Canada province experiments with decriminalising hard drugs

Alligatorob

Alligatorob

SF VIP
Location
Northern Utah, transplanted from Florida/Louisiana
A step in the right direction! Kudos to BC! Hope it works out.

The article cites a similar policy in Oregon, big difference however is that BC has the support of the Canadian federal government. Oregon does not, so all they can do is stop state and local officials from enforcing the law. US federal law still makes things illegal in Oregon. BC's situation is much better.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64461983

Canada's province of British Columbia is starting a first-in-the-nation trial decriminalising small amounts of hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

From Tuesday, adults can possess up to 2.5g of such drugs, as well as methamphetamine, fentanyl and morphine.

Canada's federal government granted the request by the west coast province to try out the three-year experiment.

It follows a similar policy in the nearby US state of Oregon, which decriminalised hard drugs in 2020.

Ahead of the pilot's launch, British Columbia and federal officials outlined the rules under the federally approved exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

While those substances will remain illegal, adults found in possession of a combined total of less than 2.5g of the drugs will not be arrested, charged or have their substances seized. Instead, they will be offered information on available health and social services.

Federal minister of mental health and addictions Carolyn Bennett on Monday called the move "a monumental shift in drug policy that favours fostering trusting and supportive relationships in health and social services over further criminalisation".

Some 10,000 residents have died from drug overdoses since British Columbia declared drugs to be a public health emergency in 2016, officials said.
 

Home of Vancouver if not mistaken. Canadian version of Portland or San Francisco.

The libertarian in me says go ahead but knowing and seeing decades of the affects of regular use/abuse of many of those drugs I say no. I'd say ok but can't use drugs or addiction as an excuse for their crimes or screw ups at work. Drug abusers should not be a protected class.
 
Alligatorob said:
A step in the right direction! Kudos to BC! Hope it works out.

The article cites a similar policy in Oregon, big difference however is that BC has the support of the Canadian federal government. Oregon does not, so all they can do is stop state and local officials from enforcing the law. US federal law still makes things illegal in Oregon. BC's situation is much better.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64461983

Canada's province of British Columbia is starting a first-in-the-nation trial decriminalising small amounts of hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

From Tuesday, adults can possess up to 2.5g of such drugs, as well as methamphetamine, fentanyl and morphine.

Canada's federal government granted the request by the west coast province to try out the three-year experiment.

It follows a similar policy in the nearby US state of Oregon, which decriminalised hard drugs in 2020.

Ahead of the pilot's launch, British Columbia and federal officials outlined the rules under the federally approved exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

While those substances will remain illegal, adults found in possession of a combined total of less than 2.5g of the drugs will not be arrested, charged or have their substances seized. Instead, they will be offered information on available health and social services.

Federal minister of mental health and addictions Carolyn Bennett on Monday called the move "a monumental shift in drug policy that favours fostering trusting and supportive relationships in health and social services over further criminalisation".

Some 10,000 residents have died from drug overdoses since British Columbia declared drugs to be a public health emergency in 2016, officials said.
Click to expand...
Good for them. It makes little sense to put people in jail over substances. It's like putting people in jail for having a 6 pack of 🍺.beer
 
Tish said:
recently there is an idea to make pot legal in all of Australia, a lot of money to be made by the government.
Click to expand...
Better than being made by drug dealers and cartels...

This is the primary reason I favor legalization. I am against drug use, and think we should do what we can to limit it. However I do not believe outlawing has done that, but it has fed a huge organized crime problem...
 
Ruthanne said:
Good for them. It makes little sense to put people in jail over substances. It's like putting people in jail for having a 6 pack of 🍺.beer
Click to expand...
Most police already turned a blind eye to hard drugs. They were just used as a technicality if there was another serious problem. The police couldn’t be bothered with someone who never would be taken to jail or before a judge for a small amount.

*BC averages 6 deaths per day from drug overdoses. The logic is that people won’t do drugs alone because they won’t suffer the stigma of being seen using. I don’t buy into this theory. At the same time, I don’t think it’s going to cause any more harm.

*BC‘s population is 5 million.
 
WhatInThe said:
Home of Vancouver if not mistaken. Canadian version of Portland or San Francisco.

The libertarian in me says go ahead but knowing and seeing decades of the affects of regular use/abuse of many of those drugs I say no. I'd say ok but can't use drugs or addiction as an excuse for their crimes or screw ups at work. Drug abusers should not be a protected class.
Click to expand...
Good points. Drug use cannot be used as a defense in areas where use is decriminalized. You can use certain drugs (there are lists) but you still have to be a responsible citizen.

There will be a period of adjustment, you could say, when some users go crazy and bad stuff happens, but imo that will settle down nicely. It would settle a whole lot quicker if decriminalization, or better yet, legalization happened nationwide, and each state or province either owned or at least licensed and regulated all the drug shops.
 
Jules said:
*BC averages 6 deaths per day from drug overdoses. The logic is that people won’t do drugs alone because they won’t suffer the stigma of being seen using. I don’t buy into this theory. At the same time, I don’t think it’s going to cause any more harm.
Click to expand...
I think good objective data driven analysis can tell us what the real effect of legalizing drugs would have on overdoses and drug related deaths. Some of this has been done, and from what I see it suggests that legalization will not result in overdose increase, and might lead to decreases. However there are certainly those who argue to the contrary. We need good objective answers to this question.

This paper is a good analysis, though I think it does have a pro-legalization bias. Still it shows that such analysis should be possible:

Approaches to Decriminalizing Drug Use & Possession
https://www.unodc.org/documents/ung...Approaches_to_Decriminalization_Feb2015_1.pdf
 
Drugs are a complicated human issue. And if you're addicted or self-medicating, I doubt that you're paying much attention to legalities. Now, throw in the prospects of mega prison sentences, and the absolute willingness to avoid them by any means -even mass murder, well that's the present state of drug use in most countries. And with all the prisons and prisoners doing long stretches, and the drive bys, shootings, ODs, death and wasting of lives, nobody seems to notice that drug use hasn't dropped an inch.
 
Alligatorob said:
Better than being made by drug dealers and cartels...

This is the primary reason I favor legalization. I am against drug use, and think we should do what we can to limit it. However I do not believe outlawing has done that, but it has fed a huge organized crime problem...
Click to expand...
Ohhhnnnooooo no no no. The cartels will not let the cash cow run off. Some have actually gotten into the California shops, but still many sell black market.

Knew a guy who said "My dealer sells at 50% of state for good stuff, 75% of high quality. Their overhead is still very low
 
Disgustedman said:
Ohhhnnnooooo no no no. The cartels will not let the cash cow run off. Some have actually gotten into the California shops, but still many sell black market.

Knew a guy who said "My dealer sells at 50% of state for good stuff, 75% of high quality. Their overhead is still very low
Click to expand...
I suspect you are right, some of this will be a problem. There will always be a black market. Just as there is today for untaxed cigarettes and moonshine.

Part of the reason organized crime has gotten into the "legal" side is that it is not truly legal in the US. Still against federal law, for that reason its a cash business and not something any of the big chains will touch. Makes it more attractive to the criminal elements.

After alcohol was legalized organized crime didn't go away, but it lost a big easy source of income.
 
Last edited:
Portugal decriminalized drugs also. But, they also require addicts caught in the act to get mandatory treatment.

just decriminalizing use doesn’t help addicts. They are under the control of the addiction. There must be a requirement for treatment.
 
Brookswood said:
Portugal decriminalized drugs also. But, they also require addicts caught in the act to get mandatory treatment.

just decriminalizing use doesn’t help addicts. They are under the control of the addiction. There must be a requirement for treatment.
Click to expand...
Problem is the attic must want to sober up. Rehab, jail, groups, religion etc are tools to sobriety but can't lead a horse to water if it's not thirsty.
 
Ruthanne said:
Good for them. It makes little sense to put people in jail over substances. It's like putting people in jail for having a 6 pack of 🍺.beer
Click to expand...
You're getting close to home with that comparison. We might lose some of our membership if alcohol use put us in the "clink".
I've always wondered how, here in the good old U.S.of A., we could have such a highway slaughter by drunk drivers but when the subject comes up for discussion on any site, there's never a drunk to be found? Just responsible drinkers.
 
DaveA said:
You're getting close to home with that comparison. We might lose some of our membership if alcohol use put us in the "clink".
I've always wondered how, here in the good old U.S.of A., we could have such a highway slaughter by drunk drivers but when the subject comes up for discussion on any site, there's never a drunk to be found? Just responsible drinkers.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there's several here who love to imbibe of the spirits. Any substance can be problematic for some but if they outlaw everything there would be more problems.
 
DaveA said:
I've always wondered how, here in the good old U.S.of A., we could have such a highway slaughter by drunk drivers but when the subject comes up for discussion on any site, there's never a drunk to be found? Just responsible drinkers.
Click to expand...
I drove drunk a few times when I was young and stupid. Fortunately nothing happened, but that was just luck. Wish I had not, and am opposed to anyone doing it now.
 
Ruthanne said:
I'm sure there's several here who love to imbibe of the spirits. Any substance can be problematic for some but if they outlaw everything there would be more problems.
Click to expand...
Yup, an addict is an addict. It's the behavior and characteristics it's not the substance which is an excuse. Addicts are also selfish making their entire life about personal gratification or that high/buzz
 

Back
Top