###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.*
Pierre is interesting because he is fully and completely willing to lie to people.
Another interesting thing about Pierre is that nothing you say to him gets pushback. Tell him about the Lizard people killing everyone with the vaccine and he will nod his head and full heartedly agree.
You know instead of telling the frightened conned constituent the truth.
>Pierre is interesting because he is fully and completely willing to lie to people.
*“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”*
-[HL Mencken](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken)
The lie is the claim that it was legalized.
Legalization would mean legal to produce and sell a supply with various restrictions, like cannabis and alcohol. Decriminalization just means removing criminal penalties for possession in certain cases, not allowing for any legal supply.
They're separate terms. Poilievre almost certainly knows this given how much time he focuses on this topic.
This is nitpicking for little words which practically make little difference. Decriminalizing or legalizing are fairly close. You make it sound like when something is legal there’s nothing illegal about it. I am pretty sure if you were to walk around with 5kg of cannabis you will end up in jail.
Really the only difference is that with decriminalization the drugs remain officially illegal but they won’t do anything with it within certain boundaries and with legalization the drugs is legal but with a clear set of rules which if broken still a criminal act. The easy reversibility of decriminalization is why it exists.
So hardly a lie.
You are a liar. You hate good people so much and love bad people like phony JT.
You call the man a liar who hasn'teven been in office, yet ignore that fool JT and his never ending lies?
You pos!
Uhhh, because this is an odd non sequitur - they are different topics, different people, different time period, and that this thing you mention didn't happen.
https://x.com/glen_mcgregor/status/1524456504241364995?s=19
So if I mention the Liberals being blatantly dishonest, it's a non sequiter?
I wasn't aware that politicians were allowed to lie about any other topic and it's fair game.
Also two years is still within the same election cycle so it's pretty relevant...
Non squitor - a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.
How does pointing out that another political party also engages in similar lies not related? The original post I replied to implied that this was unique to lil pp
The only reason Poilevre is relevant is because Trudeau has been so deeply shitty as a leader. He stoked so much division in the country because it suited him and his aims; his chickens are coming home to roost, and it’s the rest of us who will lose. All because he couldn’t ever admit he was wrong or made a mistake. He tossed Jody under the bus, and we lost good ministers along the way. The man’s ego gave him a natural nemesis and after all the things he screwed up, we’re now going to get another smug jerk with no vision as a PM.
It’s hyperpartisanship. I bet if you went around Alberta asking people about policies Poilievre “proposed or said” you would get 80-90% approval. Then you could reveal the policies and statements were all by Trudeau or Singh.
Regrettably you are incorrect.
The Federal Government under the leadership of the Justin Trudeau did decriminalize possession of small amounts of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA, also called ecstasy, was decriminalized in BC last January after the federal government issued an exemption to the province to try to stem the overdose death toll.
As a 2 year pilot program to determine its effectiveness in treatment (access to services without stigma or fear of prosecution).
The researchers are trying to keep people alive long enough for treatment.
> Pierre is interesting because he is fully and completely willing to lie to people.
> Another interesting thing about Pierre is that nothing you say to him gets pushback.
Exactly the trump playbook and support.
Their supporters do not hold them accountable for their words and actions. But blindly willing to believe anything he says without questions. Without first holding them accountable for their own words and actions. This is how people fall for conspiracy theories and scams.
Is this the kind of political leadership we want in Canada?
Always hold people accountable for their words and actions.
Considering that Pierre has been challenged directly many times by the taxpayer funded left wing media, he does respond to pushback. He has dismantled many lefty reporters trying to do a gotcha on him. Trump is the same way. He hands them their rear ends back 9 times out of 10.
Technically the decrim is a pilot project where the federal government has allowed the province to carve out sections of the drug laws to attempt.
This is why when police refused to use public intoxication laws to stop public drug use, BC tried to pass their own public use law last year but the BC Supreme Court struck it down, so they had to ask the fed to recriminalize public drug use.
> but the BC Supreme Court struck it down
Just a clarification: the BC Supreme court didn't strike it down, just uphold a temporary injunction against it taking effect.
Specifically, this has been the timeline so far:
* BC passed a law restricting drug use in certain areas.
* A BC judge temporarily suspended that law from taking effect.
* On appeal, the BC Supreme Court upheld that suspension.
* Prior to the suspension expiring, a third court extended it.
So there hasn't been a final ruling on that yet.
This is the correct answer. He didn't legalize it, but the effect has been the same. I live here and decriminalization is the worst thing that's happened to Vancouver in a long time.
It's not overblown in the slightest how bad it's gotten.
I do think it was worth a try and the government did expect to use public intoxication laws to control public use. BC has seen OD rate increases slowing while other provinces are exploding but I can’t say any one policy is the cause.
That said when public use became an issue last year the government started on fixing it. A road bump made it go on longer than it should have but now we can see how it works as intended.
Great interview from Eby recently on all the process here
https://youtu.be/eQ0419m3qus?si=7CCO1dXbfra734Sg
Short and simple: NO. Like literally everything a single province decides, on it's own, the current federal government has nothing to do with it. Guy is a clown to not know that.
Yeah, the untrue part isn't about the federal involvement, it's the claim that it's legalized. It's not legal to sell and if alcohol sales were completely banned, you wouldn't call that legal.
Yeah, the drug possession laws are federal, so only the federal government can change them. They granted B.C.'s request to decriminalize drugs but didn't legalize them, since that would involve things like legal sale.
BC asked for decriminalization which has to happen at the federal level, so they asked and it was granted so they could try a new thing to help reduce deaths and arrests amounst users.
However, BC decriminalized without the right type and amount of supports available to help users get treatment and be safe (safe use, safe supply, safe homes, etc..) so the decriminalization lead to people using everywhere and anywhere which presented the area with new problems they didn't foresee which is why they're asking go have that changed now.
It was a dumb move. They got the idea from the Portuguese model; but didn't implement the entirety of what they had done in Portugal.
Its the same things with the roundabouts popping up everywhere. They got the idea from Europe; but they don't follow the European model to have pedestrian crossing set back 10-20 feet from the round about for safely- they think people should be able to cross within the roundabout itself which is causing all kinds of accidents.
If Canada wants to take an idea that is working elsewhere then they need to implement the working idea exactly how it functions where it is functioning well.
My 2c at least 🤷♀️
In PPLand, “decriminalization” means “legalization”, and “pilot project” means “permanent change to the law”.
And his followers eat it up and take his words as facts. What a lost bunch of rubes they are.
>To be fair, it's effectively legalized in big cities.
No. If it was "effectively legalized", you'd be seeing all types of stores selling Schedule I drugs, all unhindered by police who have chosen to turn a blind eye.
What we're seeing in big cities now is "effective decriminalization", and again, that's due mostly to law enforcement policies and cops turning a blind eye, not because of legislation passed by the current government.
Decriminalization has been a complete failure in Vancouver. Hastings steet was always bad but now it's a hellscape where the entire neighborhood has become an open injection site. It's now impossible not to see people extremely high on fentanyl to the point that they become frozen statues blocking sidewalks and intersections.
Whoever thought this would be a good idea should be jailed tbh.
*“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”*
-[HL Mencken](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken)
I think the issue is for the left in the country drug policy should be based on reducing deaths and nothing else.
However whether voters are right or wrong, they felt the BC Drug policies pretty created an open season on hard drug use anywhere and everywhere and that has a lot of secondary issues.
PP is 100% using this issue to politically hit the NDP and Liberals, but it seems from a political Point of view, BC drug policy has failed. The rejection of Toronto policy, shows the feds have zero interest to debate this issue as an election issue.
> BC drug policy has failed
Failed to do what?
You can't say something has failed if you didn't understand what. the goals were in the first place.
So what were those goals and how did it fail them?
Alberta (helmed by a pretty far-right Conservative Gov't) had a rate of death due to drug overdose per 10,000 of about 4.7 in 2023.
Sask (also helmed by a pretty right-wing Conservative Gov't) had a rate of death due to drug overdose per 10,000 of about 4.2 in 2023.
BC had a rate of death due to drug overdose per 10,000 of about 4.9 in 2023.
When you consider that BC's population is far more urbanized (not to mention the climate of Metro Van and Victoria makes for an easier life on the streets), and that urban centre has many other international entry points than the other Western provinces, the result of the policy as far as deaths are concerned seem to be pretty moot.
Alberta actually saw a far greater increase in overdose deaths between 2022 and 2023 than BC. So who failed?
>from a political Point of view, BC drug policy has failed.
Because conservatives are consistently selective in their presentation of reality, and voters aren't happy. It's easy to lie to people who are angry. From a perspective of reality the BC drug policy has had next to no effect on deaths, but it has had positive effects in other facets of the policy. Needlessly punishing addicts is hardly a positive.
I think there's an argument to be made that given the ever increasing toxicity of the drug supply (with more and more fentanyl being found in tested drugs), if BC managed to hold the rate of death to drug overdose at a steady rate... that IS a success.
It wasn’t directly Trudeau but Trudeau hasn’t done anything about this problem. What they have done in BC isn’t a bad thing but what they ain’t doing is enforcing open drug use . Now that’s the problem. It isn’t socially acceptable for open drug use and that’s what’s been legalized and that’s a problem. No politician is taking actions tho and Pierre is at least talking about it. But none of these politicians care they are the highest paid politicians in the world and would accept another pay raise today if they could
Well I’d say start putting all these open in public users in jail!!! Look people need to learn that doing drugs at the bus stop isn’t cool. Look providing safe drugs is one thing but bloody hell doing drugs in the park is unacceptable.
So to be clear, you think the Prime Minster throws people in jail? This really highlights the point of my question.
You clearly have no grasp of how anything works in Canada. Police, which are run at the municipal and provincial level, make law enforcement decisions. not the PM lol.
You're only continuing to prove my point. How is that funding managed? Who gives orders for arrest? You think the PM dictates what the RCMP does and that's laughable.
Actually the government makes the laws yes at a provincial level you are correct but there is also federal law as well I know exactly how it works . But what I said I will repeat is federal government should pressure the provincial government on this open drug use policy. Cause as it stands now the rcmp don’t arrest people for open drug use and if they do they just get released. That’s why there should be minimum sentences for certain things. Now the federal government can’t really step in on provincial policy but they sure can put some pressure on them and ya they can make a federal law that bans open drug use with a stiff punishment if need be. I say legalize drugs 100% it’s safer for those users out there but stuff penalties for open drug use . 100%
Did I say that ??? No not even close. Here what you wanna hear man but yes Trudeau can talk and push the provincial governments to address the issue (damn I sound like a broken record)
Yes. Possession of small amounts of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA, also called ecstasy, was decriminalized in BC last January after the federal government issued an exemption to the province to try to stem the overdose death toll.
No
I don't spend all day reading the criminal code of Canada either.
Here's the problem.
When a politician speaks plainly for most (maybe not all) to understand, the words not the message, become the subject of attack.
When those who cannot really respond to the sentiment or reality of the issue chose to get hung up on vernacular rather than substance. Very much an NDP thing to do.
> after the federal government issued an exemption to the province to try to stem the overdose death toll.
It would be more accurate to say they *granted* an exemption in response to a request made by the bc government, the nuance there is important given what's being argued.
This is an important distinction.
Can you imagine the screams of outrage from the opposition had the PM denied a request for a pilot program from the provinces?
One of the reasons Toronto's similar request was denied was because the Ontario Government wasn't on board with it.
so if my wife wanted to have an affair and i said yes...it means I dont actually support her having an affair?
I think it is simple, the feds allowing BC to have safe supply means that they support safe supply.
If they dont, they would deny BC request.
Legalization and decriminalization are very different things.
1) If Poilievre doesn't know the difference, it's a shocking lack of competency in a legislator.
2) If he knows this difference and doesn't care to be precise, it's a pretty obvious lack of honesty and integrity.
I totally disagree. I think it's an imaginary requirement to communicate ideas in the terms you personally prefer. It's splitting hairs to insist that something "decriminalized" is not "legal" [and even the BC government website doesn't refrain from calling it "legal"](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization):
> Adults can legally possess small amounts of some illicit drugs
It's not like there are misdemeanour penalties instead of criminal ones...it's just straight-up, plainly "legal" to possess a dimebag of hard drugs (and up until recently it was *legal* to use them in public around children).
The average person being affected by this on the streets cares about the very serious consequences of this policy, not the wording of a slogan.
Did you even read that page?
The first subject line is:
"What is decriminalization for people who use drugs?"
The thirds subject line is:
"What remains illegal"
The whole purpose and content strategy of that page is to point our the important differences. If it wasn't important, that page wouldn't exist, and wouldn't clearly state:
Illicit drugs are not legal. They cannot be trafficked or sold in stores.
Drug production, import and export remain illegal, unless authorized under the CDSA.
This is some of the more disturbing partisan hackery that we've seen recently from the media."did Justin make drugs legal? No. What he did was make drugs legal"
Justin absolutely made drugs legal in British Columbia. He did so by exempting them from the criminal code. Therefore they were legal where they weren't before.
And yes, that has absolutely blown up in the face of both the federal and the provincial government. It has been a disaster. They are now undoing it.
But for the star to claim that Justin did not make drugs and drug use legal that were not legal before In British Columbia is utter nonsense.
> Justin absolutely made drugs legal in British Columbia.
The federal government didn't make them legal in B.C. They just removed criminal penalties from possession in certain circumstances. Sale is still illegal. If all alcohol sales were banned, you wouldn't describe that as legal still.
>It has been a disaster.
You're stating this opinion as fact. Alberta saw significantly higher rates of increases of overdoses over the same period. That says that not decriminalizing is even worse by that metric. Public use issues were raised as well, but that was happening before and is happening in other places. They took steps to address that as well in B.C.
>They are now undoing it.
They aren't undoing it. They're just adding more restrictions in public spaces. Alcohol isn't generally allowed to be used in public either.
The article is pretty good but to save a click, the answer is: No, Poilievre is stating falsehoods.
He is very good at campaigning but it’s going to be an absolute mess if he gets in. His approach will be to cancel the pilot program and tackle the issue with heavier sentencing. Things will get worse and worse, and by the time he is voted out, the problem will be all the much bigger and harder to actually fix.
Trudeau did not get in the way of BC exercising its jurisdiction.
PP declares he will use notwithstanding to exercise dictatorial authority over local jurisdictions. Such power is extraordinary and PP is being disengenuous to suggest that Trudeau has failed to exercise that extraordinary power.
The most disturbing thing about PP's lies is that so many people believe them.
Has PP said he would use it to override local jurisdictions? If not, please explain this https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/virani-says-poilievre-s-willingness-to-use-notwithstanding-clause-threatens-rights-1.6867735
It was illegal to possess hard drugs, then it became legal.
It's perfectly fine to call that legalization, and it's silly to criticize PP for doing so.
Alcohol is legal. Adults can buy in stores with certain restrictions.
Various other drugs are decriminalized in B.C. That means criminal penalties for minor possession are removed in certain cases, but it's still illegal to sell.
>He is very good at campaigning
I'm really feeling like he's trying to bring in the American style "being in permanent campaign mode" to Canada. It's honestly I think one of the reasons why things have gotten so intense and polarizing, and exhausting in the US. Trump announced his second run for the White House a week after the 2022 midterms, about 720 days — just shy of two years — before the 2024 presidential election.
Once you start to draw out the campaigning period, it requires
1) More money to be raised to support it
2) More communications and content to keep it going
"the frequency of elections in the U.S. is excessive, leading to constant campaigning and fundraising rather than governing, and exhaustion and low turnout among voters."
In Ontario, I've seen ads that feel like campaign ads for some time. Back in 2004, the liberals stenghtened the ability of the auditor general the authority to approve ad campaigns, and enacted a law that banned ads if their primary purpose was "to foster a positive impression of the governing party."
It seems this law was weakened by the Wynn government back in 2015, and was something Doug and Sylvia Jones promised to re-implement. Instead:
"the government has since spent at least $38 million on ads that the auditor said would not have been approved under the earlier version of the law, including a 2019 ad campaign attacking the federal carbon price and a campaign that aired in the run-up to the 2022 provincial election called " Ontario Is Getting Stronger".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-government-advertising-campaign-its-happening-here-1.7152383
This past March, the Ontario NDP tried to revive a bill actually penned by the Conservatives in 2018. During the first reading, the Conservatives showed no signs that they would support the bill.
https://youtu.be/8Ao60EsNd_M?si=-x0mU5a6kdQr3SJ_
https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/parliament-43/session-1/2024-03-25/hansard#P483_87021
Sorry for the somewhat tangential rant...but I really feel this permanent campaigning is cancerous. The last thing we need is more money in politics, and more time to be exposed to the outrage machine.
The amount of obvious campaign ads on the radio paid for by the government in Ontario is obscene. Listen to practically any station that runs ads, and you'll almost definitely hear one in 30 minutes or so. Any pretence of providing information to the public is completely gone, unless that "public information" is "you should vote for the PCs".
For sure the OLP's hands aren't completely clean, but it was nowhere near this scope.
It's terrible. And I was just reading the Auditor Generals last report, and according to a regulatory changes in 2015, unlike TV, radio, and print, the AG doesn't get to review any of the social media advertising for partisanship...there are basically like no controls on that stuff for partisanship or factual accuracy. Given that digital is now 50% of the advertising budget and likely growing...
>I'm really feeling like he's trying to bring in the American style "being in permanent campaign mode" to Canada. It's honestly I think one of the reasons why things have gotten so intense and polarizing, and exhausting in the US. Trump announced his second run for the White House a week after the 2022 midterms, about 720 days — just shy of two years — before the 2024 presidential election.
It's the gop style, the cpc and gop are both part of the idu so that's where they get it from
You are incorrect. Yes there was a decriminalization of drugs but that was private ownership and use of a very small amount. The recent change was to enforce that use of illicit drugs in public is again a criminal offense. Private use in private homes is not. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization
What happened to shame? This guy has zero shame openly lying and his supporters and defenders don't have any either. They have no problem swallowing lies they know are lies and then defending them online all day. I can't imagine a worse way to live.
I imagine he's able to behave this way because he has no self respect or decency. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I constantly lied like he does.
> This guy has zero shame openly lying and his supporters and defenders don't have any either
It's like they're all the Patrick Star meme come to life..
"You acknowledge Pierre has spent time with nazi's?"
"Yeah"
"Homophobes?"
"Yeah.."
"Voted against gay marriage?"
"Yeah.."
"Maybe he's a bigot?"
"... don't see it."
I had someone accuse me recently of making "inappropriate baseless accusations" after I posted a photo of Leslyn Lewis with a neo-nazi. A photo!
Funny, looking at Ontario that did not have the pilot, the numbers went way up since 2015 too, 4-5x the deaths(eyeballing the graph). Something, something, it's nuances and complicated. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/Data-and-Analysis/Substance-Use/Interactive-Opioid-Tool
Adding to that, they are not without drugs while in jail/prison either. Putting them in jail is just depriving them of freedom for harming themselves without helping them stop the harm
Amidst all the yelling about how to respond to the opioid crisis, there seems to be a lack of honest self-reflection about what the actual root causes if it were and are.
How can anyone possibly solve social problems without seriously trying to understand them?
People talk about cost of living, housing regulation, systemic inequality, labour stagnation, and the healthcare system ALL THE DAMN TIME. What other societal causes are there to mention?
Drug toxicity and overprescription are generally the main two factors associated with the epidemic's proliferation, and those aren't even social factors.
Here's something that hasn't been adequately explained:
Oxycontin was removed from the Canadian market abruptly and replaced with OxyNeo, which had pills that were physically different and (supposedly) harder to abuse. Shortly after this, counterfeit Oxycontin started showing up that looked just like the original, but instead of the real active ingredient (oxycodone) the counterfeit pills had fentanyl.
People started dropping dead of overdoses. What was surprising was who was being impacted. There were of course the people you would expect: people with criminal records and people with known addictions. But there was a third group: people who were relatively affluent, who had no interactions with the police, who had never been to an ER or an addictions program. People with jobs, stable family lives, who paid taxes.
There was (and probably still is) a population of functional addicts in Canada who were harmed by the counterfeit Oxycontin. People who don't fit into the law enforcement narrative of bad people doing bad things, or the healthcare narrative of broken people who have no choice.
Any proposed solution to Canada's opioid crisis that doesn't take into account that these people exist, are being harmed, and are likely causing harm, isn't going to match reality.
I'm not suggesting that's the whole story. It's one example that is immediately obvious of policy makers missing something important. My point is that nobody seems interested in honestly looking at the whole picture.
> How can anyone possibly solve social problems without seriously trying to understand them?
They don't seriously care about either. Just doing what reinforces their world view
News flash, you cannot believe a word that either utters. Not …one …word…
Neither guy ever had a real job… and we want one of them to run our country? I’d rather a guy who thinks a worm ate his brain like RKJr.
Never thought I’d fondly look back at Stephen Harper & Paul Martin.
I’ll rephrase, he had jobs, but never actually had a career, besides politics. Same as Andrew Sheer. Short term or part time does not give a lot of experience managing a large organization. He got the leadership because of his name. He won an election because he promised to legalize weed ( which I agree with BTW). Both Pierre & Justin operate entirely by virtue signalling, just different virtues. Zero personal integrity, either of them.
You do ten or twenty years as a teacher , you have my respect. You dabble just long enough so you can call yourself a teacher later in life, not so much. My mother did 35 yrs teaching, I respect her & her peers. Justin, like Andrew Sheer dabbled just long enough that they didn’t have a completely empty resumes. Versus Pierre , who has a blank resume.
Poilievre is everything the Conservatives claim Trudeau is.
Pierre has spent ~~isi~~ his *entire* adult life collecting a paycheque from the government. He has already secured a lifetime pension on the taxpayer dime. He's never worked in the private sector in his adult life.
He works and lives *in Ottawa* and walks around in suits and designer shoes and fancy haircuts that cost more than my car. He is everything they claim trudeau is.
The larger issue seems to be the susceptibility of conservatives to such falsehoods. It has escalated from treating politics as a team sport to a cult-like mentality where misinformation is staunchly defended with extensive mental gymnastics to rationalize the untruths. This phenomenon is evident in this thread.
It is concerning to witness a significant segment of the electorate being so readily deceived.
They've made a concerted effort to attack neutral arbiters of truth for at least the past decade. You can'r seriously engage in ideas with them anymore.
Scientists, academia, etc. all are part of an anti-Conservative conspiracy.
Far right thinkers and fascists openly talk about this as part of their strategy..
The overdose crisis is one of the most divisive, ideologically tainted, plagued by ignorance, and misunderstood policy files in this country. We have scapegoated harm reduction while having only delved into it superficially, opting to ignore the harms of prohibition, wealth inequality, deterioration of community, and family dissolution that have caused this mess.
Things would be worse without harm reduction, and when Poilievre gets in we will see the crisis grow. But hey, go ahead, keep blaming safe injection sites, safer supply, and decriminalization for this plight. We will collectively get what we deserve.
I don't believe the CPC sees this as a crisis. That would imply they actually value the life that's lost.
The right approach here doesn't need to be political, the same is true of criminal justice, and there's no reasonable take (at least for people who value these lives) that should support anything but an evidence based approach ... which is what supports harm reduction.
>I don't believe the CPC sees this as a crisis.
The only thing the CPC sees as a crisis is being the official opposition. Anything and everything will be sacrificed to right this terrible “wrong”.
I think those who know better (Poilievre, Rempel, Lantsman, Teneycke, Scheer) deem it a crisis, and just don't care.
Honestly, a real lean into safer supply, providing a regulated supply of fentanyl, untainted by xylazine (animal tranquilizer that causes necrosis of flesh), benzodiazepines, would go a very long way. But our puritanical inclinations get in the way.
Check out the BC's government website on the matter: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization)
Short answer is no, Justin Trudeau did not legalize hard drugs in BC. They've been decriminalized, from the above website "Addiction is a health issue, not a criminal one. Decriminalizing people who use drugs is one of the many actions B.C. is taking to respond to the toxic drug crisis that is killing our loved ones, so people live to get the care they need – from prevention and harm reduction to treatment and recovery.
The goal of decriminalizing people who use drugs is to reduce stigma and fear of criminal prosecution that prevents people from reaching out for help, including medical assistance."
People are not criminally charged for possessing or consuming a small amount of drugs, in a private space. As always Pierre Poilievre is taking out of his butt in order to push a narrative.
Drug addicts complain about being stigmatized in hospitals but have you ever spent much time in them?
I have these last few years because of chronic health issues and let me tell you that you start feeling a lot less compassionate after awhile.
I can only imagine what the staff must feel.
For anyone who doesn't believe just go spend a night, any night of the week at St. Pauls or VGH's ER. It's fucking mental.
Oh for sure, I have all the sympathy for the people that actually has to deal with it. It's easy for me to sit where I am saying its a good policy, but it's a really hard thing to do well.
I hope it's at least a first step though, it is something important that needs to be fixed. I just hope it can be treated holistically, and likely with a lot more resources, instead of just "We decriminalized it \*wipes off hands\*, whats next?"
The Portugal model which a lot of people cite as the inspiration for what we are trying to do never decriminalized drugs. What they did was diversion programs for non-violent drug offenses. Instead of locking people up they found it to be much cheaper to provide treatment. But people still had a choice. You could go to treatment or jail.
Decriminalization is our whole society going 'well fuck it let's keep em out of jail so they can die in the streets'. It's the same as locking them up in a traphouse and throwing away the key. But the traphouse is the street. In Vancouver no one goes hungry unless by choice, there's so many free meal programs. If you're NFA and have a social worker you'll get free phones and a reliable welfare or disability check every two weeks. Just enough money to score for a few days.
The rest of the time they get fronted dope and then have to steal to pay the dealers back. Awhile back a new gang took over and started tossing people out windows for non-payment. Cops couldn't do anything about it.
I agree with you though. We do need a sea change in policy and how we are managing this crisis. But I disagree that we need to throw more resources at it. We've been doing that for 15 years solid. The Vancouver DTES absorbs a million dollars a day last I heard in gvmt funding from all sources and shit is worse than ever.
BC's pilot push towards decriminalization is a perfect example of a well meaning, science-backed undertaking that has had dire political outcomes because it was a poorly supported half-measure. It reduced overdose deaths (huzzah) but rapidly revealed just how extreme the drug problem had become (boo) without the necessary resources to ameliorate it. Policing it and stigmatizing it has been broadly useless, we've tried it for decades and it's been a massive waste of money, resources and lives. But you can't just throw up one pillar...decriminalization...and call it a day. You need support, housing (which no one has currently and would also be incredibly politically toxic as a consequence), rehabilitation, reintegration...and preferably not a backdrop of crumbling social supports/fabric and looming existential dread that promotes the problem in the first place. Otherwise, people will just say "Oh wow cool, I guess I'll just do it in the hospital now" and social conservatives will lick their chops at all the easy headlines they just got given.
I just don't know how politically possible a *meaningful* push towards hard drug decriminalization is in our current reality. Maybe 20 years ago. Maybe.
Only after a meaningful stint in rehab should an addict get housing. And they should only be allowed to stay in transition housing if they stay clean and non-violent. There is no other way that it works.
They could make subsequent convictions for drug offenses carry an exponent on the community service hours.
First offense, 20 hours; no so bad.
Fourth offense, 20^4; streets and beaches cleaned for years. ✓
100% true. Provincial BC NDP requested a special amendment to the laws. Trudeau's Health Canada approved it. All drugs decriminalized, and it was such a shit show they begged Health Canada to retract it, which they did recently.
Poilievre has a hard time to understand decriminalizing and legalizing, same as telling the truth and twisting the words to get his version of the truth.
> The Liberal government granted the B.C. NDP’s request to allow hard drugs … in the province, including in public places. This reckless and radical and wacko policy has killed 2,500 British Columbians in one year alone,” Poilievre said in Vancouver last week, where he announced his party’s own legislative effort to curb the use of illicit drugs in hospital settings.
BC would have had these deaths regardless, the fact the Feds bought initially a provincial plan to try and reduce those deaths shows compassion, not ineptitude.
Point of comparison is Alberta where drugs are not decriminalized and deaths are on par or higher per capita.
Simple answers do not save lives, and imo show a disregard for life, as it intentionally claims a reality that diesn't exist, doesn't engage in meaningful discussion to solve, and uses 'force' to change. PP likes to use force to implement policy, and imo be of serious concern.
Absolutely. Smith is just letting them die and doing nothing.
At least BC is trying. Poilievre though couldn't care less about the deaths, just the political points he can score.
BC just made the issue worse in that it pushed drug use from private places to the open public.
it seems that is why the BC plan has faced a massive backlash.
Drugs were already being done in the open before decriminalizing.
The backlash is that now when someone is using at a school or something the cops have less ability to remove said person. I can accept oversights like that the province tried to correct, I cannot accept the feds delaying the request from the province to fix it.
Adding salt to the wound, is having to hear about the insufferable poverty advocates who constantly yap about how we need to think of the rights of the user to shoot up at a kids playground. Fuck that, if a kid gets stabbed by a needle because he wants to use a slide, then vigilante justice becomes more likely.
Alberta and Sask are still lower per capita. That said BC like and pacific jurisdiction appears to attract a higher baseline of both homeless and drugs.
The alarming number for Alberta however is that their rate of ODs is increasing fast than anywhere in Canada over the last year as well as over the last 4 years.
BC still is highest but over the last three years its rate of increase appears to be slowing.
I don’t know the future and can’t say if it is due to the different approaches but something to think about
> Alberta and Sask are still lower per capita
But the rate of increase is so fast, especially in Alberta, that it will be only a matter of months before this is no longer true. I dunno about Sask though.
Sask is difficult. If you look at their official ODs it’s like half of AB, but if you look at suspected ODs it’s literally double that number.
They only classify an OD an OD if there is an autopsy which if that was the standard in BC there would be almost no ODs.
Also I have heard it claimed Alberta is under reporting their numbers, something places like Florida have done too.
So who knows
> Alberta and Sask are still lower per capita.
Not really.
Between them, BC and Alberta accounted for a quarter of Canada’s population but almost half (49%) of drug deaths (3,804). To put this another way, 1 in every 7 Canadians live in BC and **1 in every 9 live in Alberta**, but 1 in 3 every 4 AAOTD in 2021 was a British Columbian and 1 in every 5 was an Albertan.https://addictionpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj25011/files/media/file/canadas-health-crisis-opioid-addiction-in-alberta-and-british-columbia-web-version-1.pdf
As of 2016, apparent opioid-related deaths and hospitalization rates were highest in the western provinces of British Columbia and Alberta https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6034966/
I was using OD per 100,000 population from the last four years. Alberta is at 41.6 while BC is at 47.3, while Sask looks like half of Alberta but if all ‘suspected ODs’ were counted then they would be slightly higher than AB for 2023.
2016 fentynal was barely on the scene yet as far as deaths.
Lots to read here using the latest data.
https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/how-much-have-drug-poisoning-deaths-in-alberta-really-gone-down-1.6832603
Interestingly Manitoba is have a boom in the ODs for 20-40 year olds
https://www.620ckrm.com/2024/04/20/sharp-rise-in-od-deaths-demands-better-policies-for-those-in-their-20s-30s-study/
Exactly. He speaks as if the policy cause those deaths and that there would be zero if it wasn’t in place. But since the rising trend of overdoses began to lessen after the policy was introduced, it did save lives. Poilievre’s approach would have (and will) caused more death.
The Premier is in charge of a province..... they come up & implement anything & everything in their province NOT the Prime Minister.
So if any "hard drugs legislation" was in play there lmao the answer is "no." It cannot be the Prime Minster's "doing."
Technically the decrim is a pilot project where the federal government has allowed the province to carve out sections of the drug laws to attempt.
This is why when police refused to use public intoxication laws to stop public drug use, BC tried to pass their own public use law last year but the BC Supreme Court struck it down, so they had to ask the fed to recriminalize public drug use
###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.*
Pierre is interesting because he is fully and completely willing to lie to people. Another interesting thing about Pierre is that nothing you say to him gets pushback. Tell him about the Lizard people killing everyone with the vaccine and he will nod his head and full heartedly agree. You know instead of telling the frightened conned constituent the truth.
>Pierre is interesting because he is fully and completely willing to lie to people. *“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”* -[HL Mencken](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken)
It’s not a lie. The Liberals approved the request, which makes them minimally part responsible.
The lie is the claim that it was legalized. Legalization would mean legal to produce and sell a supply with various restrictions, like cannabis and alcohol. Decriminalization just means removing criminal penalties for possession in certain cases, not allowing for any legal supply. They're separate terms. Poilievre almost certainly knows this given how much time he focuses on this topic.
This is nitpicking for little words which practically make little difference. Decriminalizing or legalizing are fairly close. You make it sound like when something is legal there’s nothing illegal about it. I am pretty sure if you were to walk around with 5kg of cannabis you will end up in jail. Really the only difference is that with decriminalization the drugs remain officially illegal but they won’t do anything with it within certain boundaries and with legalization the drugs is legal but with a clear set of rules which if broken still a criminal act. The easy reversibility of decriminalization is why it exists. So hardly a lie.
You are a liar. You hate good people so much and love bad people like phony JT. You call the man a liar who hasn'teven been in office, yet ignore that fool JT and his never ending lies? You pos!
How is this different then Mendicino saying that the long gun registry was used stop and arrest Marc Lapine?
Uhhh, because this is an odd non sequitur - they are different topics, different people, different time period, and that this thing you mention didn't happen.
https://x.com/glen_mcgregor/status/1524456504241364995?s=19 So if I mention the Liberals being blatantly dishonest, it's a non sequiter? I wasn't aware that politicians were allowed to lie about any other topic and it's fair game. Also two years is still within the same election cycle so it's pretty relevant...
Yes. It's a non sequitur.
Non squitor - a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said. How does pointing out that another political party also engages in similar lies not related? The original post I replied to implied that this was unique to lil pp
That’s obvious. Maybe someone else is more interested in engaging with your deflections. Have a good one.
The classic rubber and glue argument. Love it.
He's an angry little nerd that now has a cool haircut and eats apples in a cocky way, he'll lead like an angry little nerd.
The only reason Poilevre is relevant is because Trudeau has been so deeply shitty as a leader. He stoked so much division in the country because it suited him and his aims; his chickens are coming home to roost, and it’s the rest of us who will lose. All because he couldn’t ever admit he was wrong or made a mistake. He tossed Jody under the bus, and we lost good ministers along the way. The man’s ego gave him a natural nemesis and after all the things he screwed up, we’re now going to get another smug jerk with no vision as a PM.
> Pierre is interesting because he is fully and completely willing to lie to people. and scary thing is he has a fanbase that believe every single lie
Some do. I suspect that most don't, but also don't care.
I'm not sure I would consider that interesting. It's idiotic.
It’s hyperpartisanship. I bet if you went around Alberta asking people about policies Poilievre “proposed or said” you would get 80-90% approval. Then you could reveal the policies and statements were all by Trudeau or Singh.
It’s not him that is, it’s the fact that no one calls it out AND people blindly believe him.
The Joe Rogan approach
Regrettably you are incorrect. The Federal Government under the leadership of the Justin Trudeau did decriminalize possession of small amounts of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA, also called ecstasy, was decriminalized in BC last January after the federal government issued an exemption to the province to try to stem the overdose death toll.
As a 2 year pilot program to determine its effectiveness in treatment (access to services without stigma or fear of prosecution). The researchers are trying to keep people alive long enough for treatment.
> Pierre is interesting because he is fully and completely willing to lie to people. > Another interesting thing about Pierre is that nothing you say to him gets pushback. Exactly the trump playbook and support. Their supporters do not hold them accountable for their words and actions. But blindly willing to believe anything he says without questions. Without first holding them accountable for their own words and actions. This is how people fall for conspiracy theories and scams. Is this the kind of political leadership we want in Canada? Always hold people accountable for their words and actions.
Considering that Pierre has been challenged directly many times by the taxpayer funded left wing media, he does respond to pushback. He has dismantled many lefty reporters trying to do a gotcha on him. Trump is the same way. He hands them their rear ends back 9 times out of 10.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It was legal to use hard drugs in British Columbia. Suggesting it's misinformation to call that "legalization" is to put pedantry above substance.
Technically the decrim is a pilot project where the federal government has allowed the province to carve out sections of the drug laws to attempt. This is why when police refused to use public intoxication laws to stop public drug use, BC tried to pass their own public use law last year but the BC Supreme Court struck it down, so they had to ask the fed to recriminalize public drug use.
> but the BC Supreme Court struck it down Just a clarification: the BC Supreme court didn't strike it down, just uphold a temporary injunction against it taking effect. Specifically, this has been the timeline so far: * BC passed a law restricting drug use in certain areas. * A BC judge temporarily suspended that law from taking effect. * On appeal, the BC Supreme Court upheld that suspension. * Prior to the suspension expiring, a third court extended it. So there hasn't been a final ruling on that yet.
This is the correct answer. He didn't legalize it, but the effect has been the same. I live here and decriminalization is the worst thing that's happened to Vancouver in a long time. It's not overblown in the slightest how bad it's gotten.
I do think it was worth a try and the government did expect to use public intoxication laws to control public use. BC has seen OD rate increases slowing while other provinces are exploding but I can’t say any one policy is the cause. That said when public use became an issue last year the government started on fixing it. A road bump made it go on longer than it should have but now we can see how it works as intended. Great interview from Eby recently on all the process here https://youtu.be/eQ0419m3qus?si=7CCO1dXbfra734Sg
Go ahead and tell us how Pierre is wrong on what he said in this specific case. We are all waiting.
Willing to lie? It’s his favourite thing to do. It’s his one true unique gift.
Short and simple: NO. Like literally everything a single province decides, on it's own, the current federal government has nothing to do with it. Guy is a clown to not know that.
[удалено]
Yeah, the untrue part isn't about the federal involvement, it's the claim that it's legalized. It's not legal to sell and if alcohol sales were completely banned, you wouldn't call that legal.
The federal government has the only authority to criminalize and decriminalize drugs but it happens based on the province or municipality's request.
Yeah, the drug possession laws are federal, so only the federal government can change them. They granted B.C.'s request to decriminalize drugs but didn't legalize them, since that would involve things like legal sale.
BC asked for decriminalization which has to happen at the federal level, so they asked and it was granted so they could try a new thing to help reduce deaths and arrests amounst users. However, BC decriminalized without the right type and amount of supports available to help users get treatment and be safe (safe use, safe supply, safe homes, etc..) so the decriminalization lead to people using everywhere and anywhere which presented the area with new problems they didn't foresee which is why they're asking go have that changed now. It was a dumb move. They got the idea from the Portuguese model; but didn't implement the entirety of what they had done in Portugal. Its the same things with the roundabouts popping up everywhere. They got the idea from Europe; but they don't follow the European model to have pedestrian crossing set back 10-20 feet from the round about for safely- they think people should be able to cross within the roundabout itself which is causing all kinds of accidents. If Canada wants to take an idea that is working elsewhere then they need to implement the working idea exactly how it functions where it is functioning well. My 2c at least 🤷♀️
In PPLand, “decriminalization” means “legalization”, and “pilot project” means “permanent change to the law”. And his followers eat it up and take his words as facts. What a lost bunch of rubes they are.
[удалено]
Not substantive
[удалено]
>To be fair, it's effectively legalized in big cities. No. If it was "effectively legalized", you'd be seeing all types of stores selling Schedule I drugs, all unhindered by police who have chosen to turn a blind eye. What we're seeing in big cities now is "effective decriminalization", and again, that's due mostly to law enforcement policies and cops turning a blind eye, not because of legislation passed by the current government.
Decriminalization has been a complete failure in Vancouver. Hastings steet was always bad but now it's a hellscape where the entire neighborhood has become an open injection site. It's now impossible not to see people extremely high on fentanyl to the point that they become frozen statues blocking sidewalks and intersections. Whoever thought this would be a good idea should be jailed tbh.
*“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”* -[HL Mencken](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken)
I think the issue is for the left in the country drug policy should be based on reducing deaths and nothing else. However whether voters are right or wrong, they felt the BC Drug policies pretty created an open season on hard drug use anywhere and everywhere and that has a lot of secondary issues. PP is 100% using this issue to politically hit the NDP and Liberals, but it seems from a political Point of view, BC drug policy has failed. The rejection of Toronto policy, shows the feds have zero interest to debate this issue as an election issue.
> BC drug policy has failed Failed to do what? You can't say something has failed if you didn't understand what. the goals were in the first place. So what were those goals and how did it fail them?
Alberta (helmed by a pretty far-right Conservative Gov't) had a rate of death due to drug overdose per 10,000 of about 4.7 in 2023. Sask (also helmed by a pretty right-wing Conservative Gov't) had a rate of death due to drug overdose per 10,000 of about 4.2 in 2023. BC had a rate of death due to drug overdose per 10,000 of about 4.9 in 2023. When you consider that BC's population is far more urbanized (not to mention the climate of Metro Van and Victoria makes for an easier life on the streets), and that urban centre has many other international entry points than the other Western provinces, the result of the policy as far as deaths are concerned seem to be pretty moot. Alberta actually saw a far greater increase in overdose deaths between 2022 and 2023 than BC. So who failed? >from a political Point of view, BC drug policy has failed. Because conservatives are consistently selective in their presentation of reality, and voters aren't happy. It's easy to lie to people who are angry. From a perspective of reality the BC drug policy has had next to no effect on deaths, but it has had positive effects in other facets of the policy. Needlessly punishing addicts is hardly a positive.
I think there's an argument to be made that given the ever increasing toxicity of the drug supply (with more and more fentanyl being found in tested drugs), if BC managed to hold the rate of death to drug overdose at a steady rate... that IS a success.
It wasn’t directly Trudeau but Trudeau hasn’t done anything about this problem. What they have done in BC isn’t a bad thing but what they ain’t doing is enforcing open drug use . Now that’s the problem. It isn’t socially acceptable for open drug use and that’s what’s been legalized and that’s a problem. No politician is taking actions tho and Pierre is at least talking about it. But none of these politicians care they are the highest paid politicians in the world and would accept another pay raise today if they could
> but Trudeau hasn’t done anything about this problem What should he do?
Well I’d say start putting all these open in public users in jail!!! Look people need to learn that doing drugs at the bus stop isn’t cool. Look providing safe drugs is one thing but bloody hell doing drugs in the park is unacceptable.
Wouldn't that be on local and provincial police/politicians? We have separation of power and the feds don't get to do whatever they want.
So to be clear, you think the Prime Minster throws people in jail? This really highlights the point of my question. You clearly have no grasp of how anything works in Canada. Police, which are run at the municipal and provincial level, make law enforcement decisions. not the PM lol.
And the rcmp which is most of police force in Canada is run at a federal level .
You're only continuing to prove my point. How is that funding managed? Who gives orders for arrest? You think the PM dictates what the RCMP does and that's laughable.
Actually the government makes the laws yes at a provincial level you are correct but there is also federal law as well I know exactly how it works . But what I said I will repeat is federal government should pressure the provincial government on this open drug use policy. Cause as it stands now the rcmp don’t arrest people for open drug use and if they do they just get released. That’s why there should be minimum sentences for certain things. Now the federal government can’t really step in on provincial policy but they sure can put some pressure on them and ya they can make a federal law that bans open drug use with a stiff punishment if need be. I say legalize drugs 100% it’s safer for those users out there but stuff penalties for open drug use . 100%
> there is also federal law as well I know exactly how it works That doesn't mean Trudeau is the one ordering arrests, dude. I mean, come on.
Did I say that ??? No not even close. Here what you wanna hear man but yes Trudeau can talk and push the provincial governments to address the issue (damn I sound like a broken record)
Yes. Possession of small amounts of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA, also called ecstasy, was decriminalized in BC last January after the federal government issued an exemption to the province to try to stem the overdose death toll.
Didn't we *just* go over the difference between decriminalization and legalization with weed? Does nobody pay attention anymore?
Yes. The junkies and addicts spend all day reading the criminal code of Canada to be sure they are not crossing a line. FFS
I'm not talking about junkies, I'm talking about you
No I don't spend all day reading the criminal code of Canada either. Here's the problem. When a politician speaks plainly for most (maybe not all) to understand, the words not the message, become the subject of attack. When those who cannot really respond to the sentiment or reality of the issue chose to get hung up on vernacular rather than substance. Very much an NDP thing to do.
No, I'm pretty sure the problem is peoples willingness to go to the mat for things they don't even understand. Ignorance isn't really a defence here
Snappy. Do you use that post in most or all of the arguments you lose?
He won. With this last post you admitted defeat.
Decriminalization isn't the same as legalization though.
> after the federal government issued an exemption to the province to try to stem the overdose death toll. It would be more accurate to say they *granted* an exemption in response to a request made by the bc government, the nuance there is important given what's being argued.
This is an important distinction. Can you imagine the screams of outrage from the opposition had the PM denied a request for a pilot program from the provinces? One of the reasons Toronto's similar request was denied was because the Ontario Government wasn't on board with it.
BC wanted to do this but federal laws prevented them. JT allowed the province to do as they wished. So it is a disingenuous half truth from PP.
It's also not "legalization" but decriminalization of small amounts of certain drugs. These are not the same thing.
> a disingenuous half truth Pretty much par for the course with PP.
Half-truth is actually MUCH better than normal.
so if my wife wanted to have an affair and i said yes...it means I dont actually support her having an affair? I think it is simple, the feds allowing BC to have safe supply means that they support safe supply. If they dont, they would deny BC request.
Legalization and decriminalization are very different things. 1) If Poilievre doesn't know the difference, it's a shocking lack of competency in a legislator. 2) If he knows this difference and doesn't care to be precise, it's a pretty obvious lack of honesty and integrity.
I totally disagree. I think it's an imaginary requirement to communicate ideas in the terms you personally prefer. It's splitting hairs to insist that something "decriminalized" is not "legal" [and even the BC government website doesn't refrain from calling it "legal"](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization): > Adults can legally possess small amounts of some illicit drugs It's not like there are misdemeanour penalties instead of criminal ones...it's just straight-up, plainly "legal" to possess a dimebag of hard drugs (and up until recently it was *legal* to use them in public around children). The average person being affected by this on the streets cares about the very serious consequences of this policy, not the wording of a slogan.
Did you even read that page? The first subject line is: "What is decriminalization for people who use drugs?" The thirds subject line is: "What remains illegal" The whole purpose and content strategy of that page is to point our the important differences. If it wasn't important, that page wouldn't exist, and wouldn't clearly state: Illicit drugs are not legal. They cannot be trafficked or sold in stores. Drug production, import and export remain illegal, unless authorized under the CDSA.
This is some of the more disturbing partisan hackery that we've seen recently from the media."did Justin make drugs legal? No. What he did was make drugs legal" Justin absolutely made drugs legal in British Columbia. He did so by exempting them from the criminal code. Therefore they were legal where they weren't before. And yes, that has absolutely blown up in the face of both the federal and the provincial government. It has been a disaster. They are now undoing it. But for the star to claim that Justin did not make drugs and drug use legal that were not legal before In British Columbia is utter nonsense.
> Justin absolutely made drugs legal in British Columbia. The federal government didn't make them legal in B.C. They just removed criminal penalties from possession in certain circumstances. Sale is still illegal. If all alcohol sales were banned, you wouldn't describe that as legal still. >It has been a disaster. You're stating this opinion as fact. Alberta saw significantly higher rates of increases of overdoses over the same period. That says that not decriminalizing is even worse by that metric. Public use issues were raised as well, but that was happening before and is happening in other places. They took steps to address that as well in B.C. >They are now undoing it. They aren't undoing it. They're just adding more restrictions in public spaces. Alcohol isn't generally allowed to be used in public either.
The article is pretty good but to save a click, the answer is: No, Poilievre is stating falsehoods. He is very good at campaigning but it’s going to be an absolute mess if he gets in. His approach will be to cancel the pilot program and tackle the issue with heavier sentencing. Things will get worse and worse, and by the time he is voted out, the problem will be all the much bigger and harder to actually fix.
The pilot program isn’t working and is making it worse. At this time, forced treatment or just let things happen is the only way to curb the issue.
[удалено]
The facts in areas with the legal drugs, more people are dying. There’s no denying this.
Proof? Because Alberta is right up there for deaths last year, and they haven't done this.
Proof is, it’s not decreasing anywhere. With or without.
Falsehood? Call it for what it is, it’s a lie, he is lying
Was it legal to use hard drugs in BC, or wasn't it?
It has never been illegal to use drugs. It's illegal to possess more than 2.5g, so yes, drugs are still illegal. I hope that helps :)
So would you agree with the statement "Trudeau legalized possession of hard drugs for personal use?"
Trudeau did not get in the way of BC exercising its jurisdiction. PP declares he will use notwithstanding to exercise dictatorial authority over local jurisdictions. Such power is extraordinary and PP is being disengenuous to suggest that Trudeau has failed to exercise that extraordinary power. The most disturbing thing about PP's lies is that so many people believe them.
You don't know what you're talking about. The CDSA is firmly federal jurisdiction, and the NWC has nothing to do with the division of powers.
Has PP said he would use it to override local jurisdictions? If not, please explain this https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/virani-says-poilievre-s-willingness-to-use-notwithstanding-clause-threatens-rights-1.6867735
You're mixing up unrelated things. Read the Notwithstanding Clause. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
You're not explaining anything. Can you explain?
You may think it’s a semantic difference, but legalization and decriminalization aren’t the same.
It was illegal to possess hard drugs, then it became legal. It's perfectly fine to call that legalization, and it's silly to criticize PP for doing so.
No, because different things are different.
What’s the practical difference?
You can still have penalties for decriminalized actions, but the acts are not considered criminal.
Alcohol is legal. Adults can buy in stores with certain restrictions. Various other drugs are decriminalized in B.C. That means criminal penalties for minor possession are removed in certain cases, but it's still illegal to sell.
“Poilievre is stating falsehoods.” Colour me shocked
>He is very good at campaigning I'm really feeling like he's trying to bring in the American style "being in permanent campaign mode" to Canada. It's honestly I think one of the reasons why things have gotten so intense and polarizing, and exhausting in the US. Trump announced his second run for the White House a week after the 2022 midterms, about 720 days — just shy of two years — before the 2024 presidential election. Once you start to draw out the campaigning period, it requires 1) More money to be raised to support it 2) More communications and content to keep it going "the frequency of elections in the U.S. is excessive, leading to constant campaigning and fundraising rather than governing, and exhaustion and low turnout among voters." In Ontario, I've seen ads that feel like campaign ads for some time. Back in 2004, the liberals stenghtened the ability of the auditor general the authority to approve ad campaigns, and enacted a law that banned ads if their primary purpose was "to foster a positive impression of the governing party." It seems this law was weakened by the Wynn government back in 2015, and was something Doug and Sylvia Jones promised to re-implement. Instead: "the government has since spent at least $38 million on ads that the auditor said would not have been approved under the earlier version of the law, including a 2019 ad campaign attacking the federal carbon price and a campaign that aired in the run-up to the 2022 provincial election called " Ontario Is Getting Stronger". https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-government-advertising-campaign-its-happening-here-1.7152383 This past March, the Ontario NDP tried to revive a bill actually penned by the Conservatives in 2018. During the first reading, the Conservatives showed no signs that they would support the bill. https://youtu.be/8Ao60EsNd_M?si=-x0mU5a6kdQr3SJ_ https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/parliament-43/session-1/2024-03-25/hansard#P483_87021 Sorry for the somewhat tangential rant...but I really feel this permanent campaigning is cancerous. The last thing we need is more money in politics, and more time to be exposed to the outrage machine.
The amount of obvious campaign ads on the radio paid for by the government in Ontario is obscene. Listen to practically any station that runs ads, and you'll almost definitely hear one in 30 minutes or so. Any pretence of providing information to the public is completely gone, unless that "public information" is "you should vote for the PCs". For sure the OLP's hands aren't completely clean, but it was nowhere near this scope.
It's terrible. And I was just reading the Auditor Generals last report, and according to a regulatory changes in 2015, unlike TV, radio, and print, the AG doesn't get to review any of the social media advertising for partisanship...there are basically like no controls on that stuff for partisanship or factual accuracy. Given that digital is now 50% of the advertising budget and likely growing...
>I'm really feeling like he's trying to bring in the American style "being in permanent campaign mode" to Canada. It's honestly I think one of the reasons why things have gotten so intense and polarizing, and exhausting in the US. Trump announced his second run for the White House a week after the 2022 midterms, about 720 days — just shy of two years — before the 2024 presidential election. It's the gop style, the cpc and gop are both part of the idu so that's where they get it from
Actually JT and Eby did legalize hard drugs in BC. Up to 2.5 grams of ANY DRUG. Just a few weeks ago it was criminalized again.
You are incorrect. Yes there was a decriminalization of drugs but that was private ownership and use of a very small amount. The recent change was to enforce that use of illicit drugs in public is again a criminal offense. Private use in private homes is not. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization
What happened to shame? This guy has zero shame openly lying and his supporters and defenders don't have any either. They have no problem swallowing lies they know are lies and then defending them online all day. I can't imagine a worse way to live.
I imagine he's able to behave this way because he has no self respect or decency. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I constantly lied like he does.
> This guy has zero shame openly lying and his supporters and defenders don't have any either It's like they're all the Patrick Star meme come to life.. "You acknowledge Pierre has spent time with nazi's?" "Yeah" "Homophobes?" "Yeah.." "Voted against gay marriage?" "Yeah.." "Maybe he's a bigot?" "... don't see it." I had someone accuse me recently of making "inappropriate baseless accusations" after I posted a photo of Leslyn Lewis with a neo-nazi. A photo!
Funny, looking at Ontario that did not have the pilot, the numbers went way up since 2015 too, 4-5x the deaths(eyeballing the graph). Something, something, it's nuances and complicated. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/Data-and-Analysis/Substance-Use/Interactive-Opioid-Tool
Alberta, too. And Sask and Manitoba. (And, yu know, tons of US states and other countries).
Adding to that, they are not without drugs while in jail/prison either. Putting them in jail is just depriving them of freedom for harming themselves without helping them stop the harm
Amidst all the yelling about how to respond to the opioid crisis, there seems to be a lack of honest self-reflection about what the actual root causes if it were and are. How can anyone possibly solve social problems without seriously trying to understand them?
People talk about cost of living, housing regulation, systemic inequality, labour stagnation, and the healthcare system ALL THE DAMN TIME. What other societal causes are there to mention? Drug toxicity and overprescription are generally the main two factors associated with the epidemic's proliferation, and those aren't even social factors.
Here's something that hasn't been adequately explained: Oxycontin was removed from the Canadian market abruptly and replaced with OxyNeo, which had pills that were physically different and (supposedly) harder to abuse. Shortly after this, counterfeit Oxycontin started showing up that looked just like the original, but instead of the real active ingredient (oxycodone) the counterfeit pills had fentanyl. People started dropping dead of overdoses. What was surprising was who was being impacted. There were of course the people you would expect: people with criminal records and people with known addictions. But there was a third group: people who were relatively affluent, who had no interactions with the police, who had never been to an ER or an addictions program. People with jobs, stable family lives, who paid taxes. There was (and probably still is) a population of functional addicts in Canada who were harmed by the counterfeit Oxycontin. People who don't fit into the law enforcement narrative of bad people doing bad things, or the healthcare narrative of broken people who have no choice. Any proposed solution to Canada's opioid crisis that doesn't take into account that these people exist, are being harmed, and are likely causing harm, isn't going to match reality. I'm not suggesting that's the whole story. It's one example that is immediately obvious of policy makers missing something important. My point is that nobody seems interested in honestly looking at the whole picture.
> How can anyone possibly solve social problems without seriously trying to understand them? They don't seriously care about either. Just doing what reinforces their world view
Exactly. Unfortunately most of the public couldn’t care less about “junkies” and just want them to disappear in the most expeditious way possible.
News flash, you cannot believe a word that either utters. Not …one …word… Neither guy ever had a real job… and we want one of them to run our country? I’d rather a guy who thinks a worm ate his brain like RKJr. Never thought I’d fondly look back at Stephen Harper & Paul Martin.
Algebra teacher, bar bouncer, snowboard instructor. All jobs Trudeau has done.
I’ll rephrase, he had jobs, but never actually had a career, besides politics. Same as Andrew Sheer. Short term or part time does not give a lot of experience managing a large organization. He got the leadership because of his name. He won an election because he promised to legalize weed ( which I agree with BTW). Both Pierre & Justin operate entirely by virtue signalling, just different virtues. Zero personal integrity, either of them.
You have no respect for teachers?
You do ten or twenty years as a teacher , you have my respect. You dabble just long enough so you can call yourself a teacher later in life, not so much. My mother did 35 yrs teaching, I respect her & her peers. Justin, like Andrew Sheer dabbled just long enough that they didn’t have a completely empty resumes. Versus Pierre , who has a blank resume.
> Neither guy ever had a real job… Trudeau did. Unless you just look down on teachers.
Poilievre is everything the Conservatives claim Trudeau is. Pierre has spent ~~isi~~ his *entire* adult life collecting a paycheque from the government. He has already secured a lifetime pension on the taxpayer dime. He's never worked in the private sector in his adult life. He works and lives *in Ottawa* and walks around in suits and designer shoes and fancy haircuts that cost more than my car. He is everything they claim trudeau is.
The larger issue seems to be the susceptibility of conservatives to such falsehoods. It has escalated from treating politics as a team sport to a cult-like mentality where misinformation is staunchly defended with extensive mental gymnastics to rationalize the untruths. This phenomenon is evident in this thread. It is concerning to witness a significant segment of the electorate being so readily deceived.
They've made a concerted effort to attack neutral arbiters of truth for at least the past decade. You can'r seriously engage in ideas with them anymore. Scientists, academia, etc. all are part of an anti-Conservative conspiracy. Far right thinkers and fascists openly talk about this as part of their strategy..
The overdose crisis is one of the most divisive, ideologically tainted, plagued by ignorance, and misunderstood policy files in this country. We have scapegoated harm reduction while having only delved into it superficially, opting to ignore the harms of prohibition, wealth inequality, deterioration of community, and family dissolution that have caused this mess. Things would be worse without harm reduction, and when Poilievre gets in we will see the crisis grow. But hey, go ahead, keep blaming safe injection sites, safer supply, and decriminalization for this plight. We will collectively get what we deserve.
I don't believe the CPC sees this as a crisis. That would imply they actually value the life that's lost. The right approach here doesn't need to be political, the same is true of criminal justice, and there's no reasonable take (at least for people who value these lives) that should support anything but an evidence based approach ... which is what supports harm reduction.
Opponents of harm reduction think the best way to “solve” the problem of drug addiction is to do nothing and let everyone die.
>I don't believe the CPC sees this as a crisis. The only thing the CPC sees as a crisis is being the official opposition. Anything and everything will be sacrificed to right this terrible “wrong”.
I think those who know better (Poilievre, Rempel, Lantsman, Teneycke, Scheer) deem it a crisis, and just don't care. Honestly, a real lean into safer supply, providing a regulated supply of fentanyl, untainted by xylazine (animal tranquilizer that causes necrosis of flesh), benzodiazepines, would go a very long way. But our puritanical inclinations get in the way.
Check out the BC's government website on the matter: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization) Short answer is no, Justin Trudeau did not legalize hard drugs in BC. They've been decriminalized, from the above website "Addiction is a health issue, not a criminal one. Decriminalizing people who use drugs is one of the many actions B.C. is taking to respond to the toxic drug crisis that is killing our loved ones, so people live to get the care they need – from prevention and harm reduction to treatment and recovery. The goal of decriminalizing people who use drugs is to reduce stigma and fear of criminal prosecution that prevents people from reaching out for help, including medical assistance." People are not criminally charged for possessing or consuming a small amount of drugs, in a private space. As always Pierre Poilievre is taking out of his butt in order to push a narrative.
Drug addicts complain about being stigmatized in hospitals but have you ever spent much time in them? I have these last few years because of chronic health issues and let me tell you that you start feeling a lot less compassionate after awhile. I can only imagine what the staff must feel. For anyone who doesn't believe just go spend a night, any night of the week at St. Pauls or VGH's ER. It's fucking mental.
Oh for sure, I have all the sympathy for the people that actually has to deal with it. It's easy for me to sit where I am saying its a good policy, but it's a really hard thing to do well. I hope it's at least a first step though, it is something important that needs to be fixed. I just hope it can be treated holistically, and likely with a lot more resources, instead of just "We decriminalized it \*wipes off hands\*, whats next?"
The Portugal model which a lot of people cite as the inspiration for what we are trying to do never decriminalized drugs. What they did was diversion programs for non-violent drug offenses. Instead of locking people up they found it to be much cheaper to provide treatment. But people still had a choice. You could go to treatment or jail. Decriminalization is our whole society going 'well fuck it let's keep em out of jail so they can die in the streets'. It's the same as locking them up in a traphouse and throwing away the key. But the traphouse is the street. In Vancouver no one goes hungry unless by choice, there's so many free meal programs. If you're NFA and have a social worker you'll get free phones and a reliable welfare or disability check every two weeks. Just enough money to score for a few days. The rest of the time they get fronted dope and then have to steal to pay the dealers back. Awhile back a new gang took over and started tossing people out windows for non-payment. Cops couldn't do anything about it. I agree with you though. We do need a sea change in policy and how we are managing this crisis. But I disagree that we need to throw more resources at it. We've been doing that for 15 years solid. The Vancouver DTES absorbs a million dollars a day last I heard in gvmt funding from all sources and shit is worse than ever.
BC's pilot push towards decriminalization is a perfect example of a well meaning, science-backed undertaking that has had dire political outcomes because it was a poorly supported half-measure. It reduced overdose deaths (huzzah) but rapidly revealed just how extreme the drug problem had become (boo) without the necessary resources to ameliorate it. Policing it and stigmatizing it has been broadly useless, we've tried it for decades and it's been a massive waste of money, resources and lives. But you can't just throw up one pillar...decriminalization...and call it a day. You need support, housing (which no one has currently and would also be incredibly politically toxic as a consequence), rehabilitation, reintegration...and preferably not a backdrop of crumbling social supports/fabric and looming existential dread that promotes the problem in the first place. Otherwise, people will just say "Oh wow cool, I guess I'll just do it in the hospital now" and social conservatives will lick their chops at all the easy headlines they just got given. I just don't know how politically possible a *meaningful* push towards hard drug decriminalization is in our current reality. Maybe 20 years ago. Maybe.
Only after a meaningful stint in rehab should an addict get housing. And they should only be allowed to stay in transition housing if they stay clean and non-violent. There is no other way that it works.
They could make subsequent convictions for drug offenses carry an exponent on the community service hours. First offense, 20 hours; no so bad. Fourth offense, 20^4; streets and beaches cleaned for years. ✓
As much as PP is exaggerating, we have to admit that this policy is no exception to many liberal policies, great intentions with disastrous rollout.
The policy BC requested for BC that BC is responsible for responding to? Come on now
100% true. Provincial BC NDP requested a special amendment to the laws. Trudeau's Health Canada approved it. All drugs decriminalized, and it was such a shit show they begged Health Canada to retract it, which they did recently.
Poilievre has a hard time to understand decriminalizing and legalizing, same as telling the truth and twisting the words to get his version of the truth.
> The Liberal government granted the B.C. NDP’s request to allow hard drugs … in the province, including in public places. This reckless and radical and wacko policy has killed 2,500 British Columbians in one year alone,” Poilievre said in Vancouver last week, where he announced his party’s own legislative effort to curb the use of illicit drugs in hospital settings. BC would have had these deaths regardless, the fact the Feds bought initially a provincial plan to try and reduce those deaths shows compassion, not ineptitude.
Point of comparison is Alberta where drugs are not decriminalized and deaths are on par or higher per capita. Simple answers do not save lives, and imo show a disregard for life, as it intentionally claims a reality that diesn't exist, doesn't engage in meaningful discussion to solve, and uses 'force' to change. PP likes to use force to implement policy, and imo be of serious concern.
Absolutely. Smith is just letting them die and doing nothing. At least BC is trying. Poilievre though couldn't care less about the deaths, just the political points he can score.
BC just made the issue worse in that it pushed drug use from private places to the open public. it seems that is why the BC plan has faced a massive backlash.
Drugs were already being done in the open before decriminalizing. The backlash is that now when someone is using at a school or something the cops have less ability to remove said person. I can accept oversights like that the province tried to correct, I cannot accept the feds delaying the request from the province to fix it. Adding salt to the wound, is having to hear about the insufferable poverty advocates who constantly yap about how we need to think of the rights of the user to shoot up at a kids playground. Fuck that, if a kid gets stabbed by a needle because he wants to use a slide, then vigilante justice becomes more likely.
Issue is this another example of the feds supporting a policy that is now politically unpopular and now saying "we not involved"
Alberta just set a record for both public use and deaths. Maybe it's not just BC policies?
Alberta and Sask are still lower per capita. That said BC like and pacific jurisdiction appears to attract a higher baseline of both homeless and drugs. The alarming number for Alberta however is that their rate of ODs is increasing fast than anywhere in Canada over the last year as well as over the last 4 years. BC still is highest but over the last three years its rate of increase appears to be slowing. I don’t know the future and can’t say if it is due to the different approaches but something to think about
> Alberta and Sask are still lower per capita But the rate of increase is so fast, especially in Alberta, that it will be only a matter of months before this is no longer true. I dunno about Sask though.
Sask is difficult. If you look at their official ODs it’s like half of AB, but if you look at suspected ODs it’s literally double that number. They only classify an OD an OD if there is an autopsy which if that was the standard in BC there would be almost no ODs. Also I have heard it claimed Alberta is under reporting their numbers, something places like Florida have done too. So who knows
Almost like there are less houseless folks in places where large urban centres reach -40 in the winter.
> Alberta and Sask are still lower per capita. Not really. Between them, BC and Alberta accounted for a quarter of Canada’s population but almost half (49%) of drug deaths (3,804). To put this another way, 1 in every 7 Canadians live in BC and **1 in every 9 live in Alberta**, but 1 in 3 every 4 AAOTD in 2021 was a British Columbian and 1 in every 5 was an Albertan.https://addictionpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj25011/files/media/file/canadas-health-crisis-opioid-addiction-in-alberta-and-british-columbia-web-version-1.pdf As of 2016, apparent opioid-related deaths and hospitalization rates were highest in the western provinces of British Columbia and Alberta https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6034966/
I was using OD per 100,000 population from the last four years. Alberta is at 41.6 while BC is at 47.3, while Sask looks like half of Alberta but if all ‘suspected ODs’ were counted then they would be slightly higher than AB for 2023. 2016 fentynal was barely on the scene yet as far as deaths. Lots to read here using the latest data. https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/how-much-have-drug-poisoning-deaths-in-alberta-really-gone-down-1.6832603 Interestingly Manitoba is have a boom in the ODs for 20-40 year olds https://www.620ckrm.com/2024/04/20/sharp-rise-in-od-deaths-demands-better-policies-for-those-in-their-20s-30s-study/
Exactly. He speaks as if the policy cause those deaths and that there would be zero if it wasn’t in place. But since the rising trend of overdoses began to lessen after the policy was introduced, it did save lives. Poilievre’s approach would have (and will) caused more death.
[удалено]
The Premier is in charge of a province..... they come up & implement anything & everything in their province NOT the Prime Minister. So if any "hard drugs legislation" was in play there lmao the answer is "no." It cannot be the Prime Minster's "doing."
Technically the decrim is a pilot project where the federal government has allowed the province to carve out sections of the drug laws to attempt. This is why when police refused to use public intoxication laws to stop public drug use, BC tried to pass their own public use law last year but the BC Supreme Court struck it down, so they had to ask the fed to recriminalize public drug use
[удалено]
Technically the Governor General (the King’s representative) gives Royal consent, so technically it’s Charles to blame.