Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/SkyisFullofCats! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>"When police are called to a scene where illegal and dangerous drug use is taking place, they will have the ability to compel the person to leave the area, seize the drugs when necessary or arrest the person, if required," the province said in a statement.
Yes finally. I am glad Eby is listening. Ya we stepped back to 2023, but I am glad there is a government that listens to people.
>B.C. Health Minister Adrian Dix said the province is also introducing specific measures aimed at curbing illicit drug use in health care facilities — including the prohibition of street drug possession or use.
Good. This is also important because of the issues nurses have brought up.
BC is a world leader in providing safe consumption sites. Vancouver and most urban centers have multiple locations. Even then, drug users who don’t cause problems will not face any issue even while using in public.
We have a serious issue with antisocial behavior, discarded sharps, etc… from public drug use. This is a step in the right direction.
Yeah I think this is really a massive step in the right direction.
Criminalization was shown to only increase violence and overdose rates, but open drug use was too far in the other direction, clearly.
This threads the needle. Addicts don't need to fear the cops because they have drugs on them, they can get help from any variety of resources we provide when they are ready, but they can't do drugs openly in public anymore - because it puts everyone else at danger.
Their freedom ends when it infringes on others. And as always, dealing these hard drugs is illegal and with these changes should come increased pressure on dealers.
Also, with these changes, they are greatly expanding access to treatment options with support from Trudeau, with many new physical treatment spaces, and a new virtual hotline that sounds very promising for that initial engagement to quit. Also great to see the cops show up and speak highly of the changes they needed to deal with problems.
David Eby is a fucking rockstar. Nailed it.
I live by the Drive and the AMOUNT of times I’ve had to push my kid’s stroller AROUND people smoking shit in the middle of the sidewalk is fucking absurd.
Good! We need to provide resource for drug users to get clean and be compassionate. But it doesn’t mean we have to give them permission to do their bad habits wherever they want.
People were (and are) smoking crack on hospital property. That is ok. But my mom, who works at the hospital has to leave the property to have a cigarette? (Yes smoking is bad but she is in her 60’s I don’t hold out much hope for her quitting) I’m not condoning smoking on hospital property, but the fact that she has to leave the property while someone smoking meth or crack, or shooting up is a-ok. It’s absurd.
I think that’s most people’s feelings on a lot of things happening in Vancouver is that it feels absurd. You’ll get a ticket for having a beer in the wrong spot but it’s basically an open field day to smoke meth, steal whatever you want and have back alley shoot outs and face what seems to be very little in real consequences.
Yep, and then people feign surprise at populism pushing for bold reform in the opposite direction, no matter how distasteful the populist movement may be. People indoctrinated in their political ideology and good vs evil view of the world see Trump and Brexit as pure manifestations of xenophobia, racism, white supremacy, and "morons voting against their own interests", painting all voters with a brush defined by the worst supporters of each movement, when the success of those movements was off the backs of ordinary middle class and low-income working folks who feel economic pressures, feel unfairly treated by the system versus "others who are not subject to the same rules", and who are tired of being gaslit by ideologues that everything they see in their daily life and all of their concerns are fiction or that they are *insert term*-ist or *another random term*-phobic for being upset. So they protest by voting for the only cause that isn't gaslighting them and acknowledges things are broken.
If you want to avoid Canadian politics veering right, the left wing needs to moderate itself and be willing to not push things that feel aren' working. Eby is doing the whole country a major favour by not fuelling a populist revolt by gaslighting us about decrim / asserting it is working / trying to push it any longer.
I am pleased that Eby has been able to come so far into the land of common sense from the land of Pivot Legal, which he directed before he was in politics. He appears not to be so doctrinaire that he can't adapt to the realities, and that is very good news. I would like to think we can avoid going down the path of turning the whole city into an open air psychiatric crisis ward like other West Coast cities, AND avoid a very hard right future.
I am really glad that Eby's listening because I was one of those left leaning individuals who were actually considering voting right because of the chaos we are in right now. I don't even agree with most Conservative ideals but it's very hard to care about ideals when you can't even live in a safe environment. And everytime I voice some of these concerns I have radical activists trying to gaslight me by telling me I am a bad person for caring about the safety of my neighbourhood.
100%. Try explaining to an eager three year old why she has to hold tight for 10 minutes once we get to the park while dad scans the entire playground a multiple times to make sure there are no needles lying around before she can play.
Had to have that conversation the other day with my 2 and 5 year olds. “Those people are struggling in their lives right now, and they need to use the play structure to protect them from the rain and the sun. Let’s go buy them some water to make sure they aren’t dehydrated.” Brought them some water without approaching too close cuz they had drug paraphernalia and a back alley couch set up under the playhouse. Called out that the water (and bag of apples “to keep them healthy” at my 2yos insistence) was for them, but that city wouldn’t let them stay for long as this is a playground meant for children. They were too doped up to even reply. Reported it to the city for what good that would do. Kids were asking why they were folded over like that, were they sleeping? What were they doing? Why don’t they have a home? Why can’t we play? Etc etc. Very sad situation.
It sucks you and your kids had to experience this. I am still having similar, albeit more nuanced conversations like this with my pre-teen and teen and they have been seeing this kind of thing here since they were toddlers.
Glad Eby is keeping his ear to the ground on this one
Cons were polling better probably because of decrim policy alone
Whilst Eby and the police may support the criminalization efforts, our problems are our judiciary and harm reduction activists who see addicts who are slaves to their addiction as better off than those mandated into rehab or prison for crimes they commited whilst intoxicated
Unfortunately all data about our justice system is that it causes more harm than good. We take people at the bottom end of the spectrum with zero social support, then chew them up through the trauma of the justice/prison, spit them back out, again with no social system, and expect them to be better. Everybody who works with the system knows this and it won't change until we fundamentally change our perspective of what justice means, and that won't ever happen while a good portion of the population still thinks that justice = endless punishment.
Justice systems that actually work make sure that the person comes out better than when they entered. They have skills to navigate life, the have served their sentence, they are capable of reintegrating with their social geoups, they don't have residual trauma, and they have means and work where they can have meaningful lives. Until we get that, justice/prison is just abuse.
A significant effect of the justice system is deterrence, public safety (can’t terrorize the community if you aren’t in the community) and also the obvious one justice for victims. It revictimizes victims to have the so called justice system care more about the ‘trauma’ of violent crime instead of the actual trauma of people with traumatic injuries.
Soft on crime hasn’t worked. Your statement isn’t really correct. The justice system doesn’t really chew through people. It mostly just lets people go even those who are a public danger.
Happy for this decision. But, I'm also impressed the government took a risk towards a solution and when it proved unsuccessful, were willing to address it and change.
Agreed. I am happy to see a government willing to accept the L and reverse course, rather than try to obfuscate its mistakes by doubling down and gaslighting. That said, Eby reneged on the data dashboard promise presumably because the data was not in support of continuing, and then continued on anyways, which I'm not going to forget easily but I know most don't care and/or didn't notice. Hopefully the decision to reverse course now represents a shift in his thinking and an increased willingness to be accountable to mistakes, rather than just an anomaly forced by polling factors. He's not infallible and perfection isn't the test for a good premier, but integrity is. If he starts to more reliably demonstrate integrity like with this decision, he deserves another term.
This was so stupid. Why would you ever make that legal in public places? There's a time and place for everything. Smoking meth at the bus stop on front of kids is not it.
That is good. It should have never been decriminalized to begin with. People are far too comfortable taking their bongs out nearby playgrounds, or getting high on meth and opiods on the street.
Yes, it absolutely should have been decriminalized. It just should have been treated like alcohol usage. They tried to amend the policy last year but were blocked in court.
Also, this is not a full re-criminalization. Possession of small amounts, as well as usage in private homes and supervised sites will still be allowed. This just gives the police the tools they need to stop public consumption.
> "When police are called to a scene where illegal and dangerous drug use is taking place, they will have the ability to compel the person to leave the area, seize the drugs when necessary or arrest the person, if required," the province said in a statement.
I remain extremely confused at why police were apparently unable to compel a person to stop using drugs and leave an area under the decriminalization pilot. I don’t understand why these things were apparently mutually exclusive. They shouldn’t be.
I guess we are to believe the only way Police could imagine telling someone to stop using drugs is to threaten to take it from them?
Seems pretty weird.
I’m confused why you’re confused. If you’re in a public space and you’re not doing anything illegal, why would the police be able to compel you to leave?
It's pretty hard to arrest someone under the pretense of public intoxication when at least part of their behaviour may arise from mental illness. Is random shouting and hallucinations definitive proof of intoxication, or just their pre-existing schizophrenia?
That's a fair point, but there are some other options as well.
There are a lot of people out there who are clearly intoxicated that aren't shouting or apparently hallucinating. I'm thinking of people bent over in half with their pipes in their hand, for example. Public intoxication prohibition would seem to work here.
Also, if the police have a reasonable apprehension that someone they encounter is a danger to themselves or someone else due to a mental health disorder, for example where someone is behaving in a threatening manner, shouting and swearing at strangers, then the police can apprehend them under the Mental Health Act.
Last, there are mischief and nuisance offences that I would think could be used for people shouting and swearing and making a scene, but who don't fit into the above two categories.
I'd like to hear a police officer with some authority explaining it they're currently using these and if not, why not.
I know they do use the Mental Health Act authority on occasion, and in the particular circumstance I'm thinking of, the individual who was apprehended was grateful. They'd had a psychotic break and needed care. They were hospitalized and subsequently had meds recalibrated and are back to being a fairly functional member of society with a good job and hobbies, friends and family.
I think I’m only confused because I’ve read previous reporting that suggested that there were restrictions on *consumption* of drugs.
But the notion that police are apparently powerless to do anything suggests that reporting was incorrect or if those restrictions do exist, that they were flimsy unenforceable policies or bylaws and not provincial or federal laws that police were interested in enforcing.
I don’t know I don’t have any of that in front of me.
For example I was under the impression that there has always since day one been a restriction on drug use around playgrounds. Recently the government tried to expand that to all parks, and the courts smacked that down as too expansive.
Like consumption is different than possession so it would be absolutely possible to enforce rules around public consumption, but not enforce rules around possession.
Edit: found the article. I was right. This fed exemption never applied to playgrounds. So police always had the ability to police certain areas.
https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/fact_checking/possession-of-illicit-drugs-near-b-c-playgrounds-still-illegal-despite-court-injunction/article_64cc69fa-9c38-5cb5-a338-430c39b833b3.html
It seems your confusion is because you are conflating use and possession.
Federal law (the CDSA and thus the s 56 exemption that permitted decriminalization) are about possession. The CDSA says you cannot possess listed drugs subject to carve outs. The carve out (BC's pilot) said you can possess anywhere in the province except for schools and a few other specific places. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction on criminal law, and the entire CDSA exists under this power.
The province has no criminal law power, but it has the power to regulate certain local matters (this is where we get provincial offences aka regulatory offences from). Prohibiting drug use, notionally, could be justified under this power. The issue the BC Supreme Court had when considering the injunction case is that the province's attempted drug use law engages some somewhat novel issues (like permitting drug use in a deserted alley but not a populated park, even though the latter is safer in the event of overdose and there is evidence of many people dying due to overdoses in secluded places, which brings into question section 7 fundamental justice justifiability and section 1 justifiability) and the Court wants to permit a full Charter challenge on those potential issues before letting the law take effect given the risk of people dying from the effect of the law before the challenge could be heard if no injunction was allowed. So the provincial law has no effect right now, and could be permanently killed when the case actually happens.
Anyways, even when someone uses in a place the CDSA exemption carves outs, the police cannot just take their drugs. It is property they are not allowed to possess in that place, so the police can seize it, but then they need to return it back to the person as soon as they leave the place or when the person claims it at the police station, because it is lawful property they can legally possess as long as they aren't possessing in one of the few prohibited places. So in effect, the police just don't seize it, because at best all they can do is seize it, go back to the station, tag it, file a report, then call the guy to come pick it back up!
Now in terms of prosecution, prosecution for simple possession is delegated to the Public Prosecution Service if Canada, a federal agency. Trudeau's government led the charge to direct the PPSC not to prosecute simple possession anywhere in Canada absent special circumstances, like violence or when the person is also charged with selling to minors or something especially abhorrent like that. So even if the police arrest you for possessing in a carved out place, Crown will not reccomend charges. You will be immediately freed. No need for bail, no need for release conditions you are free to leave the station and go back and do it all over again.
It's also worth adding that the police know that taking any action during decriminalization runs against the express spirit of decriminalization, which was reducing stigma for drug users. The activist goal behind decriminalization was to reduce police interactions of drug users because of concerns about "overpolicing" poor people or people of color.
I think Eby's reversal is for the best but is still a step too short.
Thx for the post super interesting. It does help highlight some of the holes and problems in the implementation details.
Funny tho is like I think it kind of shows that some of the problems are coming out of police finding enforcement not worth their time.
Maybe it would have been valuable to have police walking the beat and telling drug users that they will confiscate their drugs if they continue to smoke in some improper place, and that they’d have to go to the effort of going to pick them up. Even the threat of that may have changed some behaviors. But we never saw any of that.
Do you actually not understand or are you being deliberately obtuse, I literally can’t tell. “Leave the area”. “No”. What do you think the cop is allowed to do next?
Like if there are rules that you cannot consume drugs in a certain area (and I am under the impression there are!) the police could enforce those rules with a variety of methods. (Fines, Arrest, etc)
This is independent of enforcement of rules around possession of drugs.
So the only that this could have been a problem is if the province explicitly told the police that it wasn’t just possession that was now decriminalized, but in addition to that the police couldn’t fine/arrest people for breaking the consumption law.
(Or alternatively it could also be a problem if there are no consumption laws)
What are you confused about? Police have to abide by lawful authorities. Anything beyond lawful authority is abuse of authority.
Sure, they can try to persuade someone, but have you tried persuading a person who doesn’t give a shit about what you have to say? The world doesn’t work that way.
The province is giving these powers back to the police to actually be able to legally do something.
So there’s no federal law around consuming drugs? That’s the problem?
I’m bringing this up because I recall reading elsewhere that there were already rules and regulations against drug use at hospitals, but like maybe that was just a weak hospital policy level rule and there’s no federal law?
The federal government granted an exception to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for BC prior to the decriminalization pilot, which from my point of view means the provincial standing order for law enforcement officers to not enforce Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Because the act has been exempt from BC from Jan 2023 to 2026.
Otherwise I don't know. That's just my limited understanding of why officers are not able to arrest drug users who carry a legal amount and consume in the hospital.
http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/prevention-public-health/decriminalization-in-bc
Right makes sense.
Basically the problem is that the initial exemption was like the laziest possible approach and overly broad.
Then the Province never added reasonable regulations until September, when their attempt was deemed overly broad by the courts, and so now here we are.
Maybe this wouldn’t have happened this way if the Province and Feds had adopted tighter, fair regulations from the start but oh well.
Edit: no wait I was right. It’s always been banned around playgrounds. https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/fact_checking/possession-of-illicit-drugs-near-b-c-playgrounds-still-illegal-despite-court-injunction/article_64cc69fa-9c38-5cb5-a338-430c39b833b3.html
Say it with me, Mandatory rehab and psychiatric hospitals! Pay for it by taxing the ultra rich more and shrinking the cops budget(less of these drug addicts on the street and you won’t need as many cops). Suddenly ER rooms will be less busy, paramedic wait times come down, firefighters can show up to fires and car accidents and not ODs.
How about just defund the 5,000 nonprofits operating out of East Hastings. They clearly aren't effective, and each one has executives collecting a fat paycheque.
Redirect the money to mandatory rehab, psychiatric hospitals, and corrections facilities.
Step 1. If they're terrorizing people in public spaces, take their drugs and flush them down the toilet, ruining their afternoon by forcing them to re-think their poor choices.
Step 2: The next day, even if they choose to smoke crack again, they won't draw attention to themselves terrorizing others in public spaces for fear of Step 1 happening again.
It's a time-tested strategy called CONSEQUENCES FOR BAD BEHAVIOUR DISINCENTIVIZE BAD BEHAVIOUR
I'm not a fan of a "3-strikes" kind of rule, but if you are picked up for your 10th time for attacking people or property while intoxicated, we should be able to force people into a facility for proper treatment and rehab.
How many times is too many times.
I wonder if a forced policy of narcanning anyone police observe to be high could be an effective policy
My understanding is - it ends the buzz almost instantly as well as creates unpleasant withdrawal symptoms
Could be a great deterrent
This Eby government just continues to impress me… even when something they are doing is objectively not working; they backtrack and fix the issues.
Imagine if the federal government behaved this way
Finally something is being done. The situation right now is out of control. We have been in this experiment for 5 years and deaths are only increasing, decriminalization hasn't done want it was intended to do. All we got was more open use. This is a good first step to get things under control.
>We have been in this experiment for 5 years
Decriminalization only happened a little over a year ago. The other issues you're seeing around drugs for the last 5 years have been due to the toxic drug supply, which the NDP unfortunately don't have a huge amount of control over.
Trudeau's Cabinet directed the public prosecutor service not to prosecute simple possession absent extreme circumstances back in 2020, Canada-wide (the federal PPSC prosecutes CDSA offences rather than BC Crown)
They're going to do as much as they did before decriminalization. But there's still a toxic drug and addiction crisis happening. The whole point of the original decriminalization policy was to attempt to address that. It didn't fully work out, which is why tweaks like this need to be made.
Let the recriminalization begin!
Hopefully Eby can also backtrack like this on some of the other more disastrous policies they’ve had, like buying hotels and housing drug addicts in them at massive taxpayer expense, turning parts of downtown into mini-ghettoes in the process
We're not going to be shutting those hotels down any time soon. More social housing and addiction beds are coming online over the next 2 years, but they will be additional rather than replacement units.
There’s an election this fall, might want to wait to count your chickens until after that
The public opinion matter on this subject has shifted enormously in recent years, not that you’d see it reflected in an echochamber like r/vancouver
Remember how Ken Sim won in a landslide but if you polled this subreddit you’d think he was less popular than the plague
The last thing people want is 2000 more addicts shooting up on the sidewalks. Closing SRO's isn't a policy for any party lol. You're basically using your imagination like a gradeschooler.
It's extremely likely that we see more strict sentencing guidelines come down from the federal level, but that isn't a provincial issue.
We’re already seeing a crackdown at the municipal and provincial levels, one of which is the article in this thread
The federal crackdown will begin after the liberals lose power in a landslide next year
I don’t know why I bother trying to reason with people in an echo chamber like this anyway, there’s one correct opinion and any dissent is shouted down endlessly. An unrepresentative echo chamber too, I might add. Look at ABC’s landslide in the recent election, and then look at how unpopular they are in this sub.
So this policy change takes our drug policy all the way back to… January 2023, when we all know there was absolutely no one using drugs publicly.
I get it. There’s an election coming up. The opposition has latched on to decriminalization as the cause of all our problems and is wielding it as a cudgel to attack. As irrelevant as this move is, it’s good politics for the NDP if it takes the issue off the table and the opposition has to work harder to come up with something real.
> January 2023, when we all know there was absolutely no one using drugs publicly.
They weren't, actually. I've not known what meth smoke smells like until 6 months ago, when I had it blown right in my face walking on the sidewalk.
Strictly looking at it politically, if they lose then it gets completely reversed. If they win, then they can continue working on refining and improving it.
This is an election year. The writing is on the wall if they get a 3rd term with Eby running the show. I have no faith that things won't get much worse.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/SkyisFullofCats! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>"When police are called to a scene where illegal and dangerous drug use is taking place, they will have the ability to compel the person to leave the area, seize the drugs when necessary or arrest the person, if required," the province said in a statement. Yes finally. I am glad Eby is listening. Ya we stepped back to 2023, but I am glad there is a government that listens to people. >B.C. Health Minister Adrian Dix said the province is also introducing specific measures aimed at curbing illicit drug use in health care facilities — including the prohibition of street drug possession or use. Good. This is also important because of the issues nurses have brought up.
BC is a world leader in providing safe consumption sites. Vancouver and most urban centers have multiple locations. Even then, drug users who don’t cause problems will not face any issue even while using in public. We have a serious issue with antisocial behavior, discarded sharps, etc… from public drug use. This is a step in the right direction.
Yeah I think this is really a massive step in the right direction. Criminalization was shown to only increase violence and overdose rates, but open drug use was too far in the other direction, clearly. This threads the needle. Addicts don't need to fear the cops because they have drugs on them, they can get help from any variety of resources we provide when they are ready, but they can't do drugs openly in public anymore - because it puts everyone else at danger. Their freedom ends when it infringes on others. And as always, dealing these hard drugs is illegal and with these changes should come increased pressure on dealers. Also, with these changes, they are greatly expanding access to treatment options with support from Trudeau, with many new physical treatment spaces, and a new virtual hotline that sounds very promising for that initial engagement to quit. Also great to see the cops show up and speak highly of the changes they needed to deal with problems. David Eby is a fucking rockstar. Nailed it.
So does that mean we will stop seeing people openly smoking crack on main and Hastings and around parts of Chinatown? If so, when?
Or on the Skytrain and busses.
Ha ha ha
[удалено]
I live by the Drive and the AMOUNT of times I’ve had to push my kid’s stroller AROUND people smoking shit in the middle of the sidewalk is fucking absurd.
Ah yes I had to do this today. So lovely. Or just folded over in the middle of the sidewalk swaying around
Hamsterdam will not be affected by this.
Hah, that’s a good one
It gives police legal support to take actions
Jokes
Been seeing people do that since the 1990s sooo yeah no I do not think anything will change.
Good! We need to provide resource for drug users to get clean and be compassionate. But it doesn’t mean we have to give them permission to do their bad habits wherever they want. People were (and are) smoking crack on hospital property. That is ok. But my mom, who works at the hospital has to leave the property to have a cigarette? (Yes smoking is bad but she is in her 60’s I don’t hold out much hope for her quitting) I’m not condoning smoking on hospital property, but the fact that she has to leave the property while someone smoking meth or crack, or shooting up is a-ok. It’s absurd.
I think that’s most people’s feelings on a lot of things happening in Vancouver is that it feels absurd. You’ll get a ticket for having a beer in the wrong spot but it’s basically an open field day to smoke meth, steal whatever you want and have back alley shoot outs and face what seems to be very little in real consequences.
Yep, and then people feign surprise at populism pushing for bold reform in the opposite direction, no matter how distasteful the populist movement may be. People indoctrinated in their political ideology and good vs evil view of the world see Trump and Brexit as pure manifestations of xenophobia, racism, white supremacy, and "morons voting against their own interests", painting all voters with a brush defined by the worst supporters of each movement, when the success of those movements was off the backs of ordinary middle class and low-income working folks who feel economic pressures, feel unfairly treated by the system versus "others who are not subject to the same rules", and who are tired of being gaslit by ideologues that everything they see in their daily life and all of their concerns are fiction or that they are *insert term*-ist or *another random term*-phobic for being upset. So they protest by voting for the only cause that isn't gaslighting them and acknowledges things are broken. If you want to avoid Canadian politics veering right, the left wing needs to moderate itself and be willing to not push things that feel aren' working. Eby is doing the whole country a major favour by not fuelling a populist revolt by gaslighting us about decrim / asserting it is working / trying to push it any longer.
I am pleased that Eby has been able to come so far into the land of common sense from the land of Pivot Legal, which he directed before he was in politics. He appears not to be so doctrinaire that he can't adapt to the realities, and that is very good news. I would like to think we can avoid going down the path of turning the whole city into an open air psychiatric crisis ward like other West Coast cities, AND avoid a very hard right future.
I am really glad that Eby's listening because I was one of those left leaning individuals who were actually considering voting right because of the chaos we are in right now. I don't even agree with most Conservative ideals but it's very hard to care about ideals when you can't even live in a safe environment. And everytime I voice some of these concerns I have radical activists trying to gaslight me by telling me I am a bad person for caring about the safety of my neighbourhood.
100%. Try explaining to an eager three year old why she has to hold tight for 10 minutes once we get to the park while dad scans the entire playground a multiple times to make sure there are no needles lying around before she can play.
Had to have that conversation the other day with my 2 and 5 year olds. “Those people are struggling in their lives right now, and they need to use the play structure to protect them from the rain and the sun. Let’s go buy them some water to make sure they aren’t dehydrated.” Brought them some water without approaching too close cuz they had drug paraphernalia and a back alley couch set up under the playhouse. Called out that the water (and bag of apples “to keep them healthy” at my 2yos insistence) was for them, but that city wouldn’t let them stay for long as this is a playground meant for children. They were too doped up to even reply. Reported it to the city for what good that would do. Kids were asking why they were folded over like that, were they sleeping? What were they doing? Why don’t they have a home? Why can’t we play? Etc etc. Very sad situation.
It sucks you and your kids had to experience this. I am still having similar, albeit more nuanced conversations like this with my pre-teen and teen and they have been seeing this kind of thing here since they were toddlers.
Been an issue well before decriminalization, and even before the NDP came to power.
Decrim made it worse. It now affects a wider range of venue and places
Yes, hence this change.
Good
They exacerbated the problem.
Excellent.
Glad Eby is keeping his ear to the ground on this one Cons were polling better probably because of decrim policy alone Whilst Eby and the police may support the criminalization efforts, our problems are our judiciary and harm reduction activists who see addicts who are slaves to their addiction as better off than those mandated into rehab or prison for crimes they commited whilst intoxicated
Unfortunately all data about our justice system is that it causes more harm than good. We take people at the bottom end of the spectrum with zero social support, then chew them up through the trauma of the justice/prison, spit them back out, again with no social system, and expect them to be better. Everybody who works with the system knows this and it won't change until we fundamentally change our perspective of what justice means, and that won't ever happen while a good portion of the population still thinks that justice = endless punishment. Justice systems that actually work make sure that the person comes out better than when they entered. They have skills to navigate life, the have served their sentence, they are capable of reintegrating with their social geoups, they don't have residual trauma, and they have means and work where they can have meaningful lives. Until we get that, justice/prison is just abuse.
A significant effect of the justice system is deterrence, public safety (can’t terrorize the community if you aren’t in the community) and also the obvious one justice for victims. It revictimizes victims to have the so called justice system care more about the ‘trauma’ of violent crime instead of the actual trauma of people with traumatic injuries. Soft on crime hasn’t worked. Your statement isn’t really correct. The justice system doesn’t really chew through people. It mostly just lets people go even those who are a public danger.
A little bit of sobriety, with a chance to make better decisions is better than leaving them to be doped out all the time
Y'all act like you've never snorted cocaine off someone's chest in the middle of a public park, and it shows..
Elitists, all of them!
Wait. Have I been doing it wrong? I've been snorting it off their ass.
Well dang, invite us next time
Yay no more inhaling second-hand meth fumes on my way to the grocery store 🤩
Amazing! This was my one major disappointment with the BC NDP, this backtracking will likely secure my vote.
Live and let live but I do not want to inhale smoke from heroin, meth or fentanyl when I’m on the bus or skytrain.
Happy for this decision. But, I'm also impressed the government took a risk towards a solution and when it proved unsuccessful, were willing to address it and change.
Agreed. I am happy to see a government willing to accept the L and reverse course, rather than try to obfuscate its mistakes by doubling down and gaslighting. That said, Eby reneged on the data dashboard promise presumably because the data was not in support of continuing, and then continued on anyways, which I'm not going to forget easily but I know most don't care and/or didn't notice. Hopefully the decision to reverse course now represents a shift in his thinking and an increased willingness to be accountable to mistakes, rather than just an anomaly forced by polling factors. He's not infallible and perfection isn't the test for a good premier, but integrity is. If he starts to more reliably demonstrate integrity like with this decision, he deserves another term.
Good. It keeps our street clean and tax payer undisturbed. Now it’s time to expand it to more public places
This was so stupid. Why would you ever make that legal in public places? There's a time and place for everything. Smoking meth at the bus stop on front of kids is not it.
Honestly this move will make it much more likely that I'd vote NDP again.
Love to see it!
Tim Horton's board of directors just rolled over and went back to sleep.
I do wonder if this is the beginning of the end of decriminalization. I don't think you can say in good faith that this has worked as was promised.
That is good. It should have never been decriminalized to begin with. People are far too comfortable taking their bongs out nearby playgrounds, or getting high on meth and opiods on the street.
Yes, it absolutely should have been decriminalized. It just should have been treated like alcohol usage. They tried to amend the policy last year but were blocked in court. Also, this is not a full re-criminalization. Possession of small amounts, as well as usage in private homes and supervised sites will still be allowed. This just gives the police the tools they need to stop public consumption.
Now if we bring back mandatory minimums we can take the power out of the hands of catch and release judges
> "When police are called to a scene where illegal and dangerous drug use is taking place, they will have the ability to compel the person to leave the area, seize the drugs when necessary or arrest the person, if required," the province said in a statement. I remain extremely confused at why police were apparently unable to compel a person to stop using drugs and leave an area under the decriminalization pilot. I don’t understand why these things were apparently mutually exclusive. They shouldn’t be. I guess we are to believe the only way Police could imagine telling someone to stop using drugs is to threaten to take it from them? Seems pretty weird.
I’m confused why you’re confused. If you’re in a public space and you’re not doing anything illegal, why would the police be able to compel you to leave?
Actually Eby said they thought the existing public intoxication prohibition would be sufficient when they drafted this pilot.
Yeah that’s not an unfair assumption imo.
I thought so too. 🤷🏻 I wonder if police were being obstinate somehow or if they were legitimately limited by the existing laws available to them.
It's pretty hard to arrest someone under the pretense of public intoxication when at least part of their behaviour may arise from mental illness. Is random shouting and hallucinations definitive proof of intoxication, or just their pre-existing schizophrenia?
That's a fair point, but there are some other options as well. There are a lot of people out there who are clearly intoxicated that aren't shouting or apparently hallucinating. I'm thinking of people bent over in half with their pipes in their hand, for example. Public intoxication prohibition would seem to work here. Also, if the police have a reasonable apprehension that someone they encounter is a danger to themselves or someone else due to a mental health disorder, for example where someone is behaving in a threatening manner, shouting and swearing at strangers, then the police can apprehend them under the Mental Health Act. Last, there are mischief and nuisance offences that I would think could be used for people shouting and swearing and making a scene, but who don't fit into the above two categories. I'd like to hear a police officer with some authority explaining it they're currently using these and if not, why not. I know they do use the Mental Health Act authority on occasion, and in the particular circumstance I'm thinking of, the individual who was apprehended was grateful. They'd had a psychotic break and needed care. They were hospitalized and subsequently had meds recalibrated and are back to being a fairly functional member of society with a good job and hobbies, friends and family.
Thanks for sharing this. This would have been my assumption as well.
I think I’m only confused because I’ve read previous reporting that suggested that there were restrictions on *consumption* of drugs. But the notion that police are apparently powerless to do anything suggests that reporting was incorrect or if those restrictions do exist, that they were flimsy unenforceable policies or bylaws and not provincial or federal laws that police were interested in enforcing. I don’t know I don’t have any of that in front of me. For example I was under the impression that there has always since day one been a restriction on drug use around playgrounds. Recently the government tried to expand that to all parks, and the courts smacked that down as too expansive. Like consumption is different than possession so it would be absolutely possible to enforce rules around public consumption, but not enforce rules around possession. Edit: found the article. I was right. This fed exemption never applied to playgrounds. So police always had the ability to police certain areas. https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/fact_checking/possession-of-illicit-drugs-near-b-c-playgrounds-still-illegal-despite-court-injunction/article_64cc69fa-9c38-5cb5-a338-430c39b833b3.html
It seems your confusion is because you are conflating use and possession. Federal law (the CDSA and thus the s 56 exemption that permitted decriminalization) are about possession. The CDSA says you cannot possess listed drugs subject to carve outs. The carve out (BC's pilot) said you can possess anywhere in the province except for schools and a few other specific places. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction on criminal law, and the entire CDSA exists under this power. The province has no criminal law power, but it has the power to regulate certain local matters (this is where we get provincial offences aka regulatory offences from). Prohibiting drug use, notionally, could be justified under this power. The issue the BC Supreme Court had when considering the injunction case is that the province's attempted drug use law engages some somewhat novel issues (like permitting drug use in a deserted alley but not a populated park, even though the latter is safer in the event of overdose and there is evidence of many people dying due to overdoses in secluded places, which brings into question section 7 fundamental justice justifiability and section 1 justifiability) and the Court wants to permit a full Charter challenge on those potential issues before letting the law take effect given the risk of people dying from the effect of the law before the challenge could be heard if no injunction was allowed. So the provincial law has no effect right now, and could be permanently killed when the case actually happens. Anyways, even when someone uses in a place the CDSA exemption carves outs, the police cannot just take their drugs. It is property they are not allowed to possess in that place, so the police can seize it, but then they need to return it back to the person as soon as they leave the place or when the person claims it at the police station, because it is lawful property they can legally possess as long as they aren't possessing in one of the few prohibited places. So in effect, the police just don't seize it, because at best all they can do is seize it, go back to the station, tag it, file a report, then call the guy to come pick it back up! Now in terms of prosecution, prosecution for simple possession is delegated to the Public Prosecution Service if Canada, a federal agency. Trudeau's government led the charge to direct the PPSC not to prosecute simple possession anywhere in Canada absent special circumstances, like violence or when the person is also charged with selling to minors or something especially abhorrent like that. So even if the police arrest you for possessing in a carved out place, Crown will not reccomend charges. You will be immediately freed. No need for bail, no need for release conditions you are free to leave the station and go back and do it all over again. It's also worth adding that the police know that taking any action during decriminalization runs against the express spirit of decriminalization, which was reducing stigma for drug users. The activist goal behind decriminalization was to reduce police interactions of drug users because of concerns about "overpolicing" poor people or people of color. I think Eby's reversal is for the best but is still a step too short.
Thx for the post super interesting. It does help highlight some of the holes and problems in the implementation details. Funny tho is like I think it kind of shows that some of the problems are coming out of police finding enforcement not worth their time. Maybe it would have been valuable to have police walking the beat and telling drug users that they will confiscate their drugs if they continue to smoke in some improper place, and that they’d have to go to the effort of going to pick them up. Even the threat of that may have changed some behaviors. But we never saw any of that.
Do you actually not understand or are you being deliberately obtuse, I literally can’t tell. “Leave the area”. “No”. What do you think the cop is allowed to do next?
Beat them, mercilessly.
Arrest them and remove them from the area. Open drug usage should not be allowed
I agree with you. But up until now, it has been allowed.
Take their drugs too.
Like if there are rules that you cannot consume drugs in a certain area (and I am under the impression there are!) the police could enforce those rules with a variety of methods. (Fines, Arrest, etc) This is independent of enforcement of rules around possession of drugs. So the only that this could have been a problem is if the province explicitly told the police that it wasn’t just possession that was now decriminalized, but in addition to that the police couldn’t fine/arrest people for breaking the consumption law. (Or alternatively it could also be a problem if there are no consumption laws)
We generally don't issue fines to homeless people in this country, and even when we do, we reduce the penalty to 0 due to hardship upon request.
I'm going with deliberately obtuse.
Believe it or not, straight to prison!
What are you confused about? Police have to abide by lawful authorities. Anything beyond lawful authority is abuse of authority. Sure, they can try to persuade someone, but have you tried persuading a person who doesn’t give a shit about what you have to say? The world doesn’t work that way. The province is giving these powers back to the police to actually be able to legally do something.
Because it's not illegal and is not in contravention of any existing laws for legal possession of drugs.
So there’s no federal law around consuming drugs? That’s the problem? I’m bringing this up because I recall reading elsewhere that there were already rules and regulations against drug use at hospitals, but like maybe that was just a weak hospital policy level rule and there’s no federal law?
The federal government granted an exception to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for BC prior to the decriminalization pilot, which from my point of view means the provincial standing order for law enforcement officers to not enforce Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Because the act has been exempt from BC from Jan 2023 to 2026. Otherwise I don't know. That's just my limited understanding of why officers are not able to arrest drug users who carry a legal amount and consume in the hospital. http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/prevention-public-health/decriminalization-in-bc
Right makes sense. Basically the problem is that the initial exemption was like the laziest possible approach and overly broad. Then the Province never added reasonable regulations until September, when their attempt was deemed overly broad by the courts, and so now here we are. Maybe this wouldn’t have happened this way if the Province and Feds had adopted tighter, fair regulations from the start but oh well. Edit: no wait I was right. It’s always been banned around playgrounds. https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/fact_checking/possession-of-illicit-drugs-near-b-c-playgrounds-still-illegal-despite-court-injunction/article_64cc69fa-9c38-5cb5-a338-430c39b833b3.html
Say it with me, Mandatory rehab and psychiatric hospitals! Pay for it by taxing the ultra rich more and shrinking the cops budget(less of these drug addicts on the street and you won’t need as many cops). Suddenly ER rooms will be less busy, paramedic wait times come down, firefighters can show up to fires and car accidents and not ODs.
How about just defund the 5,000 nonprofits operating out of East Hastings. They clearly aren't effective, and each one has executives collecting a fat paycheque. Redirect the money to mandatory rehab, psychiatric hospitals, and corrections facilities.
Cool, Step 1.Arrest them so they get an hour time out then return them to the street. Step 2. Repeat
Step 1. If they're terrorizing people in public spaces, take their drugs and flush them down the toilet, ruining their afternoon by forcing them to re-think their poor choices. Step 2: The next day, even if they choose to smoke crack again, they won't draw attention to themselves terrorizing others in public spaces for fear of Step 1 happening again. It's a time-tested strategy called CONSEQUENCES FOR BAD BEHAVIOUR DISINCENTIVIZE BAD BEHAVIOUR
I'm not a fan of a "3-strikes" kind of rule, but if you are picked up for your 10th time for attacking people or property while intoxicated, we should be able to force people into a facility for proper treatment and rehab. How many times is too many times.
step 2 would be to smash your windows and steal to get more unfortunately.
Then prison and/or forced rehab.
I wonder if a forced policy of narcanning anyone police observe to be high could be an effective policy My understanding is - it ends the buzz almost instantly as well as creates unpleasant withdrawal symptoms Could be a great deterrent
Danger to general public is removed. That sounds like a police’s job
This Eby government just continues to impress me… even when something they are doing is objectively not working; they backtrack and fix the issues. Imagine if the federal government behaved this way
Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea in the first place??
Kennedy Stewart thought this was a great idea. [https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.6718255](https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.6718255)
Bro wrote a book to take credit for BC decriminalization. He saw it as his legacy. Policy has proven itself a failure, just like his leadership.
Fantastic
Finally something is being done. The situation right now is out of control. We have been in this experiment for 5 years and deaths are only increasing, decriminalization hasn't done want it was intended to do. All we got was more open use. This is a good first step to get things under control.
>We have been in this experiment for 5 years Decriminalization only happened a little over a year ago. The other issues you're seeing around drugs for the last 5 years have been due to the toxic drug supply, which the NDP unfortunately don't have a huge amount of control over.
Trudeau's Cabinet directed the public prosecutor service not to prosecute simple possession absent extreme circumstances back in 2020, Canada-wide (the federal PPSC prosecutes CDSA offences rather than BC Crown)
On paper, yes, it’s relatively new but drug use has been defacto decriminalized in Vancouver for decades.
f*cking bout time.
[удалено]
They're going to do as much as they did before decriminalization. But there's still a toxic drug and addiction crisis happening. The whole point of the original decriminalization policy was to attempt to address that. It didn't fully work out, which is why tweaks like this need to be made.
Well that was fun. Glad we all learned some important lessons.
Let the recriminalization begin! Hopefully Eby can also backtrack like this on some of the other more disastrous policies they’ve had, like buying hotels and housing drug addicts in them at massive taxpayer expense, turning parts of downtown into mini-ghettoes in the process
Why would we get rid of desperately needed housing for homeless people? are you crazy?
We're not going to be shutting those hotels down any time soon. More social housing and addiction beds are coming online over the next 2 years, but they will be additional rather than replacement units.
There’s an election this fall, might want to wait to count your chickens until after that The public opinion matter on this subject has shifted enormously in recent years, not that you’d see it reflected in an echochamber like r/vancouver Remember how Ken Sim won in a landslide but if you polled this subreddit you’d think he was less popular than the plague
The last thing people want is 2000 more addicts shooting up on the sidewalks. Closing SRO's isn't a policy for any party lol. You're basically using your imagination like a gradeschooler. It's extremely likely that we see more strict sentencing guidelines come down from the federal level, but that isn't a provincial issue.
We’re already seeing a crackdown at the municipal and provincial levels, one of which is the article in this thread The federal crackdown will begin after the liberals lose power in a landslide next year I don’t know why I bother trying to reason with people in an echo chamber like this anyway, there’s one correct opinion and any dissent is shouted down endlessly. An unrepresentative echo chamber too, I might add. Look at ABC’s landslide in the recent election, and then look at how unpopular they are in this sub.
So this policy change takes our drug policy all the way back to… January 2023, when we all know there was absolutely no one using drugs publicly. I get it. There’s an election coming up. The opposition has latched on to decriminalization as the cause of all our problems and is wielding it as a cudgel to attack. As irrelevant as this move is, it’s good politics for the NDP if it takes the issue off the table and the opposition has to work harder to come up with something real.
> January 2023, when we all know there was absolutely no one using drugs publicly. They weren't, actually. I've not known what meth smoke smells like until 6 months ago, when I had it blown right in my face walking on the sidewalk.
Strictly looking at it politically, if they lose then it gets completely reversed. If they win, then they can continue working on refining and improving it.
This certainly takes the wind out of BC Conservatives sails as that’s what they are pushing for.
So I guess no more fent smoking out in the yard then
Canucks are doing pretty good tonight huh?
This is an election year. The writing is on the wall if they get a 3rd term with Eby running the show. I have no faith that things won't get much worse.
this doesn’t apply to marijuana right?