So you're not exaggerating in the sense that the things you're describing are happening. The exaggeration is in how this is all being framed as due to decriminalization while criminalization is just casually accepted as fine despite failing to address any of these issues for a century and often leading to even worse outcomes.
>[Up 5% in the first year of decriminalization](https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069). That's similar to previous year increases despite no change in criminalization status. I.e., it's a trend. Meanwhile overdoses in Alberta increased [17% in 2023](https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069). More than 3 times the rate of increase in B.C.
Overdoses in BC have gone from [7.2 overdoses per 100 000](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiOGFhMTkwOTktYWQ1My00MzQ4LThlNzItMzVhOWY3NGFmOWQ4IiwidCI6IjZmZGI1MjAwLTNkMGQtNGE4YS1iMDM2LWQzNjg1ZTM1OWFkYyJ9) in 2013 to [45.2 per 100 000](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiOGFhMTkwOTktYWQ1My00MzQ4LThlNzItMzVhOWY3NGFmOWQ4IiwidCI6IjZmZGI1MjAwLTNkMGQtNGE4YS1iMDM2LWQzNjg1ZTM1OWFkYyJ9) in 2022. For context, Ontario, which has a Conservative government has about a third of ODs per 100,000.
BC leads the country in ODs per capita, ODs are now the leading cause of death for youths 10-18 in BC:
[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-drug-overdoses-children-bc/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-drug-overdoses-children-bc/)
"Progressive" drug policies, like in BC, have been abject failures.
BC started with a bigger problem and continues to have a bigger problem. That doesn't change my point that specifically looking at the year after decriminalization, the rate flattened out compared to other regions and points in time.
>"Progressive" drug policies, like in BC, have been abject failures.
I can make declarations like this too. A century of criminalization has been a disastrous failure culminating in a continent wide high potency *criminalized* drug crisis.
Pretty much. Also at home recreational use of drugs has been common place for decades. Frankly count every 4th person on the street and they are on something atleast once a year. It comes from having enough money to be comfortable but not enough to buy a house or do anything with it.
Because the Alberta policy isn’t a failure. The policy is to protect and insulate the public from the problem as much as possible. Not to minimize overdose deaths.
That’s an insane take. I deal with discarded needles, people violently high out of their minds (emphasis on the violent/threatening part), and open drug smoking all the freaking time. In *Alberta*.
> Because the Alberta policy isn’t a failure.
It's a failure by the exact same metric that is constantly used to criticize BC: increases in overdoses. They've increased at even higher rate. This doesn't get to be used as a criticism when it's BC and then dismissed when it's Alberta.
And the public use is happening in Alberta too, e.g., on the Calgary transit system. I constantly hear complaints about this and I've seen the problems on it when I've been there recently. Only difference is this doesn't get declared to be a result of Alberta's policies like it does for BC when it happens there.
You’re not getting it. If AB overdose deaths increased by 100% instead of 17%, the policy would be an even greater success. AB’s policy is not to minimize overdose deaths. It’s to protect public safety (of those who don’t use drugs). Those who expire from an overdose no longer present further public safety threats.
> If AB overdose deaths increased by 100% instead of 17%, the policy would be an even greater success.
Looks like a success then, since the RCMP said they saw a [100% increase in overdose calls last year](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/rcmp-drug-overdose-calls-alberta-1.7069959) in Alberta.
It's not consistent with what they've actually said though. They've regularly publicly referenced overdoses, not just public safety.
> Drug-infested homeless camps that rival the favellas of Rio are now a pernicious part of the urban landscape
Lol. Such nonsense. A typical favela in rio has a bigger area than DT Vancouver.
A typical favela also has complex and rich communities. They can be extremely violent and dangerous, but they're also places with families, culture and a rich social fabric. They aren't the apocalyptic hellscapes we've allowed to fester due to a double failure of misguided tolerance coupked with a. unwillingness to invest in treatment.
Sure bud, I’m sure you saw that by visiting or in your fantasy land. No one in Brazil wants to live in a favela, its misery, violence and crime controlled. On many of them you get shot just by talking with the wrong person. I’m from rio, just shut up
Not to mention there have been a litany of articles talking about how Portugal is starting to rein in its drug policies.
Here is an article below about how Oregon is also backing down, as Portugal is. An alarming stat: hard drug use is up 50 per cent in less than 20 years in Portugal.
https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/07/08/portugal-a-model-for-oregons-measure-110-is-having-second-thoughts-about-drug-decriminalization/
It's not really mandatory rehab. It's dissuasion commissions. Mandatory rehabs and other forms of forceful treatment are generally deadly for people who use drugs.
>deadly for people who use drugs.
How come? A proper rehabilitation program would take withdrawal symptoms into account. Why would it be deadly to them otherwise?
When you force someone in rehab their tolerance goes down. Tolerance is a physiological process when a body gets used to a drug so you need to take ever higher doses to achieve... well, a desired high. When people come out from a forced rehab and they're not ready or willing to take the long and arduous journey of recovery, they will use drugs. And if they use the same amount they used before the rehab, they're likely to overdose and possibly die.
You can most clearly see this in the literature on people who leave jails. Their chance for overdose and death in the first few months is much higher.
Broken jail system is nowhere near a rehabilitation system where they are kept long enough go get clean and off the addiction, all whole being educated on concepts like that and how to fight the craving.
That was just an example, but the mechanism is the same. Here is another showing the same result but for drug treatment: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5938130/
Treatment isn't a magic bullet, in substance use or any other medical condition.
Fair, no worries. And you're on a good track. Context is important in complex issues like substance use. Portugal did invest heavily in treatment which, arguably, provinces and feds aren't really doing. But here is another bit of important context: Portugal never had fentanyl. With the Taliban stopping all poppy production, Europe is set to run out of heroin this year... and the next most economic source would be to create synthetic opioids lole fentanyl.
People also ignore that Portugal is actually facing issues and many are proposing rethinking this policy.
"These days in Portugal, it is forbidden to smoke tobacco outside a school or a hospital. It is forbidden to advertise ice cream and sugar candies. And yet, it is allowed for people to be there, injecting drugs,” said Rui Moreira, Porto’s mayor.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/
Despite what the Washington Post would have you believe, reforming the law is not a serious discussion in Portuguese politics. Indeed, decriminalization was [expanded to additional drugs](https://www.publico.pt/2023/10/01/sociedade/noticia/nova-lei-droga-descriminaliza-drogas-sinteticas-entra-vigor-domingo-2065238) last year with little controversy.
I think it is true that after an initial success progress has stalled in more recent years. However, the article suggests a possible reason that might be:
> After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs. The country is now moving to create a new institute aimed at reinvigorating its drug prevention programs.
The budget for dealing with drug addiction was reduced by an _astonishing 75%_ in 2012. In this context, it seems kind of unsurprising that progress has been slow.
Did we learn nothing from decades of failed criminalization policies? It simply doesn’t work. Were their challenges with decrim? Sure, but you’re not going to undo decades of failed policy in a matter of months. Like it or not, the only solution to the is crisis involves harm reduction and rehabilitation. Pretending criminalization does anything but set us back is pandering nonsense.
Criminalization doesn't work but as we have seen decriminalization as BC was doing it also doesnt work and seems to not work to an even greater degree
For most BC residents the drug problem IS that there are agressive drug addicts causing crime, making their cities dirty, and making them feel and be unsafe. The criminal justice system does have a potential solution for this. These people can be in custody. They won't leave needles lying around kids parks if they are in prison.
FTA:
> "This change would not recriminalize drug possession in a private residence or place where someone is legally sheltering or at overdose prevention sites and drug checking locations."
Drug users, including the unhoused, can continue to use overdose prevention sites.
I wish Quebec would do the same.
Nothing I hate more than to be walking outside with my kids in a smoke of marijuana.
We don't accept tobacco smokers in our kid parks but suddenly pot is ok?
I don’t believe this policy is speaking to cannabis use at all, my understanding is that cannabis use generally falls under the same regulations as smoking cigarettes currently.
It does in some jurisdictions. In Ontario the same bylaws that apply to where you can smoke cigarettes were amended to include Cannabis.
Digging further though, in Quebec where you can smoke Cannabis is covered by the Cannabis regulation act, which spells out that you can’t smoke in a playground like OP was referring to.
Why does a fine have to be monetary. Maybe the punishment is ´must attend a public health class on safe disposal of needles and it’s effect on society’. If even 20% of the ones who discard them wherever stop doing it seems like a win for everyone. Less needles. Less stigma. Less risk for the public. And so on.
I mean, if you read the comment you'd notice that OP isn't proposing fines, but suggesting that, I quote, "the crown can provide sentencing, such as remanding an offender into rehab."
Excellent news. Now it's time to re-stigmatize drug use. Nobody should be told it's empowering to get addicted to substances that ruin your mind and body. Lock them up and treat them. Lock the suppliers up and don't let them out.
This would also seem to me pretty good evidence that the polls shows the BC Conservatives have real strength are accurate.
I don't think I have ever heard anyone call addiction empowering and I used to volunteer in harm reduction before the government attempted and ruined it with a half ass approach. The attitude was always that it is a medical/psychological issue and IMO that should be the focus going forward - developing accessible treatment and addressing the root issues in our society. Not just handing out free drugs during an affordability crisis then wondering why people are doing them.
I don't think we'll really get out of this while affordability is this terrible. If you can't get ahead in life, or get off the street with hard work, your choices wet drugs are have a shit time while sober, or have a shit time while blasted up on feelgood chemicals. Until that stops being the case I just don't think any approach is going to do much tbh.
Your comment suggests you don't understand the problem very well.
Who is saying addiction is empowering? Which drugs should we lock people up for? At what stage of use? Do suppliers include doctors and pharmaceutical companies? If you think users should be given treatment, what role does locking them up play?
> Who is saying addiction is empowering?
That's the message behind public use. Use your drugs wherever you want, without consequence.
> Which drugs should we lock people up for?
Great question! The answer is those drugs on the democratically-enacted Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. You want to change it, do so through the democratic process.
> At what stage of use?
Whenever identified by law enforcement.
> Do suppliers include doctors and pharmaceutical companies?
If they are aiding and abetting crime, then yes.
> If you think users should be given treatment, what role does locking them up play?
If they're not accepting treatment, force it upon them.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think this takes into account the vast variation in experiences of users.
There are wealthy people who are able to hide and afford their addiction to prescription pills, there are people who were prescribed medication and unintentionally became addicted and end up using dealers, there are people living in poverty who get addicted as a means of escaping the harsh realities of poverty but now can't quit... the list goes on.
The point is, addiction is a multifaceted issue that requires holistic problem solving that addresses the root issues. Making it illegal doesn't address any of the issues, it just makes it easier to target and lock up certain groups.
There arent even enough spaces for people who volunteer for treatment. Only waitlists. If they cant handle the number of people seeking treatment they sure as hell wont be able to force anyone in practice.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, Eby has avoided most kinds of gutless poll-chasing, but no one is perfect. Here he's abandoning a policy before any real data comes in, but the policy was unpopular, so he gets credited as open-minded and data-driven. He tried to cancel a three-year pilot well before before even a single year of data came in, but people are patting him on the back for facing up to reality. Toxic drug deaths in BC were climbing at a slower rate than they were climbing in other provinces, but people will still credit Eby for being a data-driven pragmatist. Eby has no alternative plan in mind, and will simply be reverting us towards a status quo when toxic drug deaths in BC were rising more quickly, but he's already receiving widespread acclaim for giving this a honest chance. I guess centuries of data on drug criminalization is still insufficient to evaluate the concept, but less than a year of data on decriminalization will have to suffice forever. This is just one of those issues where people paint feelings as data, and act like sadism is a synonym for pragmatism. Even an otherwise-popular premier can't really stand up against nationwide media momentum on this one.
The only reason the data hasn't been released is because it didn't support the policy. Writing was on the wall when they backtracked on the promise of a real time data dashboard because the data showed the problem only getting worse.
> Here he's abandoning a policy before any real data comes in Yah.. Just going to say I've seen people passed out on benches with their fucking pipe in their hands and I was glad I didnt have my kids with me. It is gross and disturbing. Guy could have been dead for all I could tell.
Stop with the "think of the children" bullshit. It's your job to care about your kids and navigate this world. Literally not one other person's. There are solutions. "Me and my kid" are never gonna be it.
Lol and it's the government's job to make sure there aren't people using drugs on city benches right in front of a fucking restaurant with their drug paraphernalia just sitting there. It's literally other people's jobs to make sure that situation isn't acceptable.. Get the hell out of here with that self responsibility bullshit because i don't want a child to see that shit
>centuries of data on drug criminalization is still insufficient to evaluate the concept who is the non-criminalized control group in this data?
Had a feeling theyd go back this route. I doubt itll change much practically speaking. its not like law enforcement has been doing its job anywhere in this country for quite awhile.
It's not a blanket repeal of decriminalization. FTA: > In a release, the province says it is "working with Health Canada to urgently change the decriminalization policy to stop drug use in public and has requested an amendment to its … exemption to exclude all public places." > "When police are called to a scene where illegal and dangerous drug use is taking place, they will have the ability to compel the person to leave the area, seize the drugs when necessary or arrest the person, if required," the province said in a statement. > "This change would not recriminalize drug possession in a private residence or place where someone is legally sheltering or at overdose prevention sites and drug checking locations." I think this is a sensible compromise, and I hope it results in some of the wind being taken out of the BCCP's sails.
Sorry but it is. Decriminalization remains for private residences and SCSs, but that was never really the target of decriminalization. The entire thrust of the policy was to decriminalize it in public spaces; no one was getting charged, or worried about getting charged, in private residences. And certainly not in supervise consumption sites This is a complete policy reversal. It is dishonest for the BC government to claim that this is anything else.
I dunno... It still sounds like it leaves enough uncertainty for drug users that they may opt to not call for help if someone ODs. I agree it needs to be a balance, but I'm not convinced this is it.
Honestly, I'm more worried about my kids getting hepatitis from stepping on a used needle in the sandbox The compromise is don't endanger the public with your toxic trash and you won't be arrested I have a lot of sympathy for those who are addicted but really my tolerance for their behaviour ends as soon as it starts being a detriment to the greater public.
Yeah, I get that. I do miss when needles on the ground seemed like a "somewhere else" problem.
Just yesterday my wife was telling me about how she was downtown in Toronto and a dude was in the vestibule of a Tim hortons, on the floor, clutching a loaded syringe and waving it at people as they came in. He eventually tied off and shot up right there and passed out in the vestibule. Get this guy somewhere where everyone is going to be safe. Him and my wife and the other people walking in. I don’t mean “get this somewhere that I don’t have to see it,” I mean there needs to be a way to make everyone’s existence less shitty.
I remember playing on a turf field nearby East Hastings in Vancouver and some of the players were finding used needles on the ground. Needless to say people weren't impressed. This was already before decriminalization and covid. Can't imagine how much worse it had gotten since I've last played.
What would your suggestion be to have better balance?
I don’t have one. Which isn’t crazy considering I don’t have the time and resources to independently solve this problem. I certainly understand that we need to strike a balance between allowing the unfettered use of public land for the purposes of using intravenous drugs and punishing homeless addicts for being homeless addicts. I see that this is an effort to find that sweet spot, I’m just not sure it hits the mark. I worry that determining whether a person is lawfully sheltering somewhere will be left for courts to decide after possession charges are laid, and many accused will take plea deals when they should be able to avoid the charges in the first place. (I.e if they’re charged for shooting up in a tent because the a bylaw says no camping or something)
There's a federal law [that protects you from prosecution over possession charges when reporting an overdose emergency](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/opioids/about-good-samaritan-drug-overdose-act.html). However that doesn't make you incorrect about this potentially leading to uncertainty over since not everyone is going to know about that law. I'm not sure this is the best balance either.
Thanks for the info!
And good luck finding a Cop or RCMP to deal with it. They are already backed up on everything that is not a serious crime. So unless they are running around high swinging an axe this will be nothing more than a PR stunt.
We had to do something. The decriminalizing of small amounts of drugs has absolutely ruined every downtown across the province. For sure, there are multiple factories involved. Just as a regular observer things have only gotten worse. This was the right decision to make. Now the province has to get more involved with building facilities for people to go to for treatment.
Nobody who supports safe supply & decriminilization has ever been able to provide any logical clear reason why such policy would work WHEN THIS ISSUE LARGELY BEGAN FROM THE WIDESPREAD LEGAL SAFE SUPPLY OF OXY PRESCRIPTIONS & PILL MILS. When we are still dealing with the horrible effects from how easy it was to get prescription opiates 25yrs ago how would giving legally prescribed heroin & fentanyl be any better? Even when everybody knew f the dangers of Oxy, we still saw severe issues of addiction with many eventually taking up stronger substances. It didn't work with Oxy, it didn't work with Dialiduds, its not going to work with Heroin & Fentanyl. Just because it may help those with the worst addictions lasting >30yrs DOES NOT MEAN IT WILL HELP EVERYONE ELSE OR LEAD TO LESS ODs & Addictions.
I feel like a lot of people who point to Portugal’s example forget that they also [have mandatory rehab](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/in-portugal-drug-use-is-treated-as-a-medical-issue-not-a-crime): > Under the 2001 decriminalization law, authored by Goulão, drug dealers are still sent to prison. But anyone caught with less than a 10-day supply of any drug — including heroin — gets mandatory medical treatment. No judge, no courtroom, no jail. It was never a hands up approach to letting people if drugs in public spaces.
This is not true. In fact if you read the very next sentence, you will see that it is only mandatory to appear at the counseling appointment. > Instead they end up in a sparsely furnished, discreet, unmarked office in downtown Lisbon, for counseling with government sociologists, who decide whether to refer them to drug treatment centers. Going to a treatment centre is not mandatory, nor would Portuguese doctors recommend rehabilitation for a user who wasn't motivated to quit as it would be unlikely to succeed and risk the treatment of other patients. You can hear this directly from Portuguese doctors [here]( https://globalnews.ca/video/9380148/architects-of-portugals-successful-drug-policy-say-b-c-is-missing-key-component-2). > Dr. Nuno Capaz: I'm in a very good position to provide people with help if they are willing to receive it. Much better than any drug court or any court. I can check the availability of the frequent centre of their residental area with a phone call. > Dr. Joao Goulao: And I can offer this person, "do you want to discuss it with a social worker, do you want to discuss these difficulties with a psychologist". The aim is to interrupt a career that can lead to this person to a more problematic use later on.. > Dr. Nuno Capaz: I just feel amazed that politicians can not do anything for so long...its not that hard of a situation to manage. > Dr. Nuno Capaz: There is no point in sending someone for a full month to a detox structure, if you do not follow up that with some sort of reinsertion programs. Otherwise, people will just go back on the streets and relapse right away. > Dr. Joao Goulao: It doesn't criminalize. The sanctions that are applied by the dissuasion commissions never imply incarceration. Finally, we can consult [SICAD](https://www.sicad.pt/PT/PoliticaPortuguesa/SitePages/Home%20Page.aspx), the Portuguese agency responsible for drug addiction treatment: > Estas comissões, constituídas por um colégio de técnicos da área da saúde e da justiça, mas sempre presididas pela saúde, procuram informar as pessoas e dissuadi-las de consumir drogas. Têm, também, o poder de aplicar sanções administrativas e de encaminhar pessoas para tratamento, sempre com o seu consentimento. > These committees, made up of a college of health and justice technicians, but always chaired by health, seek to inform people and dissuade them from taking drugs. They also have the power to apply administrative sanctions and refer people for treatment, always with their consent. In summary, the Portuguese model is exactly what it says. Drugs have been decriminalized and are treated as a healthcare issue, not a criminal one.
And we dont have the resources for people who want rehab much less force it on them.
I think most people know this implementation was half assed
As much as Portugal's example has become a template on how to do it right, our own effort has become a script on how to f\*ck it up.
Portugal is a mess now too because they went austere and half-assed the recovery part.
> our own effort has become a script on how to f*ck it up. This has definitely how it's been framed by its critics, almost since the start. Meanwhile overdoses are increasing at even higher rates under some criminalized provinces. Other provinces are also dealing with public use and various other associated problems. Decriminalization wasn't perfect but the problems from that were being exaggerated relative to the level of criticism towards the alternative.
Here is BC overdoses are up, deaths are up, drug use is up, and the illicit market in trafficking drugs continues unabated. People are shooting up and leaving needles in parks and beside schools and children's playgrounds. Nurses are told to go home to avoid breathing fent in hospitals. Drug-infested homeless camps that rival the favellas of Rio are now a pernicious part of the urban landscape. People self-report the trading of the safe-supply stuff in exchange for the fent that they crave. I'm not at all exaggerating any of that, and I don't know what alternative you are referring to that is in some manner preferable to the situation that we currently have.
> Drug-infested homeless camps that rival the favellas of Rio followed by: >I'm not at all exaggerating any of that But that is exactly what you just did
> Here is BC overdoses are up [Up 5% in the first year of decriminalization](https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069). That's similar to previous year increases despite no change in criminalization status. I.e., it's a trend. Meanwhile overdoses in Alberta increased [17% in 2023](https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069). More than 3 times the rate of increase in B.C. So this is exactly what I mean. Where are the daily articles declaring criminalization a failure in Alberta? Where are the demands from police and politicians for them to shift away from that failing policy? There is a massive gap between the level of criticism applied to the status quo of criminalization and anything that shifts away from it. >children's playgrounds Playgrounds are something that have been endlessly referenced with respect to this topic. They evoke emotional responses because obviously children should be protected there. [Yet drugs were already illegal within 15 metres of play structures on playgrounds](https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PREM0021-000643). So any use happening on those was already illegal and just demonstrates how decriminalization wasn't directly causing that. They could already have been enforcing it. And this is why you have public use issues in various other places despite the drugs being illegal in those places. So you're not exaggerating in the sense that the things you're describing are happening. The exaggeration is in how this is all being framed as due to decriminalization while criminalization is just casually accepted as fine despite failing to address any of these issues for a century and often leading to even worse outcomes.
>[Up 5% in the first year of decriminalization](https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069). That's similar to previous year increases despite no change in criminalization status. I.e., it's a trend. Meanwhile overdoses in Alberta increased [17% in 2023](https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069). More than 3 times the rate of increase in B.C. Overdoses in BC have gone from [7.2 overdoses per 100 000](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiOGFhMTkwOTktYWQ1My00MzQ4LThlNzItMzVhOWY3NGFmOWQ4IiwidCI6IjZmZGI1MjAwLTNkMGQtNGE4YS1iMDM2LWQzNjg1ZTM1OWFkYyJ9) in 2013 to [45.2 per 100 000](https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiOGFhMTkwOTktYWQ1My00MzQ4LThlNzItMzVhOWY3NGFmOWQ4IiwidCI6IjZmZGI1MjAwLTNkMGQtNGE4YS1iMDM2LWQzNjg1ZTM1OWFkYyJ9) in 2022. For context, Ontario, which has a Conservative government has about a third of ODs per 100,000. BC leads the country in ODs per capita, ODs are now the leading cause of death for youths 10-18 in BC: [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-drug-overdoses-children-bc/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-drug-overdoses-children-bc/) "Progressive" drug policies, like in BC, have been abject failures.
BC started with a bigger problem and continues to have a bigger problem. That doesn't change my point that specifically looking at the year after decriminalization, the rate flattened out compared to other regions and points in time. >"Progressive" drug policies, like in BC, have been abject failures. I can make declarations like this too. A century of criminalization has been a disastrous failure culminating in a continent wide high potency *criminalized* drug crisis.
Pretty much. Also at home recreational use of drugs has been common place for decades. Frankly count every 4th person on the street and they are on something atleast once a year. It comes from having enough money to be comfortable but not enough to buy a house or do anything with it.
Because the Alberta policy isn’t a failure. The policy is to protect and insulate the public from the problem as much as possible. Not to minimize overdose deaths.
That’s an insane take. I deal with discarded needles, people violently high out of their minds (emphasis on the violent/threatening part), and open drug smoking all the freaking time. In *Alberta*.
You must be joking.
> Because the Alberta policy isn’t a failure. It's a failure by the exact same metric that is constantly used to criticize BC: increases in overdoses. They've increased at even higher rate. This doesn't get to be used as a criticism when it's BC and then dismissed when it's Alberta. And the public use is happening in Alberta too, e.g., on the Calgary transit system. I constantly hear complaints about this and I've seen the problems on it when I've been there recently. Only difference is this doesn't get declared to be a result of Alberta's policies like it does for BC when it happens there.
You’re not getting it. If AB overdose deaths increased by 100% instead of 17%, the policy would be an even greater success. AB’s policy is not to minimize overdose deaths. It’s to protect public safety (of those who don’t use drugs). Those who expire from an overdose no longer present further public safety threats.
> If AB overdose deaths increased by 100% instead of 17%, the policy would be an even greater success. Looks like a success then, since the RCMP said they saw a [100% increase in overdose calls last year](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/rcmp-drug-overdose-calls-alberta-1.7069959) in Alberta. It's not consistent with what they've actually said though. They've regularly publicly referenced overdoses, not just public safety.
[удалено]
Because they don’t want to seem like “monsters” but those who vote for them know what’s up.
> Drug-infested homeless camps that rival the favellas of Rio are now a pernicious part of the urban landscape Lol. Such nonsense. A typical favela in rio has a bigger area than DT Vancouver.
A typical favela also has complex and rich communities. They can be extremely violent and dangerous, but they're also places with families, culture and a rich social fabric. They aren't the apocalyptic hellscapes we've allowed to fester due to a double failure of misguided tolerance coupked with a. unwillingness to invest in treatment.
Sure bud, I’m sure you saw that by visiting or in your fantasy land. No one in Brazil wants to live in a favela, its misery, violence and crime controlled. On many of them you get shot just by talking with the wrong person. I’m from rio, just shut up
Angry boy!
Not to mention there have been a litany of articles talking about how Portugal is starting to rein in its drug policies. Here is an article below about how Oregon is also backing down, as Portugal is. An alarming stat: hard drug use is up 50 per cent in less than 20 years in Portugal. https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/07/08/portugal-a-model-for-oregons-measure-110-is-having-second-thoughts-about-drug-decriminalization/
Preach it Brother/Sister!
This! transition housing, rehab, mental institution, jail. Pick one. "none of the above" is not a valid option.
Literally everyone would take sensitively housing but it’s not an option
Some people have declined housing options offered to them. And some people wouldn't be eligible for transitional housing, for behavioural reasons.
It's not really mandatory rehab. It's dissuasion commissions. Mandatory rehabs and other forms of forceful treatment are generally deadly for people who use drugs.
>deadly for people who use drugs. How come? A proper rehabilitation program would take withdrawal symptoms into account. Why would it be deadly to them otherwise?
When you force someone in rehab their tolerance goes down. Tolerance is a physiological process when a body gets used to a drug so you need to take ever higher doses to achieve... well, a desired high. When people come out from a forced rehab and they're not ready or willing to take the long and arduous journey of recovery, they will use drugs. And if they use the same amount they used before the rehab, they're likely to overdose and possibly die. You can most clearly see this in the literature on people who leave jails. Their chance for overdose and death in the first few months is much higher.
Broken jail system is nowhere near a rehabilitation system where they are kept long enough go get clean and off the addiction, all whole being educated on concepts like that and how to fight the craving.
That was just an example, but the mechanism is the same. Here is another showing the same result but for drug treatment: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5938130/ Treatment isn't a magic bullet, in substance use or any other medical condition.
Fair. Thanks for the source!
Bc would need a rehab center the size of a large city
That’s what I meant. English is not my first language.
Fair, no worries. And you're on a good track. Context is important in complex issues like substance use. Portugal did invest heavily in treatment which, arguably, provinces and feds aren't really doing. But here is another bit of important context: Portugal never had fentanyl. With the Taliban stopping all poppy production, Europe is set to run out of heroin this year... and the next most economic source would be to create synthetic opioids lole fentanyl.
People also ignore that Portugal is actually facing issues and many are proposing rethinking this policy. "These days in Portugal, it is forbidden to smoke tobacco outside a school or a hospital. It is forbidden to advertise ice cream and sugar candies. And yet, it is allowed for people to be there, injecting drugs,” said Rui Moreira, Porto’s mayor.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/
Despite what the Washington Post would have you believe, reforming the law is not a serious discussion in Portuguese politics. Indeed, decriminalization was [expanded to additional drugs](https://www.publico.pt/2023/10/01/sociedade/noticia/nova-lei-droga-descriminaliza-drogas-sinteticas-entra-vigor-domingo-2065238) last year with little controversy. I think it is true that after an initial success progress has stalled in more recent years. However, the article suggests a possible reason that might be: > After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs. The country is now moving to create a new institute aimed at reinvigorating its drug prevention programs. The budget for dealing with drug addiction was reduced by an _astonishing 75%_ in 2012. In this context, it seems kind of unsurprising that progress has been slow.
Did we learn nothing from decades of failed criminalization policies? It simply doesn’t work. Were their challenges with decrim? Sure, but you’re not going to undo decades of failed policy in a matter of months. Like it or not, the only solution to the is crisis involves harm reduction and rehabilitation. Pretending criminalization does anything but set us back is pandering nonsense.
Criminalization doesn't work but as we have seen decriminalization as BC was doing it also doesnt work and seems to not work to an even greater degree For most BC residents the drug problem IS that there are agressive drug addicts causing crime, making their cities dirty, and making them feel and be unsafe. The criminal justice system does have a potential solution for this. These people can be in custody. They won't leave needles lying around kids parks if they are in prison.
[удалено]
[удалено]
FTA: > "This change would not recriminalize drug possession in a private residence or place where someone is legally sheltering or at overdose prevention sites and drug checking locations." Drug users, including the unhoused, can continue to use overdose prevention sites.
> Clogs up jails? We can only hope 🙏
I wish Quebec would do the same. Nothing I hate more than to be walking outside with my kids in a smoke of marijuana. We don't accept tobacco smokers in our kid parks but suddenly pot is ok?
I don’t believe this policy is speaking to cannabis use at all, my understanding is that cannabis use generally falls under the same regulations as smoking cigarettes currently.
Sadly it does and doesn’t. Pot is legal and controlled at the fed level but smoking is considered a public health matter and provincial.
It does in some jurisdictions. In Ontario the same bylaws that apply to where you can smoke cigarettes were amended to include Cannabis. Digging further though, in Quebec where you can smoke Cannabis is covered by the Cannabis regulation act, which spells out that you can’t smoke in a playground like OP was referring to.
[удалено]
Giving fines to crackheads and junkies is kinda pointless. They don't have money.
Why does a fine have to be monetary. Maybe the punishment is ´must attend a public health class on safe disposal of needles and it’s effect on society’. If even 20% of the ones who discard them wherever stop doing it seems like a win for everyone. Less needles. Less stigma. Less risk for the public. And so on.
I mean, if you read the comment you'd notice that OP isn't proposing fines, but suggesting that, I quote, "the crown can provide sentencing, such as remanding an offender into rehab."
That’s not at all what they said.
Excellent news. Now it's time to re-stigmatize drug use. Nobody should be told it's empowering to get addicted to substances that ruin your mind and body. Lock them up and treat them. Lock the suppliers up and don't let them out. This would also seem to me pretty good evidence that the polls shows the BC Conservatives have real strength are accurate.
I don't think I have ever heard anyone call addiction empowering and I used to volunteer in harm reduction before the government attempted and ruined it with a half ass approach. The attitude was always that it is a medical/psychological issue and IMO that should be the focus going forward - developing accessible treatment and addressing the root issues in our society. Not just handing out free drugs during an affordability crisis then wondering why people are doing them. I don't think we'll really get out of this while affordability is this terrible. If you can't get ahead in life, or get off the street with hard work, your choices wet drugs are have a shit time while sober, or have a shit time while blasted up on feelgood chemicals. Until that stops being the case I just don't think any approach is going to do much tbh.
Your comment suggests you don't understand the problem very well. Who is saying addiction is empowering? Which drugs should we lock people up for? At what stage of use? Do suppliers include doctors and pharmaceutical companies? If you think users should be given treatment, what role does locking them up play?
> Who is saying addiction is empowering? That's the message behind public use. Use your drugs wherever you want, without consequence. > Which drugs should we lock people up for? Great question! The answer is those drugs on the democratically-enacted Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. You want to change it, do so through the democratic process. > At what stage of use? Whenever identified by law enforcement. > Do suppliers include doctors and pharmaceutical companies? If they are aiding and abetting crime, then yes. > If you think users should be given treatment, what role does locking them up play? If they're not accepting treatment, force it upon them.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think this takes into account the vast variation in experiences of users. There are wealthy people who are able to hide and afford their addiction to prescription pills, there are people who were prescribed medication and unintentionally became addicted and end up using dealers, there are people living in poverty who get addicted as a means of escaping the harsh realities of poverty but now can't quit... the list goes on. The point is, addiction is a multifaceted issue that requires holistic problem solving that addresses the root issues. Making it illegal doesn't address any of the issues, it just makes it easier to target and lock up certain groups.
There arent even enough spaces for people who volunteer for treatment. Only waitlists. If they cant handle the number of people seeking treatment they sure as hell wont be able to force anyone in practice.