British Columbia to recriminalize use of drugs in public spaces

[SouthBayDem]

Source: CBC

After weeks of troubling stories about problematic street drug use in hospitals, parks and at bus stops, the province of British Columbia announced plans to recriminalize the use of drugs in public places Friday — radically altering a pilot program aimed at addressing the toxic drug crisis.

In a statement, Premier David Eby insisted that his government is "caring and compassionate for those struggling with addiction," but that patience for disorder only goes so far.

"Keeping people safe is our highest priority," said Eby.

"We're taking action to make sure police have the tools they need to ensure safe and comfortable communities for everyone as we expand treatment options so people can stay alive and get better," he said.

Read more: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/david-eby-public-drug-use-1.7186245

---

David Eby is a member of the New Democratic Party, the furthest left party in Canadian mainstream politics.

[keopeli]

1. I'm proud of BC for trying this program. They can step back now as necessary, retaining compassion.

[HandmaidsTaleUntold]

2. Oregon Doing Same

It’s out of control here. Open Fentanyl and meth use everywhere I go. And many many overdoses. And crazed tweakers assaulting people. Thieves on your property every night. It’s surreal. I waited forever to vote for quasi-legalization but it backfired. Maybe if the rest of the country did same and we didn’t absorb all their addicts it wouldn’t be so bad. At this point I think addiction would just grow.

[keopeli]

3. Thanks for the information. So sorry you're going through this.

Learning to create a society that does not vilify/imprison addicts is going to be tough. I'd rather take the compassionate approach and create laws to deal with it than to criminalize addiction. But, no doubt, you are paying the price for being on the vanguard of progressivism. Thank you for taking the plunge and learning for the rest of us. I pray you remain safe.

[OnlinePoker]

4. They had to do something because of the groundswell of opposition

Not only were addicts smoking their drugs in hospital rooms (exposing health care workers and other patients to the smoke), drug dealers were actually coming into the facilities to supply their customers. Police said they couldn't do anything because drug possession was legalized and they said it was an administrative issue in the hospitals. Then memorandums came out in the different health authorities saying drugs and weapons couldn't be removed from those patients. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Igel]

5. So reformers and advocates said, "We know best. Trust us. Really, it'll be so much better."

Whenever I hear anybody say that, I stop and pause.

There's one way to be perfect.

Lots of ways to be flawed, but tolerably so.

Many more ways to be horribly, horribly wrong.

Chucking a tolerably bad system based on half-baked advocates' idealistic goals always strikes me as having pretty bad odds of landing on a better "square".

Change can be good. But usually isn't. Entropy, it's the law; hubris and not being aware of what you don't know ... it's the human way. Along with the halo effect, availability hierarchy, and so many quick and easy ways of thinking.

(The only good thing: We tested this on a fairly small scale instead of on a national scale. So the harm done by this idea was limited. Not that the advocates will admit there was harm. I'm sure they're proving to themselves it was just "poor implementation," "not enough funding," "too small a scale," "wasn't as comprehensive as we now know it should have been," or some other self-exculpating excuse. My parents smoked; they were addicted. I hated it, it could be 25 degrees outside and if a parent lit up I'd roll down the windows--all manual, they could yell but they couldn't stop me. I see little compassion advocates, just wannabe prohibitionists, for tobacco. Just sayin'.)