QuoteVANCOUVER- A Vancouver man has opened the only known brick-and-mortar store in Canada and the U.S. that sells heroin, cocaine, meth, MDMA, and other drugs.
Jerry Martin, 51, opened the Drugs Store Wednesday in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, a neighborhood that's long been considered ground zero for Canada's overdose epidemic. While British Columbia has very progressive drug laws, the mobile shop is operating completely illegally. The province recently began a three-year drug decriminalization pilot project for possession of small amounts of opioids, cocaine, meth, and MDMA, but selling remains prohibited.
However, Martin told VICE News he opened the store because he wants to give people drugs that have been tested and are free from adulterants, including fentanyl. Although fentanyl, which is driving record overdoses in Canada and the U.S., is the primary street opioid that Vancouverites now use, Martin is instead selling heroin.
"People are dying," Martin said. "Especially now, they've allowed the entire province to do these drugs... But they've provided no clean, safe supply. They're getting it from the same supply that everybody's overdosing from."
More than 11,000 British Columbians have died of a drug overdose since 2016, when the province declared the issue a public health emergency.
01dc5838-5bf5-42ea-ab36-14ceeb8f115d.jpg
Martin said he'd be selling people a max of 2.5 grams of each drug, with serving sizes as small as a point (one-tenth of a gram). Under B.C.'s decriminalization policy, a person can have up to 2.5 grams of the aforementioned substances in total without facing criminal consequences. He's charging roughly street prices, with grams of cocaine and meth going for $90 and $50, respectively.
He'll be checking IDs to make sure customers are at least 18 and said he wants them to sign a waiver indicating that they've previously used the drugs they're purchasing.
He's also started an online shop with a delivery service that carries more drugs than he has in store, such as ketamine, LSD, and 5-MeO-DMT, a synthetic version of a chemical that comes from the bufo alvarius toad and is considered one of the most powerful psychedelics on Earth.
Opening the store hasn't been an easy feat for Martin, who struggled to find a location (he originally wanted a non-mobile storefront) and financial backing. He has a criminal conviction for cannabis trafficking and said it's impacted his credit. He's also been bouncing around between hotels and Airbnbs, as some property owners have kicked him out after reading about his plans in previous news stories.
He wore a stab-proof vest as a precaution Wednesday and said he's keeping a minimal amount of drugs on site to reduce the risk of robbery.
Sourcing the different drugs has been a challenge, he said, noting it took him two years to find a heroin supplier. Heroin, once the predominant illicit opioid in North America, has largely been replaced by fentanyl, which is easier and cheaper to manufacture and smuggle.
Martin runs a real risk of being arrested. If that happens, his lawyer Paul Lewin has already prepared arguments to launch a constitutional challenge.
"He would allege that laws that prevent a safe supply and result in death by poisoning contravene section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and must be struck down," Lewin wrote in a letter to Martin's potential landlords and business partners.
IMG_0796.jpg
Under Section 7 of the Charter, which was used to strike down medical cannabis restrictions, Canadians have "the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
In Canada, the maximum penalty for selling Schedule I or II drugs is life in prison.
Martin started using drugs at 14 and was addicted to alcohol and injecting cocaine by age 15. He was unhoused for the next 15 years, he said, living in Langley, B.C,, Oshawa, Ontario, and other Canadian cities.
He said he was moved to open the store when his stepbrother, Gord Rennie, died of an overdose last year. Rennie, who was addicted to benzo dope—a deadly cocktail of fentanyl and ultra potent benzodiazepines, was featured in the VICE News Tonight documentary Beyond Fentanyl.
A couple months after VICE News interviewed Rennie, he was found dead under a bridge.
Martin said he regrets not letting Rennie stay with him when he got out of his most recent stint in prison.
"My mom said I should invite him over and I didn't and he died that day," he said.
He said one of his other brothers was stabbed to death over drugs in 2000.
Martin said all the drugs he's selling have been tested at Get Your Drugs Tested, a Vancouver facility that uses a fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy machine to detect what's in people's drugs.
His hope is to open franchises of The Drugs Store around the country, similar to what happened with grey market cannabis dispensaries.
Karen Ward, a Vancouver-based independent drug policy analyst, said the store is an "inevitable result of the government doing nothing" in terms of setting up a widely accessible safe supply of all drugs. While small safe supply programs for opioid users exist, providing people with pharmaceutical grade heroin and fentanyl as an alternative to street drugs, harm reduction advocates argue they're not widespread enough. They also don't cover drugs like cocaine and meth.
Ward said the city should give Martin a license to operate legally.
(https://preview.redd.it/jrow2h4ztqxa1.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=cb36e76b6746d3c268cf9064aea3dd412ef9ae1b)
... just seeing it reported (and debated).
Where's Malthus when we need him...?
So sometimes slippery slopes are indeed slippery. This is the next logical step after legalizing cannabis and decriminalizing hard drugs.
Curious to see what police do. Such a store is of course blatantly against the law, and 5(1) CDSA (trafficking in a controlled substance) can attract serious jail time. But there's certainly some precedent for police turning a blind eye.
The supposed s. 7 challenge is pretty suspect - it was tried and failed 20 years ago when it came to marijuana in R v Malmo-Levine. Not that the court can't change it's mind over time - look at the different results in TWU v BC Teachers (2001) and TWU v Law Society BC (2018).
Hope they have good security, I see a lot of break ins in their future.
I thought cracks whole selling point was like cocaine but cheaper?
Good to see anyway. It's the sensible way to tackle drug issues.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2023, 03:04:04 PMI thought cracks whole selling point was like cocaine but cheaper?
Good to see anyway. It's the sensible way to tackle drug issues.
Is it though? Is selling drugs to addicts really a good way to handle drug addiction?
Because it's not like there aren't other options out there. In Canada you can get access to methadone, which is an opioid. It's very long-acting so you only need one dose per day.
And this guy is still buying the drugs from someone else who is illegally importing it, so you're still supporting organized crime.
A good friend of mine is moving back to Vancouver. I'll have to stop by when I pay him a visit. For research. :ph34r:
Tested supply? By whom?
Could be a highly sought out position. :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on May 04, 2023, 03:20:03 PMTested supply? By whom?
Could be a highly sought out position. :P
:D
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2023, 01:40:05 PMSo sometimes slippery slopes are indeed slippery. This is the next logical step after legalizing cannabis and decriminalizing hard drugs.
Curious to see what police do. Such a store is of course blatantly against the law, and 5(1) CDSA (trafficking in a controlled substance) can attract serious jail time. But there's certainly some precedent for police turning a blind eye.
The supposed s. 7 challenge is pretty suspect - it was tried and failed 20 years ago when it came to marijuana in R v Malmo-Levine. Not that the court can't change it's mind over time - look at the different results in TWU v BC Teachers (2001) and TWU v Law Society BC (2018).
And sometimes right wing panic is just right wing panic.
He expects to be arrested. He wants to be arrested to make the constitutional challenge. As you point out, he will likely be unsuccessful. But the Malmo-Levine case was a step in the path of moving toward legalization and a safe supply.
Or we could just keep watching people die.
If you want to listen to him being interviewed yesterday, here is the link. https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-46-on-the-coast/clip/15982435-local-man-opens-drug-store-sells-cocaine-mdma
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2023, 03:15:59 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 04, 2023, 03:04:04 PMI thought cracks whole selling point was like cocaine but cheaper?
Good to see anyway. It's the sensible way to tackle drug issues.
Is it though? Is selling drugs to addicts really a good way to handle drug addiction?
Because it's not like there aren't other options out there. In Canada you can get access to methadone, which is an opioid. It's very long-acting so you only need one dose per day.
And this guy is still buying the drugs from someone else who is illegally importing it, so you're still supporting organized crime.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
I'm seeing another layer of abstraction from directly interacting with the crooks for buyers and reduced risk of bad doses.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2023, 03:53:11 PMQuote from: Barrister on May 04, 2023, 03:15:59 PMQuote from: Josquius on May 04, 2023, 03:04:04 PMI thought cracks whole selling point was like cocaine but cheaper?
Good to see anyway. It's the sensible way to tackle drug issues.
Is it though? Is selling drugs to addicts really a good way to handle drug addiction?
Because it's not like there aren't other options out there. In Canada you can get access to methadone, which is an opioid. It's very long-acting so you only need one dose per day.
And this guy is still buying the drugs from someone else who is illegally importing it, so you're still supporting organized crime.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
I'm seeing another layer of abstraction from directly interacting with the crooks for buyers and reduced risk of bad doses.
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.
You're really strung up on cannabis. You should smoke some weed, it'll relax you :P
On a more serious note, weed doesn't seem that bad. I'm not a smoker, tried it but don't like it. Having grown up around drinkers (both family drunks and parents owning a bar) alcohol appears a whole lot worse. If ones legal why not the other. And that ends my attempt at whataboutism :D
Sounds like a logical error to me to extrapolate cannabis trends to smack.
Cannabis is a drug a majority of people will have tried but only a minority like enough to make a habit of. I've done it on occasion but outside of one time when I lived in Amsterdam I've never especially gone out to buy it.
On the other hand if it was available on the high street... Then yes. Reasonable to see a few percent of people would be just on that line of liking it but not enough to be worth the effort of getting it when it's only obtainable from drug dealers.
Hard drugs on the other hand... Yeah. I'm not about to try shooting up just to see what it's like. It tends not to be something one can do in moderation.
In my ideal situation all drugs would be legal but whilst cannabis would be fairly widespread, hard drugs would only be available in rare government dispensaries. The two would be kept very much seperate to each other and treat very differently with cannabis beinng treat closer to alcohol than hard drugs.
Also worth noting the well known stats from European countries with more relaxed drug rules vs those which are stricter. They tend to fly against the idea that legalise it and use goes up in the long term.
Anyhow, the guy with the store has been arrested.
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2023, 04:34:28 PMHard drugs on the other hand... Yeah. I'm not about to try shooting up just to see what it's like. It tends not to be something one can do in moderation.
Yeah although it's a little bit "there but for the grace of God go I". I've not been in those situations.
The thing I find odd with drugs and what are broadly "liberal" attitudes, is that there seem to be two tracks of increasingly negative and censorious attitudes to legal substances that are an issue from a public health perspective (tobacco, booze, sugar, fatty foods/processed foods) with an increasingly open attitude to other substances that I suspect are as capable of causing public health issues. It feels a little bit like it's maybe more about attitude/epater les bourgeois than anything else - but I say that as someone who is liberal on both.
QuoteAlso worth noting the well known stats from European countries with more relaxed drug rules vs those which are stricter. They tend to fly against the idea that legalise it and use goes up in the long term.
I'm not sure that's right.
UK, Nordics and Baltics have the highest rate of drug deaths in Europe In particular there is Scotland which has a rate of drug deaths is close to the US, while England, Wales and Northern Ireland are less than half of Canada's and around the rate of Sweden - and about four times lower than Scotland.
Then there's basically Germany, Netherlands, Austria and Spain at a middling rate within Europe (half the highest rates). Then Italy, France, Portugal, Belgium and Eastern Europe who all have the lowest rates (half again).
I think harm reduction/treatment is definitely part of it - personally I support more relaxed drug laws too - but all of those groups seem to me to have a pretty wide spread of policy mixes.
What I've read on Scotland flags how specific it can be and it sounds a bit like the opioid crisis in North America. From what I've read a big factor may be that the NHS in Scotland prescribed benzodiazepines far more regularly in the 80s and 90s than other areas of the country, this created a dependency issue so they started to restrict prescriptions and now there's legal and street benzos but they're a huge cause of overdoses in Scotland (and like in the opioid crisis, often taken with other drugs).
Also on legal weed and kids using it...
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/teen-marijuana-use-has-been-declining-since-legal-dispensaries-started-opening-federal-cdc-study-shows/
QuoteI'm not sure that's right.
UK, Nordics and Baltics have the highest rate of drug deaths in Europe In particular there is Scotland which has a rate of drug deaths is close to the US, while England, Wales and Northern Ireland are less than half of Canada's and around the rate of Sweden - and about four times lower than Scotland.
Then there's basically Germany, Netherlands, Austria and Spain at a middling rate within Europe (half the highest rates). Then Italy, France, Portugal, Belgium and Eastern Europe who all have the lowest rates (half again).
I think harm reduction/treatment is definitely part of it - personally I support more relaxed drug laws too - but all of those groups seem to me to have a pretty wide spread of policy mixes.
What I've read on Scotland flags how specific it can be and it sounds a bit like the opioid crisis in North America. From what I've read a big factor may be that the NHS in Scotland prescribed benzodiazepines far more regularly in the 80s and 90s than other areas of the country, this created a dependency issue so they started to restrict prescriptions and now there's legal and street benzos but they're a huge cause of overdoses in Scotland (and like in the opioid crisis, often taken with other drugs).
An automatic legalise=less use is hard to draw. But then there'll be a variety of other factors at play as you say than just whether its legal or not.
It is notable Portugal is in the lower group and has the laxest laws and the Netherlands is fairly comparable to the UK in a lot of ways but shows up lower.
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2023, 04:16:53 PMSo 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?
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2023, 01:40:05 PMSo sometimes slippery slopes are indeed slippery. This is the next logical step after legalizing cannabis and decriminalizing hard drugs.
The same argument can be made about legalizing OTC pain killers, allergy medications etc.
The only way to be truly safe against the slippery slope is to ban all products and services.
Or . . . we could just stick to making decisions based on scientific evidence, judgment, and common sense.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2023, 03:42:08 PMOr we could just keep watching people die.
We legalized marijuana to keep it out of criminal hands. Most of it is still being sold on the black market. We fought for years against tobacco, then we just normalize a similarly dangerous product.
We created safe injection sites near public transit. Public transit are dangerous, public are attacked by guns and knives to the point cities have heavily armed cops patrolling the areas now. It's filled with discarded syringes.
Drug users are still dying, they are still stealing and killing.
We have solved nothing.
But let's make it bigger, broader.
Hasn't BC basically legalized all drugs. It's not doing any miracle as much as I can see.
Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 04:22:57 PMHaving 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.
Quote from: Josquius on May 05, 2023, 05:50:55 AMAn automatic legalise=less use is hard to draw. But then there'll be a variety of other factors at play as you say than just whether its legal or not.
It is notable Portugal is in the lower group and has the laxest laws and the Netherlands is fairly comparable to the UK in a lot of ways but shows up lower.
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.
QuoteThe same argument can be made about legalizing OTC pain killers, allergy medications etc.
:lol: As a Brit going into any foreign pharmacy on holiday is always amazing for the strength of drugs you can get OTC. Things on the shelves that here you'd need at least to talk to the pharmacist about, stuff behind the counter that here you'd need a prescription etc.
That may just be my impression but it just feels like you can get far stronger painkillers and allergy medicine OTC everywhere else.
QuoteOr . . . we could just stick to making decisions based on scientific evidence, judgment, and common sense.
Yes but aware always that everyone from individuals, day to day clinicians up to drug regultors can get things wrong and some can be actively malicious/have the wrong motivation. This won't necessarily lead to the right answer, but it's probably the closest we can get to the right process.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2023, 09:25:31 AMYes but aware always that everyone from individuals, day to day clinicians up to drug regultors can get things wrong and some can be actively malicious/have the wrong motivation. This won't necessarily lead to the right answer, but it's probably the closest we can get to the right process.
That's always true on any matter touching public policy.
Meanwhile, some pharmacists here still treat me like a drug addled hobo when I show up with my prescription for Ritalin. <_<
Austria does electronic prescriptions these days where the pharmacy can just scan your insurance card which also has your photo on it (thus confirming your ID) ... but NOT for controlled substances like Methylphenidate (Ritalin) or Amphetamines (Adderall), where you still need a paper prescription that fulfills certain form requirements and needs a special little sticker with barcode from the city/government. :rolleyes:
Quote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 09:17:14 AMQuote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 04:22:57 PMHaving 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 :D
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 09:47:37 AMQuote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 09:17:14 AMQuote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 04:22:57 PMHaving 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 :D
You still get second hand smoking effects however. :P
I will say the smell of weed is the main thing that bothers me about it.
In Switzerland you absolutely get some parts of town which have a permanent wiff of the stuff, and I've a neighbour here who you have to be alert for- when he smokes in the garden close your windows or its filling the house.
As much as I'm all for the legalisation of weed I would setup some decent nuisance laws around inconsiderate usage.
Quote from: Gups on May 05, 2023, 07:11:33 AMQuote from: Barrister on May 04, 2023, 04:16:53 PMSo 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2023, 09:25:31 AMSure - 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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2023, 10:17:29 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2023, 09:25:31 AMSure - 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 05, 2023, 09:12:02 AMAs 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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 11:13:16 AMSeems 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2023, 11:01:13 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on May 05, 2023, 09:12:02 AMAs 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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 11:13:16 AMSeems 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.
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 09:47:37 AMQuote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 09:17:14 AMQuote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 04:22:57 PMHaving 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 :D
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 05, 2023, 09:29:53 AMThat'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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2023, 11:38:26 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2023, 11:01:13 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on May 05, 2023, 09:12:02 AMAs 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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 11:13:16 AMSeems 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.
Quote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 12:49:24 PMQuote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 09:47:37 AMQuote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 09:17:14 AMQuote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 04:22:57 PMHaving 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 :D
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 :P
Quote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 12:49:24 PMQuote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 09:47:37 AMQuote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 09:17:14 AMQuote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 04:22:57 PMHaving 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 :D
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.
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 01:52:40 PMQuote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 12:49:24 PMQuote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 09:47:37 AMQuote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 09:17:14 AMQuote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 04:22:57 PMHaving 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 :D
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 :P
And that's a minority of alcohol users compared to the total percentage of drinkers. :)
Quote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 02:12:12 PMQuote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 01:52:40 PMQuote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 12:49:24 PMQuote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 09:47:37 AMQuote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 09:17:14 AMQuote from: HVC on May 04, 2023, 04:22:57 PMHaving 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 :D
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 :P
And that's a minority of alcohol users compared to the total percentage of drinkers. :)
Minority, but not a small one. I'd wager there are more alcoholics than heroine users in Canada. If you want a gateway drug, coke users are more likely to be drinkers then pot smokers (think it's similar to heroine, but I'm not sure). That being said there are also many many more people who are alcoholics than debilitating pot heads. My father died in part due to alcoholism and my uncle as a direct cause of his alcoholism. I'm sure you can name members in your family or friend group as well. How many people do you know who died from pot use? Or victimized their families because they took a puff too many?
I'm not for legalizing all hard drugs, but marijuana is less harmful than other things that we have currently legalized.
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2023, 01:39:44 PMQuote from: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 11:13:16 AMSeems 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.
That is just not true. There are a large number of high functioning addicts. Do you have something other than your experience dealing with the criminal element to back up that broad assertion.
If you are interested in learning more, please look at the wealth of medical literature on this topic.
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 02:21:37 PMMinority, but not a small one. I'd wager there are more alcoholics than heroine users in Canada. If you want a gateway drug, coke users are more likely to be drinkers then pot smokers (think it's similar to heroine, but I'm not sure). That being said there are also many many more people who are alcoholics than debilitating pot heads. My father died in part due to alcoholism and my uncle as a direct cause of his alcoholism. I'm sure you can name members in your family or friend group as well.
I'm not for legalizing all hard drugs, but marijuana is less harmful than other things that we have currently legalized.
The important figure is
number of problematic cases / total number of users.There are a lot more drinkers than heroin users.
I am sorry about father and your uncle, it sucks. :( I too have had family died of causes related to their alcoholism. I'm not saying it's harmless. But overall, it creates less problems than heroin or even marijuana. Marijuana has been less studied than alcohol and benefits from an important lobby to minimize the risks.
QuoteHow many people do you know who died from pot use? Or victimized their families because they took a puff too many?
I don't know of any one who died from pot use, because I don't know of anyone who only used pot. They generally mix it with other recreative drugs.
But I know of many people who smoked pot to the point of being unable to function properly in society, barely able to work.
As for victimizing their family, I don't know, but I do know marijuana can cause psychosis, and I do know there have been a few case where people have been condemned in the past. But now, it's muddier water, with recent rulings. Voluntary intoxication is again a defense, so I do not know how the next cases will play.
I also know that just like alcohol, driving while under the influence of such substances can cause accidents.
I could not tell you for certain what are the substances the violent people in Montreal metro stations have consumed before attacking passerbys. With no arrests, it is impossible to tell.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2023, 02:37:04 PMThat is just not true. There are a large number of high functioning addicts. Do you have something other than your experience dealing with the criminal element to back up that broad assertion.
If you are interested in learning more, please look at the wealth of medical literature on this topic.
And for how long can you maintain a high functioning addiction to heroin or fentanyl?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2023, 11:01:13 AMBut 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.
All those things could be true and yet not contradict that its a legal hail mary.
Then again I'm not a Canadian lawyer and know nothing about the Court. My conclusion is conjecture and assumption.
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2023, 01:39:44 PMThe 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.
I'm curious to see the numbers on functional addicts if any such exist. I'd imagine the illegal nature of drugs means they don't show up on many statistics.
Secondly I'm also curious to degree with which the "inevitable" downward spiral is accelerated by criminalization and to what degree legalization, standardization, and social/ psychological etc support can potentially slow or reverse it.
Quote from: viper37 on May 05, 2023, 03:09:16 PMI am sorry about father and your uncle, it sucks. :( I too have had family died of causes related to their alcoholism. I'm not saying it's harmless. But overall, it creates less problems than heroin or even marijuana. Marijuana has been less studied than alcohol and benefits from an important lobby to minimize the risks.
Thank you, and condolences for your losses too.
And I agree, on the aggregate there are some downside to marijuana as well, but while I consider myself liberal I do have some conservative tendencies. One of those tendencies is the view of limited government intervention where the risks are not outweighed by government intervention. I see marijuana in that light. Making it illegal and the consequences of that don't stack up against the negatives of using pot.
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2023, 11:38:26 AMBY 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.
The issue of the public health benefits of legalized drugs was decided in a weed case?
Quote from: Jacob on May 05, 2023, 04:18:45 PMQuote from: Barrister on May 05, 2023, 01:39:44 PMThe 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.
I'm curious to see the numbers on functional addicts if any such exist. I'd imagine the illegal nature of drugs means they don't show up on many statistics.
Secondly I'm also curious to degree with which the "inevitable" downward spiral is accelerated by criminalization and to what degree legalization, standardization, and social/ psychological etc support can potentially slow or reverse it.
Isn't a big part of the downward spiral of habitual use just the costs? Drugs are expensive. When I quite smoking last year I was spending 7k a year for a pack a day. I could have spent less by smoking "straw" but I liked my brand :D
Even legalized this stores prices seemed hefty. I get that it probably wasn't priced realistically because he didn't expect to be open long, but the price point would by high which leads to all those same pitfalls of a spiral.
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 04:42:01 PMIsn't a big part of the downward spiral of habitual use just the costs? Drugs are expensive. When I quite smoking last year I was spending 7k a year for a pack a day. I couldn't have spent less by smoking "straw" but I liked my brand :D
I thought it was, with opioids but with a lot of addiction to a substance in general (not sure if/how it applies to, say, gambling), at least in part that your resistance increases so you tend to need to increase your consumption to have the same effect?
Not necessarily in size but because your resistance is higher so the gaps shrink. I imagine you werer also smoking a lot more/lot more regularly by the time you quit from shortly after you started (I sure was :lol:).
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 05, 2023, 04:51:30 PMQuote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 04:42:01 PMIsn't a big part of the downward spiral of habitual use just the costs? Drugs are expensive. When I quite smoking last year I was spending 7k a year for a pack a day. I couldn't have spent less by smoking "straw" but I liked my brand :D
I thought it was, with opioids but with a lot of addiction to a substance in general (not sure if/how it applies to, say, gambling), at least in part that your resistance increases so you tend to need to increase your consumption to have the same effect?
Not necessarily in size but because your resistance is higher so the gaps shrink. I imagine you werer also smoking a lot more/lot more regularly by the time you quit from shortly after you started (I sure was :lol:).
I was too :D. Had smoked since I was 12, so for about 25 years. The money wasn't the problem in the grand scheme, it wasn't bankrupting me (though it wasn't a great thing either). it was the health, started to get the smokers cough. But the money was always "oh it's only 12 bucks, then 15, then 19 (Canada likes to up smoke taxes :lol: ) so psychologically I can see why money doesn't seem like a problem to the addicted until your jonesing and out of money. then skipping a few bills or doesn't seem so bad. Then once that avenues cut off robbing a person or place doesn't seem like such a bad idea either.
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2023, 04:39:16 PMAnd I agree, on the aggregate there are some downside to marijuana as well, but while I consider myself liberal I do have some conservative tendencies. One of those tendencies is the view of limited government intervention where the risks are not outweighed by government intervention. I see marijuana in that light. Making it illegal and the consequences of that don't stack up against the negatives of using pot.
I see marijuana having at the very least, the same problems as cigarette, which we are trying to move away from, by investing in huge advertising campaigns to make people stop smoking, providing meds to make people stop smoking and forbidding smoking in all public places.
Then, we add to all these problems a psychoactive component known to cause various problems related to mental health.
The argument of the Liberal government was the legalization would remove the sales from the organized crime and put it in the hands for the government. But it hasn't happened yet. And there's no indication the trend will reverse in the near future. And we do not have clear transparency on who owns these legal pot manufacturers due to their use of fiscal paradise.
I still don't see the net positive: black market is still there (as I predicted), organized crime is likely to be involved in the legal sale (as I predicted) and consumption is increased (as I predicted).
And legalizing hard drugs will lead to the same problems.
We already have legal, "safe" injection sites. All that has seem to lead to is no difference between Canada and the US for the overdose crisis and a decrease in the security of citizens living or transiting near these spots, or in public transit areas.
I really don't see any net positive in increasing consumption of the products.
Sure, we may temporarily save the live of a few addicts, until they overdose with something else a few months later. But is it worth it to extend their lives to fuel their addiction while poisoning the lives of everyone else around? Shouldn't we be instead finding a way to help them stop their addiction?
A very good friend of mine is an alcoholic. He had to stop drinking after is second arrest, he just went too far. He drove completely drunk from here (his mother used to live nearby) to near his home in Montreal and got arrested because someone called the police after seeing him drive erratically.
He went into therapy this day and never touched the bottle again. That's how things are. He can't take just one drink like some of us. My former step brother tried to moderate his consumption, by following some new therapy for the 5th or 6th time after losing his 2nd job because of his drinking. In the end, one of his friend found him dead in his back yard.
Addiction is addiction. I don't believe that pseudo scientific crap that people will eventually tire themselves and abandon the drug. They will reach the bottom end before going clean. And fueling the addiction just pushes things further back at great costs to the society.