Small-scale possession of illicit drugs will be decriminalized in B.C. starting next year

[Jonrox]

Adults will be able to possess small amounts of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, MDMA
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/opioid ... -1.6471878

Adults in British Columbia will be allowed to possess small amounts of some illicit drugs starting next year, the federal government announced Tuesday.

The federal government says Canadians 18 years of age and older will be able to possess up to a cumulative 2.5 grams of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA within British Columbia. The announcement is in response to a request from the province for an exemption from the law criminalizing drug possession.

This first-of-its-kind exemption will go into effect January 31, 2023 and last until January 31, 2026.

The principle of decriminalizing possession of a small amount of illicit drugs has been endorsed by the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police. The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police also has supported the idea, though it recommended decriminalizing possession of just 1 cumulative gram.

One major difference is the quantity of drugs being decriminalized for personal possession. B.C. asked for a cumulative 4.5 grams — the federal exemption allows for just 2.5 grams.

Health Canada said it consulted numerous sources of information to set its possession threshold. It also acknowledged a lack of evidence to determine what an effective threshold would be. The department said that once the exemption is in place, it will be thoroughly examined by a third party and its details could change as evidence is gathered and analyzed.

Delaying implementation until January 2023 was meant to give governments and agencies time for training, consultation and outreach, and to otherwise prepare for the shift in policy, federal and provincial officials said.

[foenix]

Interesting......

Still, the exemption is a dramatic policy shift in favour of what decriminalization advocates say is an approach that treats addiction as a health issue, rather than a criminal one. One of the goals of decriminalization is to reduce the stigma associated with substance abuse.

The exemption is a "major step in changing how we view addiction and drug use in British Columbia," said Malcolmson.

"The fear of being criminalized has led many people to hide their addiction and use drugs alone. And using drugs alone can mean dying alone, particularly in this climate of tragically increased illicit drug toxicity."

B.C., Vancouver and Toronto Public Health have all separately filed exemption requests to decriminalize possession of small amounts of illicit drugs.

Under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, the health minister has the authority to grant exemptions if it is "necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest." The federal government confirmed that the applications from Vancouver and Toronto Public Health are both still under review.

The principle of decriminalizing possession of a small amount of illicit drugs has been endorsed by the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police. The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police also has supported the idea, though it recommended decriminalizing possession of just 1 cumulative gram.

While the federal government has granted an exemption, it's not giving B.C. exactly what it asked for.

[captkirkcanada]

about time, now if this is coupled with a safe supply we will see a reduction in healthcare costs and more ppl entering treatment . it is a win win for bc

[cv23]

Why is it we are enacting laws to make possession of guns illegal because they are harmful and people are dying from them but at the same time we are enacting laws to make possession of drugs legal because they are also harmful and people are dying from them?

[Jonrox]

Why is it we are enacting laws to make possession of guns illegal because they are harmful and people are dying from them but at the same time we are enacting laws to make possession of drugs legal because they are also harmful and people are dying from them?

I haven't seen this story. As far as I've seen it's still legal to own many different guns in Canada. Link please.

Drug possession isn't being made legal. Possession of small amounts of these drugs are being decriminalized (which is much different than being legalized) in an effort to start treating addiction issues as health issues rather than criminal issues. It's an effort to save lives... just as the rules regarding guns are being put in place in an effort to save lives.

I'm not sure equating these two issues is at all relevant though. It's different approaches to two very different issues... but in both cases there are compromises being made in order to keep Canadians safe while also addressing the unique circumstances both present.

[cv23]

Let’s try again to keep some happier.

Why are we enacting laws to criminalize the possession of certain guns because they are supposedly harmful and people are dying from them while we are also enacting laws to decriminalize certain drugs because they are supposedly harmful and people are dying from them?
If the goal is to save lives then why make access to something supposedly deadly easier?

[spooker]

Let’s try again to keep some happier.

Why are we enacting laws to criminalize the possession of certain guns because they are supposedly harmful and people are dying from them while we are also enacting laws to decriminalize certain drugs because they are supposedly harmful and people are dying from them?

Or think of it this way, possession of guns can hurt someone else (won't get into suicide by gun atm) ... possession of drugs can hurt the possessor ... the approach has to be different

Both might be rooted in the same personality flaws, but if someone tries to talk someone down who's holding a gun they risk being shot ... if someone tries to talk someone down with drugs, they risk getting small pills or powder thrown at them?

[captkirkcanada]

like i said earlier, this combined with safe supply will save bc and canada money, lots of it. it will also save lives, free up healthcare personal for other things , reduce addiction associated crimes, improve communities. there is no downside , the war on drugs failed and cost trillions , so this approach is the right one.

also im not giving ndp any credit, this was identified along time ago to work and ndp waited way to long tp push the feds to get this going. its more sonjia from green party pushing than ndp willingly doing it.

this all stems from a report that was made by the coroner office i believe but i might be wrong , anyways i think we will all see dividends from it and will just be a better way of life.

[cv23]

If the goal of enacting laws to prohibit deadly things is in an effort to save lives then making the deadly items taking those lives less prohibitive by lessening or eliminating the laws against those deadly things is completely counter productive.
There were far less deaths from drugs when laws against them were harsh and strictly enforced. It has only since we have relaxed drug enforcement that deaths have increased and now we think relaxing them further will decrease deaths by some twisted and convoluted logic.

[Jonrox]

If the goal of enacting laws to prohibit deadly things is in an effort to save lives then making the deadly items taking those lives less prohibitive by lessening or eliminating the laws against those deadly things is completely counter productive.
There were far less deaths from drugs when laws against them were harsh and strictly enforced. It has only since we have relaxed drug enforcement that deaths have increased and now we think relaxing them further will decrease deaths by some twisted and convoluted logic.

I get it... people want their guns and think addicts deserve to die or rot in jail. But you're wrong and your logic is terribly flawed... it's as simple as that.

[cv23]

"The easy access to guns combined with safe supply of guns will save bc and canada money, lots of it. it will also save lives, free up law enforcement personal for other things , reduce crimes, improve communities. there is no downside , the war on guns will fail and cost trillions , so this approach is the right one. "

Seems like a reasonable approach for dealing with an item people are dying from doesn't it?

[cv23]

But you're wrong and your logic is terribly flawed... it's as simple as that.

But the decimalization of a proven deadly item is so correct and the logic in doing so is so very sound because..........???????

Why isn't the government putting such important issues as gun and drug legislation to referendum if the majority of Canadian citizens feel such legislation will indeed save lives and reduce crime? It would be a slam dunk right and make enacting such legislation quick and easy with those opposing it little to complain about.

[the truth]

about time, now if this is coupled with a safe supply we will see a reduction in healthcare costs and more ppl entering treatment . it is a win win for bc

this is only going to increase healthcare costs , more junkies then ever, not working not taking care of themselves commiting crime for there next high -what a poop show, it is not any govt's job to supply junkies with a safe supply of drugs, but then again they are also drug dealers themselves

[the truth]

Let’s try again to keep some happier.

Why are we enacting laws to criminalize the possession of certain guns because they are supposedly harmful and people are dying from them while we are also enacting laws to decriminalize certain drugs because they are supposedly harmful and people are dying from them?
If the goal is to save lives then why make access to something supposedly deadly easier?

commonsence question, to bad the ones in charge have zero commonsence, that is why we are in this mess

[Jonrox]

But you're wrong and your logic is terribly flawed... it's as simple as that.

But the decimalization of a proven deadly item is so correct and the logic in doing so is so very sound because..........???????

Why isn't the government putting such important issues as gun and drug legislation to referendum if the majority of Canadian citizens feel such legislation will indeed save lives and reduce crime? It would be a slam dunk right and make enacting such legislation quick and easy with those opposing it little to complain about.

Because people are dumb and use flawed logic trying to equate guns to drugs. This decision is too important to leave it up to the general public that generally votes with nothing more than selfish emotion.

You see, if you put a vote about guns before someone like me that doesn't own a gun and knows very little about them, I'm going to vote to have all of your guns taken away except for one approved rifle that's appropriate for hunting. I shouldn't be making that decision because I'm terribly ill-informed about them.

In a similar context, those of you who have next to no personal experience with drugs and have never had a loved one battle addiction, shouldn't be voting on anything to do with drugs and treatment because you're terribly ill-informed about them.

If my loved one had been thrown in jail instead of being shown compassion and being given the chance to seek help, it would have caused an irreversible downward spiral that would have made them a burden on society... and likely have led to even more serious problems with drugs and crime. It would have cost you all a lot more in taxes to have them being a burden on the healthcare and legal systems, rather than them being able to turn their life around.