[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

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.

Not feeling dunked on

Are there potential scenarios where a police officer may elect to apply the law in the moment (confiscation, reason to stop and search, reason to detain and question, mentioning that something is illegal to make a suspect more malleable) even if the officer know there's no path to conviction?

Are there potential scenarios in which health care providers will act differently towards an addict (because they have different legal or professional obligations dealing with substances that are de jure illegal even if de facto they are not, because of insurance and licensing implications, because they personally place high value on the the de jure vs de facto distinction)?

Are there potential scenarios where addicts may engage in behaviour that is higher risk because they don't trust the authorities (police, prosecutors) to respect the de facto legalization? Even if that distrust is misplaced?

Are there potential scenarios where third parties (individuals or organizations) feel limited from helping addicts because they are concerned about the de jure illegality of the drugs?

If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then there's a real impact in de jure decriminalization.

Additionally, a significant and real part of politics - and leadership in general - IS signalling. I know "virtue signalling" and "political posturing" are used to immediately dismiss and discount actions we disagree with (across the political spectrum), but they nonetheless matter and are real. If we genuinely want to treat addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal issue, then signalling to drug addicts (and to society at large) that we view them as people struggling with medical issues rather than criminal scum to be suppressed is worthwhile in and of itself.

[Jacob]

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

Not really interested in arguing with you about random isolated sub-parts of what you think I'm saying if you're not going to engage with the larger argument.

[Admiral Yi]

Not really interested in arguing with you about random isolated sub-parts of what you think I'm saying if you're not going to engage with the larger argument.

I agree that there's not much point in keeping a law on the books that hasn't been enforced for 20 years.

However Beeb's point still stands.  Law enforcement and the courts have not been impeding medical treatment for 20 years.  Therefore decriminalization would do nothing by itself to improve access to medical treatment.

[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.

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.

Don't even need to go that far. There is no reason for the BC Health organisations to trust that the BC police forces will simply continue forever their good will gesture to not investigate simple possession of prohibited substances.

[crazy canuck]

I don't mean to dunk on you BB, but your knowledge of what is happening here is limited to your area of practice.  I suppose it is natural that you are focusing only in what decriminalization by itself would achieve, but by focusing only on that you are missing all of the other regulatory and heath services changes the Province has made to deliver health care services to to drug users.

Something that would not have been possible without decriminalization by the Feds.

We have moved beyond the harm reduction model of the injection sites and are now setting up a system to actively treat addiction while the person is using.

It's hard for anyone to understand what a big shift this is if they only understand the world through the lens of police charging discretion.

[crazy canuck]

By the way BB's assertion that no one has been charged for the last 20 years seemed wrong, so  I checked - and it is.

Here is a charge rate analysis done by the Vancouver Sun since 2014.

Charges did occur, but at a reduced rate.  The thing to note for the purposes of our discussion is the variability was entirely dependent on the way in which individual officers exercised their discretion.

https://vancouversun.com/news/drug-possession-charges-vary-widely-by-police/wcm/ca70e086-6c9c-4207-b4b8-0b1e0ef194a1/amp/

[viper37]

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.

And yet, a few years later, we're in a full blown opioid crisis that safe injection sites did not prevent.  Which is what they were supposed to prevent in the first place.

People have access to a safe place to use drugs, but they chose stronger, potentially lethal stuff elsewhere where they are at risk.


And about criminality.
This place in Quebec city has always been a bit rough, but it's been getting a lot worst since the safe injection site:
Translated link

As of 2020, according to StatsCan, the violent crime rate has increased by 9%, while it has decreased elsewhere in the city.  It's a really strange coincidence, don't you think?  A city that is not used to violent crimes suddenly sees violent crime occuring more and more frequently after there's one of these "safe" injection sites.


And this is about Montreal, near one of these sites:

Many citizens believe that consumption problems in the Montreal metro are worse than ever.

At the Papineau station, the TVA Nouvelles team was able to observe that people inject drugs on the metro platform, and throw their dirty needles on the tracks.

During the visit of TVA Nouvelles, at least 50 syringes were strewn on the ground.

The STM is aware of this situation and says it takes it very seriously.

Measures are in place to stem this situation, with the constant collaboration of the SPVM and various organizations that work with people with illicit substance use problems.

Two mixed front-line patrols, made up of STM inspectors and constables and community social workers (SDS), are in operation, particularly in winter, to respond to this type of situation.

In addition, a mixed second-line EMIC patrol, made up of an inspector, an SPVM police officer and a socio-community worker (SDS), in particular for the care of intoxicated people, is also deployed.

STM and SPVM front-line patrol officers and STM employees have been trained to take action quickly when consumption situations are reported.

Inspectors have been trained to use naloxone to intervene when needed.

The STM is aware of the realities of drug consumption in downtown Montreal. Unfortunately, this is a social reality with which society must come to terms, it is believed.

Safe for whom?  Certainly not for everyone.  Not sure it's safe for drug users since they're apparently still dying from their addiction.

[Barrister]

By the way BB's assertion that no one has been charged for the last 20 years seemed wrong, so  I checked - and it is.

Here is a charge rate analysis done by the Vancouver Sun since 2014.

Charges did occur, but at a reduced rate.  The thing to note for the purposes of our discussion is the variability was entirely dependent on the way in which individual officers exercised their discretion.

https://vancouversun.com/news/drug-possession-charges-vary-widely-by-police/wcm/ca70e086-6c9c-4207-b4b8-0b1e0ef194a1/amp/

So as I have said, police will still often lay 4(1) charges if they are laying other charges as well.  Say, they arrest someone for assault, find meth on the person, so they charge 266 and 4(1).

I looked at the fine print and couldn't see any mention of this distinction.

[viper37]

Also, the Portugal approach is very different than what was touted at the time over here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH0LBPfRjIs

[viper37]

Don't even need to go that far. There is no reason for the BC Health organisations to trust that the BC police forces will simply continue forever their good will gesture to not investigate simple possession of prohibited substances.

I don't think it's a question of good will.

If you give the police unlimited resources to fight crime and enroll half the population in the police force, they might just go after all kind of crimes.

But in the real world, they have priorities.  And as such, they will not investigate a 60$ pizza theft.  No more than they would bother to investigate simple drug possession or bother to lay charge on someone for simple drug possession with nothing else beyond when they know the prosecutor will not bother going along with it.

[Jacob]

So as I have said, police will still often lay 4(1) charges if they are laying other charges as well.  Say, they arrest someone for assault, find meth on the person, so they charge 266 and 4(1).

I looked at the fine print and couldn't see any mention of this distinction.

So that sounds like decriminalizing possession de jure will in fact make a difference, as you'll no longer be prosecuted for possession even if other charges are being laid?

[Barrister]

1. Are there potential scenarios where a police officer may elect to apply the law in the moment (confiscation, reason to stop and search, reason to detain and question, mentioning that something is illegal to make a suspect more malleable) even if the officer know there's no path to conviction?

2. Are there potential scenarios in which health care providers will act differently towards an addict (because they have different legal or professional obligations dealing with substances that are de jure illegal even if de facto they are not, because of insurance and licensing implications, because they personally place high value on the the de jure vs de facto distinction)?

3. Are there potential scenarios where addicts may engage in behaviour that is higher risk because they don't trust the authorities (police, prosecutors) to respect the de facto legalization? Even if that distrust is misplaced?

4. Are there potential scenarios where third parties (individuals or organizations) feel limited from helping addicts because they are concerned about the de jure illegality of the drugs?

If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then there's a real impact in de jure decriminalization.

Additionally, a significant and real part of politics - and leadership in general - IS signalling. I know "virtue signalling" and "political posturing" are used to immediately dismiss and discount actions we disagree with (across the political spectrum), but they nonetheless matter and are real. If we genuinely want to treat addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal issue, then signalling to drug addicts (and to society at large) that we view them as people struggling with medical issues rather than criminal scum to be suppressed is worthwhile in and of itself.

I've inserted numbers to address your points:

1. Yes.  I already admitted that police will seize illegal drugs, even if they don't charge.  Being in open possession of drugs would give police to detain, even arrest, even if they don't intend to lay charges.

2. No. Health care providers view taking care of their patients health first.

3. I mean yes, but I don't see decriminalization helping with this.  People addicted to street drugs are almost always involved to one degree or another with other criminal behaviour.

4. No, I don't think so.

I don't mean to dunk on you BB, but your knowledge of what is happening here is limited to your area of practice.  I suppose it is natural that you are focusing only in what decriminalization by itself would achieve, but by focusing only on that you are missing all of the other regulatory and heath services changes the Province has made to deliver health care services to to drug users.

Something that would not have been possible without decriminalization by the Feds.

We have moved beyond the harm reduction model of the injection sites and are now setting up a system to actively treat addiction while the person is using.

It's hard for anyone to understand what a big shift this is if they only understand the world through the lens of police charging discretion.

So yes, obviously the first place I go is the criminal courts because of my work.  But I hope you do recognize that a huge amount of the files that come through my door are heavily impacted by drug addiction.  Addiction, and the services available for addicts, are a frequent topic on the majority of sentencings I do.

So maybe BC really is spending tons of new money on new treatment facilities.  I can't say I've followed what is actually happening in BC (as opposed to what the government is announcing).

But decriminalization is comparatively easy, and definitely cheap.  I know it's been lobbied for for years, so it isn't that easy, but it's a hell of a lot easier than actually trying to treat and cure addicts.  It's much easier to "manage" addiction through wellness/harm reduction and decriminalization.

[Barrister]

So as I have said, police will still often lay 4(1) charges if they are laying other charges as well.  Say, they arrest someone for assault, find meth on the person, so they charge 266 and 4(1).

I looked at the fine print and couldn't see any mention of this distinction.

So that sounds like decriminalizing possession de jure will in fact make a difference, as you'll no longer be prosecuted for possession even if other charges are being laid?

Honestly no.

So I'm a provincial prosecutor.  If a file comes to me with a 4(1) CDSA on it it's because they're charged with, I dunno, possession of stolen property, or theft of motor vehicle, or aggravated assault, or whatever.  We will always drop the lesser charges if an Accused is entering a plea - and the 4(1) is a lesser charge.  If they take it to trial and are convicted on everything the 4(1) makes no meaningful difference to their sentence.

If a file goes to the Feds it'll be because it has more serious charges, like a 5(2) PPT (possession for the purpose of trafficking).  PPT is still a valid charge and not decriminalized.  So you might have someone charged with 5(2) for opioids, but also a 4(1) of a small amount of meth on their person.  Again the 4(1) adds almost nothing to the person's overall jeopardy.

[crazy canuck]

And yet, a few years later, we're in a full blown opioid crisis that safe injection sites did not prevent. 

You are slowly but surely understanding why the next step is now being taken.

I am glad to see the progress you are making.

[Barrister]

And yet, a few years later, we're in a full blown opioid crisis that safe injection sites did not prevent. 

You are slowly but surely understanding why the next step is now being taken.

I am glad to see the progress you are making.

The point is valid, but to be perfectly fair it was said by Viper, not myself.