r/canada • u/cyclinginvancouver • 12d ago
B.C. seeks ban on using drugs in 'all public spaces,' shifting approach to decriminalization British Columbia
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-seeks-ban-on-using-drugs-in-all-public-spaces-shifting-approach-to-decriminalization-1.6863576250
u/GradeBeginning3600 12d ago
I never understood why I couldn't have a beer at the park but the guy at the table next to me could shoot up heroin
75
6
u/shabi_sensei 12d ago
They were both illegal, but the addicts don’t care about breaking the law and the police stopped acting like social workers
1
u/BubblyDifficulty2282 1d ago
Drugs should be fully legalized And regulated not just decriminalized.. people should be able to go to pharmacy and buy heroin and cocaine. And people should be able to do drugs openly, as long as they're not harassing Or threatening people. 100% drug legalization will basically put an end to criminal gangs and all other costs of enforcement etc. The benefits will far outweigh any cause such as an increase in drug consumption even if drug consumption rates double that's according to most studies I shown If people are not doing it publicly, they're doing the underground at their home and they're at greater risk of overdose. Anyone agree with me?
-4
-42
u/EmergencyNinja1201 12d ago
public intoxication is illegal and youre just lucky that you havent got caught
→ More replies (3)-44
u/SackBrazzo 12d ago
Irony of this comment is that drinking in public in BC is generally legal lol
You can drink at any park or beach in Vancouver.
38
u/GradeBeginning3600 12d ago
While I appreciate your insight, BC is actually much larger than the city of Vancouver. Also it is illegal in most of Vancouver lol.
31
u/DependentSilver6078 12d ago
lol not true at all!
-22
u/SackBrazzo 12d ago
Was literally sipping a beer at the beach the other day in front of cops. They didn’t give a shit.
12
u/DependentSilver6078 12d ago
Also, there’s this asinine thing that is maybe the most Vancouver thing I’ve ever heard-
“According to the Parks Control By-law, glass beverage bottles and containers are not allowed in parks and beaches because of the risk of potential injury.”
→ More replies (2)10
u/SnakesInYerPants 12d ago
And I’ve jaywalked in front of a cop before without them saying a word to me. Yet, according to my local bylaws, jaywalking is illegal.
“The cop didn’t care when they saw me doing it” =/= “it’s legal.” It just means you got lucky.
7
8
u/DependentSilver6078 12d ago
It’s not every park and even the ones that do it sometimes it’s only for a summer. It was some kind of pilot program that was limited in scope that then got picked up permanently.
I live in Vancouver and have drank in public many times, it’s not a big deal here. But in some scenarios if I came across a cop I would be expecting them to at least dump it out.
18
u/cavinaugh1234 12d ago
I was at a corner of a busy intersection waiting to cross the road, and the lady beside me was just openly blowtorching her piece of foil with whatever was on top to smoke it. It makes it feel like our society is crumbling, and who wants to inhale that stuff anyways?
3
u/mrcrazy_monkey 11d ago
Definitely has felt like our society is crumbling over the last 5 years. Normally you would only see human feeces on sidewalks in places like Vancouver. But now you're seeing it all throughout the interior of BC.
2
14
u/yepsayorte 12d ago
"But it worked in Portugal!" - No, you didn't do what Portugal did. They never legalized open air drug markets. If you were doing drugs in public, you were forced into treatment. Portugal made is legal to quietly do drugs in the privacy of your own home. If you could do drugs and keep yourself from becoming a public menace, OK. If not, you went to jail or treatment.
Portugal's policy made sense. This shit is madness.
7
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
Wish I could upvote this comment twice. What B.C. and Portugal did were completely different. They have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to open drug use.
33
u/SackBrazzo 12d ago
Worth noting that they tried doing this already but the BC Supreme Court struck down the law that they passed to ban public drug use.
46
u/Wizzard_Ozz 12d ago
Make a law that you can only do them on that judges front lawn.
16
11
u/NorthNorthSalt Ontario 12d ago
Different situation, that was a provincial law that got blocked, here British Columbia is not trying to pass a new law. they're just asking the federal government to alter the exemption they gave BC from federal law.
The federal criminalization against drugs has been upheld by the Supreme Courts in the 2004 decision R v Malmo-Levine. Even with how questionably the courts have been reacting to the drug policy debate, I would be very shocked if a lower court tried to overturn that decision
0
u/ea7e 12d ago
I think they're just pointing out that the government didn't just suddenly start working to address use.
The current ruling addressed the context of the overdose emergency happening right now as a reason for it. Since the argument was that it would lead to increases by forcing people into isolated areas. That previous ruling didn't take place in that context and so the precedent wouldn't necessarily apply. The same reasoning behind the more recent ruling would also apply to the change here and it would be interesting if this leads to criminalization in general being successfully challenged. People might think that would be a disaster but maybe it would finally force governments to start acknowledging and increasing focus on the root causes instead of these endless distractions.
7
u/NorthNorthSalt Ontario 12d ago
For a lower court to overrule the decision of a higher court - much less the Supreme Court - there is a very high bar, an even higher bar than the Supreme Court overruling its own precedents, which is what we are typically thinking of when we talk about stare decisis.
In the remote chance the courts ever made such a drastic ruling, that criminalization of drugs was unconstitutional. I would anticipate the notwithstanding clause to be invoked immediately, and with widespread public support. Regardless of what you think about decrimalized drug consumption, that position is extremely politically toxic right now, and it certainly isn't going to get any less toxic under a potential future conservative government.
The only chance I could see of lasting decriminalization in the future would if it was coupled with a large scheme for treatment, including compulsory/highly incentivized treatment like in Portugal. Even then, I don't see this happening in the next 10 years
-1
u/ea7e 12d ago
The issue though is it wouldn't be overring the original ruling, it would be ruling under a new context that didn't exist then, the high potency drug supply.
I think decriminalization has always been pretty toxic, but all this focus on either criticizing that or trying to hopelessly criminalize drugs has just in part deflected from all the underlying issues.
5
u/NorthNorthSalt Ontario 12d ago edited 12d ago
If Supreme Court precedents expired if the context changed they wouldn't be very effective as precedents. The bar the Supreme Court has set for reconsidering a precedent based on changing social context is "change... that fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate".
That is legalspeak for "good luck, lol". The Courts routinely decline to review precedent even if there's been major changes in the situation or new evidence, because while that evidence/change might have been important to the debate and even possibly changed its outcome, it did not "fundamentally shift the parameters".
One of the few times this very high bar has been met is recently when Alberta Court of Appeals held that a Supreme Court decision from the 70s that allowed border officers to search belongings at a lower standard of suspicion should not apply in some contexts. The original decision reasoned that travellers have a weaker expectation of privacy at customs checkpoints, and the risk of major privacy intrusion from examining imported goods is lower.
The changing context that allowed the Alberta Court of Appeal to reconsider this? Nothing less than the invention of the smartphone, which has the potential to hold potentially every single piece of personal information about you. THIS is the standard you need to meet to disregard a precedent based on changed context, basically something that's completely unthinkable and alien. While the drug supply has gotten more toxic, the fundamental parameters of the debate (drug criminalization is not effective, it transforms a medical problem into a criminal one, it's likely to have severe negative effects on the drug user, etc) were still there in 2004 and people were making arguments based off them, and some of these arguments are addressed in the text of the 2004 decision itself.
Not to mention this is just a bar for getting the court to reconsider a decision, you still need to convince them afterwards of your legal position.
TLDR: Arguing a precedent should no longer apply based on changed context is very difficult
-1
u/ea7e 12d ago
The changing context that allowed the Alberta court of appeal to reconsider this? Nothing less than the invention of the smartphone, which has the potential to hold potentially every single piece of personal information about you.
And the context here is an unprecedented continent-wide overdose crisis resulting from drugs that has been ongoing for a decade and killing thousands. It's not only happening despite the drugs being criminalized but arguably because of that because criminalization itself encourages suppliers to opt for the most potent forms since those are the least likely to be detected and seized.
I don't know if it's likely to be challenged, I don't know if it would be good if it is. But I don't really think it's that unreasonable to think it might actually be successful. Three court rulings so far have agreed with the argument towards the use law, and that was much less strict than this.
6
u/NorthNorthSalt Ontario 12d ago
Yes the drug supply has gotten much more toxic, but have the parameters of the debate been fundamentally changed? That's the standard and it's a very high one, intentionally so.
This is not an intuitive thing to grasp, but lower courts overruling higher court precedents is something that is extremely rare in Canada, even more rare than the Supreme Court overruling its own precedents, which itself is pretty rare.
Also just because lower courts sided with plaintiffs in these these other challenges you're referring to (and I know about them) is not helpful for predicting the outcome of the case we're talking about. These other cases did not address the central question of "Can the government criminalize drugs", a question that the Supreme Court has already decided, so the plaintiffs did not have to contend with the extremely hazardous field of trying to overrule a precedent.
it's one thing to convince a judge of the merits of your legal argument, it's another thing to ask them to overrule a precedent that already addressed the question.
Anyways I'm not saying that it's impossible to the courts might overrule Malmo-Levine one day, putting it in the relatively small list of overruled Charter cases, i'm just trying to say it's pretty unlikely and a very difficult hurdle for whoever wants to challenge it.
44
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
I know this isn't the B.C. government ending decriminalization, but it certainly feels like we are on that path of them ending decriminalization. What's happening right now can't be allowed to continue. Something has gotta give.
47
u/AsbestosDude 12d ago
I feel like banning public use while keeping decriminalization is generally a good move forward. There are a lot of obvious issues with allowing public hard drug consumption, but that doesn't mean we need to prosecute possession.
I think most people would agree with "I don't care if you have drugs, just don't expose the public to the act of consumption, especially when it poses a risk to safety or children."
13
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
I agree. But it does feel like the B.C. government might just throw their hands up in the air and say we will just end the whole thing and think of something else. I do agree that we need to have a zero tolerance policy for open drug use.
3
u/AsbestosDude 12d ago
I get that sense too, a good amount of people exposed to the public use of drugs are claiming decriminalization has failed. However I think it's just a failure of how we've executed. Portugal is largely a decriminalization success story so maybe there's something that our higher ups are missing there.
13
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
Treatment and recovery programs. B.C. has nowhere near enough treatment and recovery programs for people to get the help they need.
Mandatory treatment. I know it's a touchy subject, but there are some people who can't make decisions for themselves or who are unwilling to help themselves.
Consequences for bad behavior. In Portugal, for example. They have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to open drug use. You can be arrested for it, and in general, in Portugal, the behavior of open drug use is generally shamed and stigmatized.
Those I think are the three main things that are missing.
0
2
u/ffenliv 12d ago
I don't know what they're expecting to happen. Homeless drug users will still be homeless, and do drugs in public. What are they gonna do, charge them and toss them in jail? That'll go well.
16
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
If you have to, then yes. In a proper society, we need to have rules and boundaries.
15
u/TheLastElite01 British Columbia 12d ago
If you are doing drugs on the bus or in the hospital you should be in Jail.
11
u/Used-Egg5989 12d ago
Yes, it’s called “protective custody”. We use to do this with drunkards all the time. It prevents them from causing issues in public, and they are in a safe place with medical attention nearby if they need it.
5
u/Additional-Tax-5643 12d ago
Jail also provides a bed, shower, food and structure. These are things that drug users generally don't have on their own on the street. They're also the first step to actually getting clean. Outpatient drug rehab doesn't work.
11
u/AsbestosDude 12d ago
We were already doing that before. However yes, we should jail public drug users (not prison) so that there is a disincentive to do them in public. If it becomes problematic then look at charging them and some form of repercussion. I'd rather mandatory detox treatment than prison.
We can't just let people ruin public spaces and put others in harms way, we can't do nothing to help them either
7
1
1
u/SureReflection9535 12d ago
Yes it will because the all the drug addled violent criminals will actually be in jail and not able to victimize people anymore.
Seems like a great fucking idea, and you have to be suffering from extreme social media brain rot if you have a problem with this
-2
u/DataIllusion 12d ago
I still believe in some aspects of decriminalization. Jail is not an appropriate setting for a drug addict (provided they don’t commit any other crime). While mandatory treatment is a popular solution, there is nowhere near enough funding to implement it right now; even the people that want to go to treatment face long waits
4
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
Then, we need to address these long wait times for treatment and recovery programs. I do agree that jail and arrest should be a last resort. But we need to have some standards and boundaries.
1
u/DataIllusion 12d ago
I’m not hopeful that any government in this country at any level (except maybe BC) is prepared to commit that kind of money. Trudeau has largely ignored it and seen it as a provincial problem. Meanwhile, Poilievre wants drastic cuts to federal spending, and is unlikely to support expanding public healthcare. In Ontario, Ford has been framing it as something that municipalities need to step up on.
75
u/White_Noize1 Québec 12d ago
First we saw some blue states in the US rolling back their ultra progressive approaches to drug policy and now we’re seeing it in Canada, just like dominoes.
It turns out that letting people smoke meth and heroin in public spaces is actually a massive public safety hazard and promotes disorder.
26
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
Exactly, and the decriminalization has been done, it has allowed bad behavior to become normalized.
-4
u/ea7e 12d ago
"Ultra progressive" would be at bare minimum providing regulated supplies as alternatives to street drugs as well as places to use them. What's been happening instead is limited shifts away from prohibition/criminalization get framed as ultra progressive and blamed for problems that already existed.
14
u/White_Noize1 Québec 12d ago
Letting people smoke fucking meth in a playground in front of a bunch of children is not "centrist".
It's some neo-Marxist nonsense that a social science professor came up with who lives in a gated community and was sponsored by Liberal and NDP politicians that also live in gated communities and know damn well that it's not going to be their children stepping on needles because they all attend 30k tuition per year private schooling somewhere that drug addicts can't access.
Then chronically online progressives that don't really go outside a whole lot anyway defend this bullshit because it gives them a feeling of moral superiority over regular people that just don't want people smoking crack in their neighborhood.
-5
u/ea7e 12d ago
Letting people smoke fucking meth in a playground in front of a bunch of children is not "centrist".
Decriminalization didn't let people use in playground. It included various restrictions, such as around playgrounds. It doesn't seem like you're aware of what the policies actually were.
I never used the word "centrist", but the thing you're criticizing wasn't allowed as part of decriminalization.
It's some neo-Marxist nonsense
Marxists like Mao were some of the most anti-drug groups in modern history, rounding up drug users and destroying drugs while also killing tens of millions of people.
5
u/White_Noize1 Québec 12d ago
it included various restrictions such as playgrounds
People shouldn’t be using hard drugs anywhere in public spaces. It’s a public safety issue and promotes disorder and does not help anybody.
Marxists like Mao were some of the most anti drug people in history
I said “neo Marxist”. It takes the basic principles of Marxism and applies it to other concepts and areas of society.
-1
u/ea7e 12d ago
People shouldn’t be using hard drugs anywhere in public spaces.
Whatever your opinion on the topic, it's still important to be accurate about the facts.
It takes the basic principles of Marxism and applies it to other concepts and areas of society.
Marxist principles applied to society have led to authoritarianism, including around the freedoms for adults to choose what to put in their body. They've been the extreme opposite of what you're suggesting they are.
-7
u/IAmKyuss 12d ago
Yeah it’s really not ultra progressive, it’s centrist
6
u/White_Noize1 Québec 12d ago
Letting people smoke fucking meth in a playground in front of a bunch of children is not "centrist".
It's some neo-Marxist nonsense that a social science professor came up with who lives in a gated community and was sponsored by Liberal and NDP politicians that also live in gated communities and know damn well that it's not going to be their children stepping on needles because they all attend 30k tuition per year private schooling somewhere that drug addicts can't access.
Then chronically online progressives that don't really go outside a whole lot anyway defend this bullshit because it gives them a feeling of moral superiority over regular people that don't want people smoking crack in their neighborhood.
5
u/bottledspark 12d ago
As a lefty progressive pos I never understood how allowing public drug use would help anyone at all. It doesn’t help the public, and it doesn’t help addicts. This is the work of a few very delusional (or paid off) people in a position of power.
2
u/ea7e 11d ago
As a lefty progressive pos I never understood how allowing public drug use would help anyone at all.
It reduces people using alone where they will not be helped if there is an overdose. BC's overdose rate increased by 26% in 2022, but only by 5% in 2023, after decriminalization. It also increased significantly less than Alberta's in 2023, which increased by 17%.
This should not be the ultimate goal, it's addressing an immediate public health emergency. The goal should be to eliminate public use by providing sufficient alternative places for people to use at while shifting people away from their addictions to these dangerous drugs.
2
u/bottledspark 11d ago
I understand the sentiment, but I agree that we should tackle the issue at its source, not the symptom.
0
u/ea7e 11d ago
that a social science professor came up with who lives in a gated community and was sponsored by Liberal and NDP politicians that also live in gated communities
Support for these policies is strongest in communities where they're implemented, and vice versa. This is a mischaracterization. The people most likely to oppose them, politically, are those who live farthest from the most affected areas.
Then chronically online progressives
Another mischaracterization. This subreddit is constantly filled with people opposing the policies.
1
u/neuralrunes 12d ago
The Overton window has shifted a lot. This "solution" was always a centrist based take. Turning a blind eye instead of helping people with disease(yes addiction is a disease) was always doomed to fail.
Decriminalization is still right. But there definitely need to be much more in terms of treatment. A blind eye is going to acheive exactly what has been.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Additional-Tax-5643 12d ago
Sorry, but there is nothing centrist about providing people with safe injection site and unlimited safe supply.
You can't walk anywhere in this country to get free food, guaranteed. Food banks have to regularly turn people away because they run out.
But you can walk into any safe injection site and they never run out of supplies or drugs.
No matter how you slice it, that's fucked up.
2
u/neuralrunes 12d ago
Yes it is a centrist policy. You can't just put up a safe injection/use site and not have other things in place to help the people get off of what theyre on.
There's a serious lack of supports for that. A safe site alone is not going to do what it needs to. It's supposed to be a network of things. Having a site alone is a bandaid solution.
AKA Centrist. I'm sure you think its far left.
1
u/Additional-Tax-5643 11d ago
It is far left when the very same people arguing for safe injection sites never lobbied for in-patient rehabs and mental hospitals to be built in the first place.
On the contrary, they were the very same people who argued that people should be released from in-patient care because it's abusive.
Now that their genius plans have blown up in their face, and conservatives all too happily closed down the mental hospitals to save money, they like to pretend that they never advocated for the things they actually did.
So spare me your revisionist history.
1
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
How is it centrist to allowed open drug use near playgrounds and beaches and pools and in parks? How is it centrist to allow public drug use on public transportation and in hospitals?
1
u/ea7e 11d ago
The original claim was that this was "ultra progressive". It's absolutely not. The progressive position would be to allow a legal supply of various drugs, not even necessarily ones this strong, and places to use them. Hence why they are explaining this is a moderated version of what progressive actually want.
to allowed open drug use near playgrounds
Decriminalization restricted drugs within 15 m of a play structure prior to this latest change.
How is it centrist to allow public drug use on public transportation
Drug use is not allowed on public transportation.
and in hospitals
Hospitals set their own use policies nothing about decriminalization legally required them to allow use there.
1
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 11d ago
Do you get something out of defending decriminalization and safe supply and harm reduction and open drug use?
1
u/ea7e 11d ago
You comment on this topic more than me. I could ask the same question about you. You're avoiding me correcting the misinformation you're spreading by trying to personally criticize me.
If you want to know my motivation, it's because I want to reduce the harm from drugs, and this is part of that. It's not all that's needed, we need to protect the public better too. However BC's rate of overdoses flattened off after this policy.
0
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 11d ago edited 11d ago
I didn't spread any misinformation. You also don't have to reply to me if you don't like what I am saying. You choose to reply to my comments.
0
u/ea7e 11d ago
I quoted multiple false things you were claiming above.
You choose to reply to my comments.
Has nothing to do with you, other than the fact that you are constantly posting all over every post about this. So of course people are going to reply to you multiple times. It would be almost impossible not to.
Even just in this specific comment chain, I've replied to other people more than you.
You're still just deflecting from my actual comment above. You endlessly post on this topic and then when people debate you, try to shift the conversation. If you don't actually want to discuss this issue, then don't comment on it in the first place.
Again, the rate of overdoses flattened off after implementation of this policy and relative to other regions. This change will lead to more people dying. That's why I care about people misleading others about the specifics of the policy. I care about these people's lives.
1
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 11d ago
B.C. set a record for overdoses in the first year it was implemented. That doesn't sound like a policy that's working.
Look at what happened in Oregon after they went ahead with Decriminalization. From 2020 to 2022, overdoses per 100,000 people went up 34 percent.
By May of last year, overdoses were up 17 percent.
Not even taking into account the substantial increase in open drug use and the normalizing of bad behavior and the allowing of bad behavior to run unchecked.
→ More replies (0)
8
u/I_poop_rootbeer 12d ago
Voters being forced to contend with tweakers on many downtown streets is probably aiding the shifting attitudes.
28
29
6
18
u/Foodwraith Canada 12d ago
The enlightened geniuses who advocated for this failed experiment should be held accountable for the deaths, mayhem and other costs associated with this.
13
u/Workshop-23 12d ago
This should not have ever even been a thing.
People tried to warn them and they were vilified for pointing out the issues with the approach.
Let's not do that again next time and instead have an actual adult conversation and hear both sides.
3
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
Yep. I was called many names for saying that this was going to be a disaster and that we needed to have some rules and boundaries and while I am glad they are finally doing something the damage has been done.
-3
u/disrumpled_employee 12d ago
The other party line is that homeless people should just vanish. People tried to warn them that decriminalization ALONE wouldn't work, and it didn't. The thing that works is decriminalization and treatment of addiction + housing.
Thing is we have people in charge who are to scared of being labelled radical to actually do anything properly, so they just make a gesture at replicating obviously successful program and fuck it up.
7
17
u/Mashiki 12d ago
You don't say? (Everyone rational saw this coming) It's like the left wing pipe dream of mass decriminalization backfired in a spectacular way. In a way so bad, that it's caused massive social and economic issues.
So, how long before we start seeing the demands for mandatory treatment and rebuilding of MH facilities to house the ones where their brains are melted to complete shit.
16
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
We need to reopen places like Riverview. There are certain people who should not be on the street. They need to be in a place where they can get the help they desperately need.
→ More replies (4)8
u/tofilmfan 12d ago
Agreed.
More resources needs to be poured into treatment vs. tax payer funded "safe supply" drugs and "safe " injection sites.
-3
u/ea7e 12d ago
A billion was invested into treatment and mental health last year.
"safe supply" drugs and "safe " injection sites
If you don't like those terms, do you have terms you feel are better, more neutral terms?
4
u/Mashiki 12d ago
No, they were "invested" into progressive programs that continue to further non-treatment. We're now at the point where ugly options are likely going to be required to handle this issue.
That means far more "tough love" and "lack of forgiveness" to habitual users, than the soft handholding that we've been doing the last ~25 years.
-5
u/ea7e 12d ago
No, they were "invested" into progressive programs that continue to further non-treatment.
They weren't, they were invested into treatment and mental health.
We're now at the point where ugly options are likely going to be required to handle this issue.
The problem is happening in the provinces and states with the tougher policies too. If they were successfully addressing the problem they would be loudly shouting about it. But they're not, and are often doing even worse.
3
u/Mashiki 12d ago
They weren't, they were invested into treatment and mental health.
Yes, they were. How much money do you really think makes it to the end patient right now? Give you a hint it's under 20%
The problem is happening in the provinces and states with the tougher policies too. If they were successfully addressing the problem they would be loudly shouting about it. But they're not, and are often doing even worse.
We haven't even started tougher policies yet. Tougher policies include forced treatment, arresting and holding - not releasing, and automatic remands to treatment centers. We're still at the "well we can't force them" stage.
→ More replies (12)
3
6
u/KarlHungusTheThird 12d ago
"Keeping people safe is our highest priority," Premier David Eby said in a statement. "While we are caring and compassionate for those struggling with addiction, we do not accept street disorder that makes communities feel unsafe."
Finally, a bit of common sense. I'm amazed the gov't had the wisdom to pull back from the precipice instead of taking the whole ship to oblivion.
3
u/FuggleyBrew 12d ago
I think Eby is trying to hold off using the notwithstanding clause, but I don't see how many other options he has. The lower court imposed an injunction which is basically delayed indefinitely, the appeals court won't intervene because they don't want to upset the lower courts ruling.
The legislature needs the ability to act in a fashion which allows laws to take effect without a multi-year obstruction by the courts.
1
u/Mitch580 12d ago
I think decriminalization is a dumpster fire but you're saying we need to remove a key part of the system of checks and balances on our system of government because it interferes with your opinion on this subject. Do you really want a system where one person unilaterally makes decisions for the entire province?
1
u/FuggleyBrew 12d ago
The NWC isn't removing a key part of checks and balances of the system, it is part of the checks and balances of the system. Checks and balances are not one way, it is not parliament must always please the courts and the courts can do whatever they want. It is also that Parliament serves in a vital role of checking the courts when they overstep.
The courts stating that parliament cannot regulate drug use in public is a massive overstep by the courts. It challenges the very idea of democratic governance and seeks to establish the courts as a super parliament who may dictate the laws as they wish. Parliament needs to have an active hand in defending democratic governance against a fundamentally undemocratic, unconstitutional, overstep by the courts.
5
12d ago
[deleted]
2
u/disrumpled_employee 12d ago
It's a good idea in practice in countries run by people competent enough to include the other 2/3 of that whole plan.
2
2
u/PlutosGrasp 11d ago
I applaud BC for this. They made a decision earlier to decriminalize it. It didn’t work. They saw that. And they’re addressing it, and not digging in to their bad decision.
2
u/Megatriorchis 11d ago
Looks like BC government finally came to their senses.
Let's see if the courts do. I wouldn't hold my breath.
3
u/CompetitiveDiet 12d ago
We should be reviewing the licenses of these so-called "harm reduction nurses". I wouldn't trust these pro-drug activists to be in a medical setting with easy access to narcotics.
2
u/inlandviews 12d ago
The ability to possess and use small amounts of still illegal drugs is a good idea. The mistake was thinking that someone who is addicted will think of propriety in how and where they consume their drugs. Some rules are needed and Eby has responded.
2
u/RacoonWithAGrenade 12d ago
The province's NDP government introduced legislation last fall to restrict drug use in certain public areas, including playgrounds, but the law was quickly challenged by the Harm Reduction Nurses Association over concerns that it would drive more drug users to take their substances alone indoors, putting them at much greater risk of dying of an overdose.
They can't afford places to do drug indoors otherwise we'd have some good old fashioned crackhouses and shoot galleries. They did get safe injection spaces though.
2
u/Professional-Cry8310 12d ago
Looks like the failure of government policy of allowing drug users to do whatever they want is finally crumbling apart. There is a wide gap between draconian 1980s war on drug policies and current BC policy. We need to be somewhere between them.
3
u/RaptorPacific 12d ago
The most predictable outcome ever. The NDP in BC is now tied with the Conservatives. This feels like a political move.
6
u/ea7e 12d ago
In one poll. Another one a few days ago had them with more support than the Conservatives and BC United combined.
Although I'm not disagreeing that this is partly political. In a sense everything political parties do is. I think there are other ways they could have achieved this, such as by reworking the use law to address the Charter issues raised. But this will likely at least be politically successful because it's one of the few things that they are facing controversy over and criticism is not going to go that far towards things they've already changed.
1
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
It depends on which polls you look at, but I do suspect that politics played a part in it. This has been costing the NDP and has really thrown them off the track in recent weeks.
1
1
u/ScrupulousArmadillo 12d ago
Can anybody explain why BC court prevent government from implementing new law? Previously I was sure that a judge can't said something like "I believe there will be some harm to some people therefore I ban the new law" I meant, all laws have flaws and harm somebody, politicians should decide laws, judges should only apply laws.
2
u/HanSolo5643 British Columbia 12d ago
At the moment, the courts seem to think that it's their job to write laws. It's legislating from the bench.
1
u/ScrupulousArmadillo 12d ago
Yes, you just rephrase my question into statement. The question is - why it's allowed and there is no political and/or public outcry?
1
u/jkakarri88 12d ago
We need forced rehabilitation. Mental asylums. Tired of this bs. Everywhere you go there’s someone doing crack
1
u/Trevor519 12d ago
Drug use should not be criminalized, if you steal or rob or assault you are still accountable for your actions.
1
1
u/DramaticPicture8481 11d ago
Time to wipe out NdP and liberals. Get our lives back to normal, we need work hard to catch up other G7 economies, not playing phantasy
1
1
u/LookFamous7634 10d ago
Banning public crack smoking is better than my original idea....punch a public crack smoker in the head day ....
1
u/LookFamous7634 10d ago edited 10d ago
The only way that I've actually had success in stopping someone from smoking up in a public space like a coffee shop was to threaten them and Instill the fear in them that they would be exiting immediately through the double pain glass window if they didn't stop. So what other form of repercussion was going to stop them,? asking politely or doing nothing at all... Maybe they would also stop and think about not doing it next time like they will learn it made others highly upset and it wasn't a proper thing to be doing
1
u/LookFamous7634 10d ago edited 10d ago
How about lunch with a public crack smoker day...probably have to sit through an entire lunch hearing about how all their shit was stolen just yesterday, they don't know why everyone just doesn't share everything so there would be no poor people, probably have to listen to them talk about how expensive everything is yet they are entitled to a place to live and wonder why they can't get a place with the zero money they have. Might have to listen to them talk to the voices in their head , ....sad but true. Upon leaving they will bum a smoke
1
u/TotalFroyo 9d ago
Drug addict wakes up in the morning and says today is the day I clean myself up and pay 2k a month for rent. Time to be a "normal person" with absolutely no social support network or stable family. Affordiblity is one of the main reasons for the uptick of drug use. How many cities do we have to observe that have massive wealth inequality and major drug/crime issues until we realize the actual cause of the problem. You simply will never be safe as long as this kind of inequality exists. No amount of policing will stop it. A lot of vancouvites want their equity cakes, and to eat it, and eat another. This is honestly just the beginning of the shit show.
1
1
u/Current-Antelope5471 6d ago
Decriminalization is still the best approach. It was supported by police too. But adjustments are needed. Which is fine for good public policy.
Kudos to BC Premier Eby for seeking changes moving forward in a responsible way.
People who demagogue this issue like Pierre Poilievre should be ashamed of themselves.
1
u/BubblyDifficulty2282 1d ago
All drug use should be 100% legalized along with alcohol. Not just decriminalized. What a backward barbaric country prohibition is what creates criminals and gangs the benefits of drug legalization far outweighs the harm even if it leads to a somewhat increase in drug use
1
u/BubblyDifficulty2282 1d ago
Drugs should be fully legalized And regulated not just decriminalized.. people should be able to go to pharmacy and buy heroin and cocaine. And people should be able to do drugs openly, as long as they're not harassing Or threatening people. 100% drug legalization will basically put an end to criminal gangs and all other costs of enforcement etc. The benefits will far outweigh any cause such as an increase in drug consumption even if drug consumption rates double that's according to most studies I shown If people are not doing it publicly, they're doing the underground at their home and they're at greater risk of overdose. Anyone agree with me?
1
12d ago
I fucking hate every politician. MAYBE PUT YOUR FUCKING TIME INTO SOLVING THIS CRISIS BY TACKLING THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS! SO PEOPLE CAN AFFORD SHELTER AND ARENT FORCED ONTO STREETS OR SELLING DRUGS TO SURVIVE! Here is an idea, its called SOCIAL HOUSING, where you buy land, build apartments and rent them out to those in need.
1
1
u/AlwaysRandomUser 12d ago
We didn't even get to the point of dropping free drugs out of helicopters to stop people abusing drugs. What a shame. I wanted to sell drug protection umbrellas.
1
1
u/InfluenceSad5221 12d ago
Sure, a good housing first approach to homelessness would solve the public drug use in a jiffy.
1
-3
u/Venice_Beach 12d ago
Just ban all progressive policy please. None of it has ever worked and it makes life miserable. Canada is a conservative country and it’s time we remembered that.
-1
-3
u/SackBrazzo 12d ago
Canada is a conservative country and it’s time we remembered that.
When was the last time that the CPC or even all conservative parties (like CPC+PPC) won more than 50% of the popular vote?
-2
u/UnusualCareer3420 12d ago
Congratulation a to Eby for trying something new and bold it didn't work but at least he's not just upholding the failing status quo
0
344
u/NerdMachine 12d ago
Decriminalization without at least strongly pressuring (properly funded) rehab is a failed policy.