[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Can any of you guys give a longer explanation?

They launched Insite saying it would solve the drug problem and cure additcts of their problem.  Opponents said it wouldn't and it was morally wrong to give addicts easier access to the stuff.

Utter BS Viper

The safe injection site is a harm reduction strategy, not one that "cures addicts of their problem".  It was spectacularly successful.  You need not take my word for it.  That was the finding of fact made by the courts when the Harper government tried to shut it down.

The rest of your post has similar factual problems and logical leaps.

[crazy canuck]

It's a Health Canada granted exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It's currently schedule to last until 31st of January 2026.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-concerns/controlled-substances-precursor-chemicals/policy-regulations/policy-documents/exemption-personal-possession-small-amounts-certain-illegal-drugs-british-columbia.html

Thanks for clarifying.

But again - I don't see how this'll make much of a difference on the ground.  Simple possession of drugs is not something police actively investigate.  They may charge 4(1) CDSA is they're in the midst of a bunch of other charges, but not otherwise.

The only difference I can see - previously if the police found you in possession of fentanyl or meth, they'd take it away from you.  Now they'll let you keep it (if under 2.5g).  Not sure that's an improvement.

You don't see a difference between the risk of being charged and not having a risk of being charged? 

There hasn't been a meaningful risk of being charged for simple possession for a long time.

Like I said - police would take away your drugs, but that'd be about it.  Unless if they were charging you anyways, then they'd throw on the 4(1) as well.

If it is meaningless, then one wonders why the Province of Alberta condemned it so strongly? 

[Barrister]

If it is meaningless, then one wonders why the Province of Alberta condemned it so strongly? 

The same reason BC is pushing for it - political posturing.

[crazy canuck]

If it is meaningless, then one wonders why the Province of Alberta condemned it so strongly? 

The same reason BC is pushing for it - political posturing.

BC is doing it to prevent deaths.  Alberta may be posturing, but I suspect it is more of an ideological angst of the right.

[Barrister]

If it is meaningless, then one wonders why the Province of Alberta condemned it so strongly? 

The same reason BC is pushing for it - political posturing.

BC is doing it to prevent deaths.  Alberta may be posturing, but I suspect it is more of an ideological angst of the right.

You don't need to decriminalize in order to have safe injection sights.

[crazy canuck]

If it is meaningless, then one wonders why the Province of Alberta condemned it so strongly? 

The same reason BC is pushing for it - political posturing.

BC is doing it to prevent deaths.  Alberta may be posturing, but I suspect it is more of an ideological angst of the right.

You don't need to decriminalize in order to have safe injection sights.

Correct.  And this new policy has nothing to do with safe injection sites.  The fact that this province was the first one to introduce safe injection sites, is indicative of the support in this province for dealing with addiction as a medical and not a criminal issue.

[Barrister]

If it is meaningless, then one wonders why the Province of Alberta condemned it so strongly? 

The same reason BC is pushing for it - political posturing.

BC is doing it to prevent deaths.  Alberta may be posturing, but I suspect it is more of an ideological angst of the right.

You don't need to decriminalize in order to have safe injection sights.

Correct.  And this new policy has nothing to do with safe injection sites.  The fact that this province was the first one to introduce safe injection sites, is indicative of the support in this province for dealing with addiction as a medical and not a criminal issue.

Decriminalizing also has nothing to do with treating addiction as a medical issue.

People are not being arrested for simple possession, period.  That's been true for at least 20 years in Vancouver.

[Jacob]

Decriminalizing also has nothing to do with treating addiction as a medical issue.

Yes it does.

If you're treating it as a medical issue, you don't use the tools of criminal law to deal with it. Decriminalizing makes it less of a criminal issue, thus making it easier to treat as a medical issue.

People are not being arrested for simple possession, period.  That's been true for at least 20 years in Vancouver.

If it doesn't make a difference to enforcement practice, what is the objection to de facto decriminalizing it?

[Admiral Yi]

Yes it does.

If you're treating it as a medical issue, you don't use the tools of criminal law to deal with it. Decriminalizing makes it less of a criminal issue, thus making it easier to treat as a medical issue.

Beeb has said several times that in BC they are not using the tools of criminal law to deal with it.

[Grey Fox]

Yes it does.

If you're treating it as a medical issue, you don't use the tools of criminal law to deal with it. Decriminalizing makes it less of a criminal issue, thus making it easier to treat as a medical issue.

Beeb has said several times that in BC they are not using the tools of criminal law to deal with it.

Don't trust Cops.

[Admiral Yi]

Don't trust Cops.

I do trust cops, but Beeb is not  cop and his claim can be checked against the court records in BC.

[Barrister]

People are not being arrested for simple possession, period.  That's been true for at least 20 years in Vancouver.

If it doesn't make a difference to enforcement practice, what is the objection to de facto decriminalizing it?

Double sided sword Jacob - what's the reason decriminalize?



And I don't mean to dunk on you.  Simple possession has been de facto decriminalized for a long time.  What BC is doing (with the assistance of the Feds) is de jure decriminalization.  But that's a distinction only a lawyer could love.  So I don't mean to criticize you for not knowing the difference.

[Jacob]

Beeb has said several times that in BC they are not using the tools of criminal law to deal with it.

Exactly. So if we don't use the tool why keep it?

If it's a medical matter we don't need criminal statutes that we don't even use to manage it. So get rid of them.

[Barrister]

Yes it does.

If you're treating it as a medical issue, you don't use the tools of criminal law to deal with it. Decriminalizing makes it less of a criminal issue, thus making it easier to treat as a medical issue.

Beeb has said several times that in BC they are not using the tools of criminal law to deal with it.

Don't trust Cops.

I mean if someone has an ACAB perspective I just have no common frame of reference to discuss further.  Police are not perfect (I've prosecuted cops!) but overwhelmingly a net positive to their community.

[Admiral Yi]

Exactly. So if we don't use the tool why keep it?

If it's a medical matter we don't need criminal statutes that we don't even use to manage it. So get rid of them.

This is a different argument than the one I was responding to.