A Store Selling Heroin, Meth, and Cocaine Just Opened in Canada

[Barrister]

So here's the thing: we've already had this experiment in Canada.  We legalized cannabis about 5 years ago.  Legalization has had several positive effects: it's lead to the development of a thriving industry, it takes several cases out of the court system.

But it's also led to an increase in cannabis use.  From 2017 (the last year before legalization) to 2021 the number of Canadians who use cannabis increased from 22% to 27%.  You might say "well that's only a 5 point increase" - but actually it's a 20% increase in the number of Canadians who use cannabis - and the biggest increases have come from younger people.  And the number still seems to be ticking upwards.



So yes, having a safe, legal supply will definitely help to prevent overdoses and death.  But it's going to inevitably increase the amount of drugs available and the number of addicts.  I'm not sure that's a trade-off worth making.

Presumably those figures came from a survey. Did it adjust for people being less likely to admit committing a crime to a stranger in 2017?

 

By 2017 government had already announced plans to legalize by 2018.  There was very little stigma left at that point.

[Barrister]

Sure - I just would caution against hoping it's a silver bullet and even where it's decriminalised there is a separate issue around control, which I think is really flagged with the opioid epidemic (and possibly Scotland's experience with benzos). Interesting to see Spain have very different rates of death than Portugal or Italy - and I think I remember reading that in the 2000s/2010s there was a surge in opioid prescribing in Spain - I can't help but wonder if that's part of the link.

For me there's almost three points where there are basically policy decisions: criminalisation, treatment and control of medically helpful but highly addictive substances. I'm not sure any one of those points is necessarily particularly important on their own I think it might be how the three interact that's key.

See, this is what makes me, philosophically, a conservative.

Every public policy choice has trade-offs, and most have unintended consequences.  The "harm reduction" crowd come at it with mostly good  no consideration for what the trade-offs of what that model would be.

Like I said I don't have the answers.  And remember in my line of work these issues are not theoretical for me - they're very real and tangible.  Maybe the answer is complete legalization of all drugs.  I'll try and look at the evidence.

But I suspect drug legalization is the answer, it will lead to worse problems than wha it was trying to solve.

[Josquius]

Sure - I just would caution against hoping it's a silver bullet and even where it's decriminalised there is a separate issue around control, which I think is really flagged with the opioid epidemic (and possibly Scotland's experience with benzos). Interesting to see Spain have very different rates of death than Portugal or Italy - and I think I remember reading that in the 2000s/2010s there was a surge in opioid prescribing in Spain - I can't help but wonder if that's part of the link.

For me there's almost three points where there are basically policy decisions: criminalisation, treatment and control of medically helpful but highly addictive substances. I'm not sure any one of those points is necessarily particularly important on their own I think it might be how the three interact that's key.

See, this is what makes me, philosophically, a conservative.

Every public policy choice has trade-offs, and most have unintended consequences.  The "harm reduction" crowd come at it with mostly good  no consideration for what the trade-offs of what that model would be.

Its funny as I'd see this as far more typical of conservatives and quite key to why I'm not one. They tend to be very into immediate cause and effect thinking with little care for broader implications.

[crazy canuck]

As for the stunt in the OP, this guy isn't trying to exploit a legal loophole; it is an act of performance advocacy presumably to highlight the alleged public health failures of current policy, and to line up a hail mary constitutional challenge.

Thanks for repeating the point I made upthread.

But it may not be such a hail Mary, he started announcing he would be taking this action months ago.  There has clearly been a lot of thought and effort put into creating  good facts for a test case.  Right down to the detail that this is a fairly articulate defendant who the court is likely to find sympathetic.  His brother died of an overdose caused by tainted drugs. He wants to create a safe drug supply for addicts.

The Charter challenge will likely make it to the SCC.

[Jacob]

Seems to me that usage rates is not the most relevant metric. I think that if things like deaths, homelessness, crime (petty and organized) go down, I'm perfectly willing to accept an increase in use.

For example - I had a colleague who died from an overdose a few years back. He had a long career, owned property, and was by all accounts solid contributor to society. Pretty sure it was fentanyl in what he thought was heroin that killed him. Access to clean supply would have kept him alive, I'm certain. An increase in users like him who have their shit together is not really that big a concern IMO, especially if they're not at risk from fentanyl. I'd rather he'd be counted in the statistics as a drug user than in the statistics as a death.

On the other end of the spectrum from highly functioning users (and I've known a few) I believe - but do not know - that a clean supply is going to make the social services, addiction counselling, and all the preventative and treatment work less complicated.

That said, I'm sure there are more than one way to do decriminalization/ legalization, and I'm sure there are ways to make a mess of it.

[crazy canuck]

Seems to me that usage rates is not the most relevant metric. I think that if things like deaths, homelessness, crime (petty and organized) go down, I'm perfectly willing to accept an increase in use.

For example - I had a colleague who died from an overdose a few years back. He had a long career, owned property, and was by all accounts solid contributor to society. Pretty sure it was fentanyl in what he thought was heroin that killed him. Access to clean supply would have kept him alive, I'm certain. An increase in users like him who have their shit together is not really that big a concern IMO, especially if they're not at risk from fentanyl. I'd rather he'd be counted in the statistics as a drug user than in the statistics as a death.

On the other end of the spectrum from highly functioning users (and I've known a few) I believe - but do not know - that a clean supply is going to make the social services, addiction counselling, and all the preventative and treatment work less complicated.

That said, I'm sure there are more than one way to do decriminalization/ legalization, and I'm sure there are ways to make a mess of it.

You have nicely summarized the heart of the argument for the Charter challenge.

[Barrister]

As for the stunt in the OP, this guy isn't trying to exploit a legal loophole; it is an act of performance advocacy presumably to highlight the alleged public health failures of current policy, and to line up a hail mary constitutional challenge.

Thanks for repeating the point I made upthread.

But it may not be such a hail Mary, he started announcing he would be taking this action months ago.  There has clearly been a lot of thought and effort put into creating  good facts for a test case.  Right down to the detail that this is a fairly articulate defendant who the court is likely to find sympathetic.  His brother died of an overdose caused by tainted drugs. He wants to create a safe drug supply for addicts.

The Charter challenge will likely make it to the SCC.

BY rights of course it shouldn't.  The issue was decided in Malmo-Levine.  And M-L was dealing with marijuana - surely the ability of government to regulate and outlaw much more harmful drugs should be much more obvious.

This Accused can get his Charter challenge in superior court, lose, go to court of appeal, lose unanimously, and SCC should decline to hear.

[PRC]

There are plenty of stores in Canada that are offering psychedelics for sale and have been for some time. Various types of mushrooms in chocolate, powered form, capsules, etc.   Vancouver probably already has a dozen mail-order shops with steady reliable service for all your psychedelic needs and they've been in business for several years now without interruption.

[DGuller]

Seems to me that usage rates is not the most relevant metric. I think that if things like deaths, homelessness, crime (petty and organized) go down, I'm perfectly willing to accept an increase in use.

I think it's the most intangible metric.  Crime and homelessness can be measured, the effect of having people in society with some degree of brain damage or mental health damage from drug use is much harder to quantify.

[viper37]

Having grown up around drinkers (both family drunks and parents owning a bar) alcohol appears a whole lot worse.

When you drink, you don't force everyone around you to drink with you.

No, but you force those around you to be with a drunk and what that  entails (violence most of the time)

And you don't have to hot box other people if you smoke pot

You don't get drunk with one or two shots of whisky.  People who smoke pot do so to get high, not for the refined taste of the product.

[Sheilbh]

That's always true on any matter touching public policy.

Yeah although I think that means it's one of those (many) issues that we have to approach with a bit of humility.

I am, as I say, broadly on the liberal pro-legalisation side of things for some and decriminalisation for all. It gives me pause and worries me that the major drug issue right now started with a legal drug - a bought regulator, an unscrupulous pharma company and doctors ranging from the duped (and then, possibly wilfully blind) to the corrupt.

From that the slope was to widespread epidemic of addiction, of overdoses, of hits not working enough any more so looking for other drugs (which allowed the Sacklers to slander victims of their family as just addicts, many using multiple drugs). It feels like we need a better answer on those other factors around especially harm and access - I've no idea but that could include actually more control of prescriptions, so we're not criminalising addicts but we're trying to reduce the number of people given addictive substances to those who have a medical need.

And on the other hand I have a chronic condition which is now under very good control but was for a couple of years really difficult to manage - and pain is an issue that is, I think under-addressed which is another tragedy of the situation. That I think what happened makes pain management and the real issue around the treatment of pain maybe more difficult to address.

[crazy canuck]

As for the stunt in the OP, this guy isn't trying to exploit a legal loophole; it is an act of performance advocacy presumably to highlight the alleged public health failures of current policy, and to line up a hail mary constitutional challenge.

Thanks for repeating the point I made upthread.

But it may not be such a hail Mary, he started announcing he would be taking this action months ago.  There has clearly been a lot of thought and effort put into creating  good facts for a test case.  Right down to the detail that this is a fairly articulate defendant who the court is likely to find sympathetic.  His brother died of an overdose caused by tainted drugs. He wants to create a safe drug supply for addicts.

The Charter challenge will likely make it to the SCC.

BY rights of course it shouldn't.  The issue was decided in Malmo-Levine.  And M-L was dealing with marijuana - surely the ability of government to regulate and outlaw much more harmful drugs should be much more obvious.

This Accused can get his Charter challenge in superior court, lose, go to court of appeal, lose unanimously, and SCC should decline to hear.

By that reasoning the SCC should never have reconsidered the Rodriguez decision, in another fact pattern 20 years later.  But of course it did, and changed the law.

By that reasoning the SCC should never have reconsidered the tests for Judicial Review set out in Dunsmuir.  But of course, about 20 years later, it did and changed that area of law completely.

There are numerous other examples of the law changing over time.  I would hate to live in a society where the law did not adapt but instead was stuck in time.

[Barrister]

Seems to me that usage rates is not the most relevant metric. I think that if things like deaths, homelessness, crime (petty and organized) go down, I'm perfectly willing to accept an increase in use.

For example - I had a colleague who died from an overdose a few years back. He had a long career, owned property, and was by all accounts solid contributor to society. Pretty sure it was fentanyl in what he thought was heroin that killed him. Access to clean supply would have kept him alive, I'm certain. An increase in users like him who have their shit together is not really that big a concern IMO, especially if they're not at risk from fentanyl. I'd rather he'd be counted in the statistics as a drug user than in the statistics as a death.

On the other end of the spectrum from highly functioning users (and I've known a few) I believe - but do not know - that a clean supply is going to make the social services, addiction counselling, and all the preventative and treatment work less complicated.

That said, I'm sure there are more than one way to do decriminalization/ legalization, and I'm sure there are ways to make a mess of it.

The thing is there are very few functional addicts who can maintain being a functional addict for a really long time.  It's part and parcel of the addiction that as you build up tolerance you need more and more of the drug.

Which leads that eventually you're going to spiral downwards, or you're still going to kill yourself with an overdose.  Or you're just going to die an early death - the life of a heroin addict is not a healthy and happy one, even if it isn't laced with fentanyl.

And a reminder - there are "safe" opiates available.  Most popular is methadone. 

[HVC]

Having grown up around drinkers (both family drunks and parents owning a bar) alcohol appears a whole lot worse.

When you drink, you don't force everyone around you to drink with you.

No, but you force those around you to be with a drunk and what that  entails (violence most of the time)

And you don't have to hot box other people if you smoke pot

You don't get drunk with one or two shots of whisky.  People who smoke pot do so to get high, not for the refined taste of the product.

And drunks don't drink for the taste, but to get drunk

[Josquius]

Having grown up around drinkers (both family drunks and parents owning a bar) alcohol appears a whole lot worse.

When you drink, you don't force everyone around you to drink with you.

No, but you force those around you to be with a drunk and what that  entails (violence most of the time)

And you don't have to hot box other people if you smoke pot

You don't get drunk with one or two shots of whisky.  People who smoke pot do so to get high, not for the refined taste of the product.

Untrue.
I hate getting high. A little bit with a few drinks when having a chill night with friends though... Quite nice.
Most of my far more regular using friends don't particularly set out to get high either - far more common is drinking friends looking to get smashed.